Hospitality Sector
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House regrets the combination of catastrophic choices made by the Government causing the closure, downsizing and lack of hiring by pubs, restaurants, hotels and hospitality businesses across the United Kingdom, with an estimated 84,000 job losses over the last 12 months and an average of two site closures per day in the first half of 2025; further regrets the Government’s policies that have led to this such as the omission of the hospitality sector from the Government’s industrial strategy, increases in the cost of pavement licences, the reduction in retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75 per cent to 40 per cent for 2025-26, the increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions to 15 per cent and the lowering of the secondary threshold to £5,000, and measures in the Employment Rights Bill which will make hospitality employers liable for the behaviour of customers and others; and calls on the Government to publish a dedicated strategy for the sector, to consult with hospitality employers prior to any future changes to the National Living Wage, to amend the Employment Rights Bill to protect seasonal and flexible employment practices vital to the sectors’ contribution in providing a ladder into employment for young and often excluded groups and to introduce targeted support measures to prevent further business closures, job losses and damage to local communities.
From the great British pub to the family-run restaurant, from the small seaside bed and breakfast to world-leading hotels, hospitality businesses are the beating heart of our communities, our high streets and our economy. Yet today, under Labour, they are hurting like never before. We were promised a Government for jobs, for opportunity and for prosperity. What have we got instead? A concoction of catastrophic choices causing a lack of hiring and the closure and downsizing of pubs, restaurants, hotels and hospitality businesses across the nation; a jobs tax that goes out of its way to savage the part-time, entry-level opportunities that hospitality offers in abundance; soaring business rates; and over 300 pages of additional job-killing red tape.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
My hon. Friend might have been like me: the first job I ever had was as a porter, and then a barman, at the Crown and Mitre hotel in Carlisle. These are opportunities for people who are coming into the labour market for the first time or trying to get back into the labour market. The hospitality sector offers opportunity to people who otherwise have none, and that opportunity has come under devastating attack from this Government.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Opportunity is a word we are going to hear again and again, because of the huge contribution that the hospitality sector makes to the economy and to getting people on the ladder of opportunity with their first job in life.
Andrew Griffith
The hon. Gentleman is trying to get his first opportunity, and I will give him that. We are going to have a good debate, and I will make some progress after this.
Mr Quigley
Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, under the Tories, a pub closed every 14 hours? That was 10,000 in total, so whether it is 14 hours or 14 years, the Tory party cannot be trusted with the economy.
Andrew Griffith
All I can suggest, and I say this in all seriousness, is that the hon. Gentleman should spend a lot more time in local pubs in his constituency, because the people there will talk about the horror show that is the Employment Rights Bill. They will talk to him about the soaring business rates, the reduction in relief under this Government and the national insurance job tax—that swingeing £25 billion attack on the private economy.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
If we are going to exchange numbers, does my hon. Friend agree that it is shocking that over 1,000 pubs and restaurants have closed since the autumn Budget, and that 84,000 hospitality workers have lost their jobs? That is one in every 25 since the autumn Budget alone—and that was when the autumn Budget was actually in the autumn. Does he agree that that is having an impact on our high streets and the very viability of our local town centres and that it needs to stop? The Government need to stop holding our hospitality sector responsible for everything that happens in the local economy.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We must keep interventions short. We have close to 50 people trying to contribute today.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. It is about the numbers, and it is important that we should be instrumented. This is a sector that is extremely well instrumented, and groups such as UKHospitality do a great job at calling out the impact. But it is not just about the numbers, because behind every one of those numbers is a story: a family, a striver, a risk taker, an entrepreneur, a community or a high street whose life is being sucked out of it by this Government. Hospitality is where the character of our nation lives, in the welcome of a restaurant host, the laughter in a dining room and the clink of a glass, and it is the fact that that life that is being extinguished that is so tragic.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
One thing that is not picked up in the figures is the fact that cafés and businesses up and down Hinckley and Bosworth are having to reduce the man-hours that people are working to reduce their staffing costs because of the taxes that are being put in place. This is a real problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that we are not getting the growth that we want in this country because people are having to deal with this toxic concoction of legislation and tax?
Andrew Griffith
I do agree. My hon. Friend puts it extremely well. It has been an enormously difficult summer. The weather should have been a tailwind, but the tailwind was not significant enough to offset the headwind of the impact of that jobs tax. And who does it hit? Labour Members say that they stand up for opportunities for young people and the most vulnerable, but the change to national insurance thresholds in particular—the reduction from £9,100 to £5,000—has hit the part-time workers, the young mums trying to balance the responsibilities of family life and the young people trying to get their very first step on the ladder.
In her first Budget, the Chancellor said that she had made her choices. Well, we warned her, businesses warned her and even the Office for Budget Responsibility warned her, and what has happened? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, 84,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the Chancellor took office. That is a Wembley stadium’s-worth of livelihoods shredded by this Labour Government, affecting the most vulnerable in society, those trying to juggle other commitments and young people trying to have their first shot in the world of work. If this Government are about protecting working people, I have to say they have a very odd way of showing it. It is not just us saying this. Last month, Kate Nicholls, the chair of UKHospitality, said:
“More than half of all job losses since October occurring in hospitality is further evidence that our sector has been by far the hardest hit by the Government’s regressive tax increases.”
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent, Stephen Montgomery, who is the director of the Scottish Hospitality Group, that the very circumstances he is setting out have brought the industry to the brink, and that unless the Government start listening, it is going to go over a cliff edge?
Andrew Griffith
As it happens, I was in Edinburgh yesterday, talking to representatives of the hospitality sector and the hard-pressed tourist sector, and they made exactly the same point to me.
This is unnecessary. It did not need to be this way. And to what end? An increase in the jobs tax to fund tax cuts for Mauritians and cookery classes for illegal migrants, or to let the bloated public sector work from home another day a week? If proof were needed of where hospitality ranks in the priorities of this Government, we need look no further than the pages of their own industrial strategy, because in 160 pages of closely typed text and hundreds of thousands of words, the word “hospitality” features just three times, one of which was a typo where they misspelt the word “hospital”. Let’s be frank, their attitude to hospitality is lamentable, and the bad news just keeps coming.
No Government that understood business would ever come forward with the Employment Rights Bill. Tony Blair did not. Gordon Brown did not. It is 330 pages that prove this Government are not serious about growth. They have zero appreciation for the seasonal and flexible work that suits the workers and the hospitality and tourism businesses alike. They are conscripting pub landlords into an attack on freedom of speech with a banter ban on overheard remarks—not harassment, but remarks that somebody could construe, misdirected at them, as offensive.
Any small business owner will say that the two words they fear the most in the English language are “employment tribunal”, yet the Government want to legislate to grow even further the half a million cases that are already in the employment tribunal backlog. There is no point concocting and cooking up additional workplace rights if people cannot find a job in the first place. That is why the top five business groups in the UK—almost exceptionally—wrote an open letter saying that the impact on growth will be deeply damaging and lead to job losses and recruitment freezes. That is here right now; that is what is happening on our high streets and in our communities across this country thanks to this Government damaging the hospitality sector.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I agree with the hon. Member on the point about employer national insurance contributions, but in the Press and Journal today—one of the august daily papers in Scotland—there are reports that highland hoteliers are struggling to recruit. The large part of the blame for that is laid at the door of Brexit, and the current immigration policy does nothing to help the highlands and islands in Scotland. There is demand for a rural visa, which is fully backed by the Federation of Small Businesses—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I remind Members that there are 45 of you wishing to speak. Interventions must be a lot shorter. I am sure the shadow Minister has got the hon. Gentleman’s point.
Andrew Griffith
The ability of people to find work in this wonderful sector, which provides those wonderful opportunities is, yes, a function of access to the labour market, but it is also a function of an employer’s ability to take that risk on somebody—to take a chance and give them that opportunity.
I think we would all agree—occasionally we hear positive noises from those on the Government Front Bench before they are reigned into line by their own Back Benchers—that it would be far better for our nation and our out-of-control public finances if the 9 million people of working age could seize the opportunity presented by sectors like hospitality, which offers flexible working and the chance to start a career, and could join the workforce, regardless of which constituency they come from. Almost uniquely, hospitality is a sector whose contribution to our constituencies is something of which each and every one of us—all 45 of us who wish to speak today—is proud. That contribution is why Conservative Members value the sector so strongly.
Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)
The shadow Minister talks about the 45 people wanting to speak. My first job was in hospitality. I want my young constituents in Lagan Valley to have the same opportunity, but does he agree that with these tax increases and not giving VAT cuts, it is so difficult for our hospitality businesses?
Andrew Griffith
I absolutely agree that we have to do everything we can to help. This is about tax and employment, because one of the characteristics that hospitality, tourism and retail share is the significant amount of employment they offer, but it is also about other taxes. It is about the tax system; that is why I referred in the motion and in my opening remarks to a concoction.
Take business rates, for example. From a business perspective, they are a terrible tax; they are paid before a business has made a single pound, and they get fewer and fewer services from local government in return. When we were in government, we shielded the sector with generous reliefs and exemptions, yet one of the first acts of this Government was to more than double business rates for many in retail and hospitality. I agree with Emma McClarkin, the CEO of the British Beer and Pub Association, who says that “punishing rates and regulations” are at the heart of why so many pubs are closing.
This Government do not get business—and no wonder: there are more alumni of the Resolution Foundation in government now than there are Ministers who have ever run a business. I think many of them had their first opportunity in hospitality, but very few of them, sadly, stayed there. Business is not about numbers on some page in a policy wonk’s pamphlet. We are talking about real people who took a risk, put their capital to work, gave their time and energy, and, as a result, grew our communities and the economy—people like those running the award-winning Tottington Manor in my constituency, Chalk restaurant in Wiston, the warm and welcoming Three Moles in Selham and the innovative Kinsbrook vineyard in West Chiltington.
It is not just hospitality businesses being ravaged by these state-imposed headwinds; thousands of businesses say they are being impacted and are at risk because of these measures. We are witnessing collapse on many of our high streets, and in the Minister’s own constituency of Rhondda and Ogmore, Porth has lost its last clothes shop because of rising costs imposed by his Government.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
Last weekend, I attended the reopening of a wonderful pub in my constituency: the Star in Llansoy. It was one of the 10,000 pubs that shut on the Conservatives’ watch, and it has now been reopened by the community. Does the shadow Minister agree that our policies are giving businesses confidence to reopen?
Andrew Griffith
My background is in business, and I celebrate anybody who succeeds and takes a risk in business, including the hospitality venue in the hon. Lady’s constituency. One of the innovations that the previous Government pursued was the community ownership fund, which I know from personal experienced saved or helped many hospitality venues. Sadly, it has lost its way under this Government.
I will conclude my remarks to allow as many colleagues as possible to speak. Let us be crystal clear about this. [Interruption.] There is nothing funny about this debate and what is happening in hospitality right now—people are losing their jobs. We cannot tax, regulate or spend our way to growth. Every pint pulled, every plate served and every bed made grows our economy: a job provided, a supplier supported, life breathed into a community. No Government are perfect, which is why it is often best for the state to stay out of the way. Yet under Labour, this vital, valued sector is being punished, not rewarded. This Government do not protect workers by destroying the businesses that employ them. They cannot claim to lead our country while draining the very life from so many communities.
British hospitality businesses deserve better. The Conservatives will always stand with those who dare to dream, invest, build and hire. We stand for every business, big and small, that is fighting to keep its lights on. We stand for every young person desperate for their first shot at work. Above all, we stand for the growth that this country so desperately needs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(11 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Did the Secretary of State fully disclose to the Civil Service Commission the Labour links of one of the most senior civil service appointments, or the £66,000 donation he received?
Peter Kyle
Every donation that was made to this party in opposition has been declared in the appropriate ways. I am proud to be part of a party that raises standards in public life rather than votes to lower them. [Interruption.] I am also proud to be part of a party that comes into government and attracts talent to working for it, whereas when the Conservatives see talent, they libel it.
Andrew Griffith
Thanks to Whitehall Watch, we have a copy of the form. It is clear the Secretary of State failed to mention the conflicts of interest, as required by the ministerial code. In the words of the Prime Minister’s favourite pop star, some would say he is “Guilty as Sin”. Will he refer himself to the adviser on standards, or do we have to wait for the Prime Minister to finish organising VIP motorcades and do it for him?
Peter Kyle
There we have it—a party that attacks civil servants and the world’s greatest talent gravitating towards this party and this Government, to work for them. When he sees talent in Government, he libels it and saddles the taxpayer with the bill. This Government attract talent and I am proud of that.
Technology in Public Services
Andrew Griffith Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. On behalf of those of us on the Conservative Benches, I welcome you to your place.
I would also like to take this opportunity to welcome the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I congratulate him on a maiden speech that had much in it to commend and congratulate him on his stewardship of what is a fantastic Department. He is fortunate to be supported, as I know from my experience, by a team of outstanding officials. I pay tribute to their deep knowledge and dedication.
Our constituents know that innovation and technology is our future. The Secretary of State’s Department was already at the heart of our mission, supported by a record 29% increase in investment, from 2023 to 2025, to grow the economy and cement Britain’s science and technology superpower status. The former Member for Chippenham, my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and I left the Department in good shape, with, at that time, an expected underspend in this year’s budget. It may well be that we were better at fending off the Chancellor than the Secretary of State has been. I note the changes to the machinery of government, which see government digital services and the incubator for AI and other functions move from the Cabinet Office to his Department. Whether or not that is a good idea, time will tell, but what is clear is that it makes it even more important that he and his team now deliver—and where they do so, seriously, they will have our support.
We could not open this parliamentary term on a more important subject. Productivity drains in the public sector take money directly out of taxpayers’ pockets, and that is not fair on hard-working families. We know that the public sector accounts for roughly 20% of our national output, and that is often a source of national pride, but the hard truth is that public service productivity is far lower than that in the private sector. Few Departments —the Secretary of State talked about this—are without opportunities to deliver public services better and at a lower cost to the taxpayer. We can, together, transform NHS productivity, and make use of advanced technology and sensors to better secure our borders or defend our country—even from new domains such as space. We can introduce driverless trains to stop trade unions holding passengers to ransom, support farmers and food producers wishing to wean themselves off migrant labour through agri-tech and robotics, implement better use of tagging and “smart” prisons, and improve case flow in the criminal justice system—and a great deal more.
There are many brilliant officials across the civil service who are helping to foster this tech revolution, but I am afraid that their morale is being undermined by this Government’s early approach to appointments. It is on their behalf that I ask the Secretary of State, “What was it, Secretary of State, about the £66,000-donating, Labour-supporting Emily Middleton that first attracted you enough to make her one of the senior civil servants in your Department?” For the truth is that there are real questions to answer. What exercise did the Secretary of State go through between announcing the new Department on Monday and appointing a new director general later in the very same week to satisfy himself that not one single civil servant across Government was fit to perform that role? Did he disclose the £66,000 donation to the permanent secretary on his appointment? Did he tell the Civil Service Commission about the £66,000 donation and the links to Labour? Was is him or someone in his office who told Emily Middleton to delete her LinkedIn account? Why, given that the ministerial code is clear about the duty of Ministers to
“ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise”,
did he not recuse himself from all decisions and discussions on this matter? If the Secretary of State will not use this opportunity to come clean, to answer all these questions and to publish the relevant correspondence, I really think it is time for Sir Laurie Magnus, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, to investigate.
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend has raised an important point on a specific issue. This is not a junior appointment, or a private office appointment, or an advice appointment. This is a director general appointment, at the second most senior level of the civil service. I am not aware, and I wonder if my hon. Friend is, of any occasion on which such an appointment has been made in such a way in the past.
Andrew Griffith
My right hon. Friend has made an important point, and he is right: this is a director general-level appointment in the civil service, second only to that of the permanent secretary and one of, I believe, only three director general-level appointments in the entirety of the Secretary of State’s Department. This is someone with the power to hire and fire and advance and promote civil servants, and someone—[Interruption.] This is an important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, once the civil service has political—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. Will Members make their remarks to the Chamber rather than exchanging them across the Benches?
Andrew Griffith
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will make some progress. I understand that colleagues will want to move on to other points, but this is a very important point. Once this Rubicon has been crossed, it will not be possible to un-bake that cake of an independent civil service. Imagine the ambitious civil servants—the directors, the directors general—who never even had the chance to be considered for this role!
Max Wilkinson
Interested as I am in this question of process and the discussions about cronyism, I turned up here to listen to a debate about tech and public services. I was wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had any opinions on that subject.
Andrew Griffith
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak about exactly that subject later. However, it is critical and, I think, a point of commonality across the House that we can deliver change only through professional and competent civil servants, and it is important that the morale of the Secretary of State’s Department, like that of every other Whitehall Department, is maintained.
Andrew Griffith
I have finished making my points on this subject, and I am happy to move on in the interests of the debate.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Gentleman has talked about the morale of the civil service. Would he care to tell us how he thinks that was affected by a former Prime Minister’s referring to the civil service as “the blob”, and by Cabinet Ministers walking around their offices leaving passive-aggressive little notes asking, “Where are you?” It is very easy to make the snide comments that the hon. Gentleman is making, but it is not very relevant, is it?
Andrew Griffith
I accept that we have strayed some way from the important topic that the Secretary of State came here to talk about tonight. Much as I would enjoy continuing this discussion with the hon. Member, I am happy to move on and address more of the Secretary of State’s points.
It was the last Government who launched a wide-ranging public service productivity review to address these issues, and to understand for the first time how technology can transform our economy. It was the last Government—this was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans)—who decided to harness the potential of artificial intelligence in healthcare with the NHS AI lab and a £3.4 billion investment fund to cut admin and fast-track diagnoses. I was not 100% clear about this, and I do not want to wilfully misinterpret what was said by the Secretary of State, but I hope that the fund continues and we continue to see that opportunity.
The public have benefited directly from the sort of vast improvements that the Secretary of State talked about, thanks to the last Government’s embrace of technology. It now takes less than three weeks to receive a new passport—often much less—thanks to the adoption of cloud-based working practices. As of March this year, 99% of passport applications were processed within the target timeframe, a performance which, sadly, I do not think many other parts of Government achieve.
Some will have concerns about what the implementation of new technologies in the public sector will mean for those who work in it. If we are honest, we must recognise—and the Secretary of State well knows—that the business case for many new technologies has an impact on workers. The Secretary of State must filter out naysayers, even if they happen to be his party’s union paymasters. Whatever those paymasters say, disruptive technology is good for the public and vital to economic growth.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman claims to support UK technology and science, but he is on the record as opposing solar and wind farms. Is he actually a shadow anti-science Secretary?
Andrew Griffith
I could not be happier to debate that topic, but I am very conscious of the number of Members who, I was told, are trying to make their maiden speeches, and I think it is the case, Madam Deputy Speaker, that every intervention we take at this stage potentially jeopardises their chance of doing so. In short, however, there is a very fine place for solar: it is on the roofs of warehouses, car parks, supermarkets and new homes, where appropriate, but it is not on productive farmland.
In government, we significantly increased spending on public sector research—by 29%, to £20 billion in the current financial year—and our recent manifesto pledged to increase that by a further 10% over the life of this Parliament. May I ask the Secretary of State, and the Minister who will wind up the debate, if they can pledge to match that ambition to a sector that is desperate to see such certainty of funding?
The Secretary of State has my sympathy. I cannot imagine how difficult his phone call with the University of Edinburgh, which had already invested £30 million in the exascale supercomputer, must have been. This was a national facility that would have enabled significant advances in AI, medical research, climate science and clean energy innovation. The investment was fully costed, amounting over many years to what the NHS burns through in three days. There seems to be confusion at the Treasury: just because semiconductors are becoming smaller in size, it does not mean that the Secretary of State’s Department must follow suit.
Peter Kyle
The shadow Secretary of State said that the exascale project was fully costed. Could he confirm that it was fully funded too?
Andrew Griffith
Yes. The exascale investment was being delivered through UK Research and Innovation, an enterprise that receives nearly £9 billion every single year and that, under our manifesto, would have had a growing level of investment across the entirety of the spending review. There were plans in place to deliver the investment, which is why Edinburgh was so confident that it would be delivered. It was a clear priority in our spending plans and communicated in writing by the Secretary of State’s predecessor to the chief executive of UKRI. Notwithstanding the fact that the Treasury seems to have got his tongue immediately upon taking office, a project that the Treasury never loved seems to have been mysteriously cancelled. The project was being delivered by UKRI, an organisation with significant financial resources that far exceeded the £1.3 billion cost of the supercomputer. It is the wrong decision at the wrong time.
Dawn Butler
I wonder how the shadow Secretary of State feels about the Rosalind Franklin Laboratory in Leamington Spa, which received over £1 billion in Government funding. The last Government put it on Rightmove.
Andrew Griffith
The last Government did not do that; it was an independent institute that had multiple sources of funding. As the Secretary of State and his Ministers will discover, funding of that nature is competitive funding that is allotted by independent research councils. It would not have been within the gift of me or any other Minister to abrogate that competitive funding process.
Inevitably, there are projects that are funded and projects that are not funded, but the exascale computer was a very clear priority. It sat within the overall financial resources of UKRI and, under our Government, there was an expanding level of resource. People should have absolute confidence that the programme would have continued and been delivered in the context of the much larger amount of money that is spent through the Department, but by the Government as a whole. That was a good decision, and it would have had huge benefits to the UK. The chief executive of UKRI has talked at length about the benefits, and I think the Government are making the wrong decision. I urge the Secretary of State to go back, lock horns with the Treasury and seek to continue the project before it is too late, before contracts are cancelled and before technology is not procured.
Peter Kyle
The hon. Gentleman has said quite clearly that it was announced in the Budget, but it was contingent on a manifesto that had not even been written at the time of the Budget, in order to deliver the money promised in the Budget. He is an accountant by trade. Could he explain to the House why a Chancellor of the Exchequer standing up and making a commitment for which he has not one penny allocated until potentially winning a general election, which has not been called, is irresponsible?
Andrew Griffith
The Secretary of State will understand that at any point in time, a Department may go through a triennial spending review, although actually the triennial spending review had not fully happened. Governments also make forward-looking commitments and declarations of intent, and commission work, whether from arm’s length bodies such as UK Research and Investment or from officials in the Department, to deliver their priorities. I do not think that the Secretary of State disputes that this was a clear priority. Looking at the aggregated spend through UKRI and the different funding councils that were going to deliver the supercomputer project, including the Science and Technology Facilities Council, there is no question but that it would have been delivered. It was not contingent on growth; a Government of any persuasion, advised by their independent civil servants, would have delivered the programme through organisations such as UKRI. That is why Edinburgh University was so committed to it. It had been announced by the previous Government, and equipment was being procured.
As we seek to compete with modern states that are busily investing in exactly this sort of facility, it is important to recognise that it is wrong to simply recoil from the project. It is not something that the Treasury ever loved, and the Secretary of State has to push hard, as we did, but it is wrong to allow a step back on that brilliant project, which would unlock so many of the benefits that the Secretary of State talked about this evening. Again, I ask him to lock horns with the Treasury, and use every opportunity to see what can be done to revisit the decision. It is a very important project, and part of an ambition that I think we share for the future of this country.
In conclusion, the first duty of government should be to do no harm, and we cannot afford to get this agenda wrong. We will judge the Government by their actions. Where they are bold in order to deliver better outcomes at a lower cost to the taxpayer, they can count on our full support. We will help this progressive Secretary of State to face down the union luddites in his party. We on the Opposition Benches will support efforts to place the private sector at the heart of reform of the NHS, but the people of the UK cannot afford half-hearted efforts, the Treasury curtailing the departmental budget to pay for public sector pay rises elsewhere, or the abandonment of real ambition that can unlock the potential of technology to benefit this country for years to come.