Andrew Griffith MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend has made exactly the right point. It is genuinely bewildering—and we will see this again tomorrow—that when every single major business group in the country urges the Government not to proceed with their damaging unemployment Bill, when Labour think-tanks urge them not to proceed with that Bill, and when not a single business in favour of that Bill can be named by a Labour Minister—other than the Co-op and one that is overseas—they still seek to proceed with it.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  That was a valiant attempt to return to past history, but on this side of the House we are looking forward. Our plan for the high street would remedy the damage that has been done not over past years but over past months, and even again this morning—the collapse in confidence caused by our Chancellor.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend represents his constituents in Salisbury diligently, and makes exactly the same point. With respect, the Government have not understood business, and the Treasury did not pause to consider, or to conduct an impact assessment. In particular, the capricious change in thresholds from £9,100 down to £5,000, without any impact assessment from the Treasury, has done immense damage to high-street businesses. The Government should hang their head in shame.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  To coin a phrase, we are not going to balance the books of local government on the back of entrepreneurial businesses that are keeping our high streets alive, providing services for the community and allowing our economy to grow.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. We are all here individually today representing our fantastic constituencies, our wonderful high streets and our entrepreneurial businesses—those residents and constituents who seek to be employed and contribute to a growing part of our economy. That is why we in the Opposition are here to talk about our plan to save the high street, not to make the sort of partisan points that we are hearing from Labour Members.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House calls on the Government to support high streets by cutting public expenditure to facilitate the abolition of business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure premises on the high street; and further calls on the Government not to proceed with the Employment Rights Bill to avoid hiring freezes and job losses, to remove red tape for businesses, including by reviewing IR35, to cut energy bills for businesses and to tackle retail crime, thereby protecting key pillars of local communities including post offices, pubs and pharmacies. I am pleased to move the motion in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. We celebrate and support our high streets—their independent shops, the warm refuge they provide from loneliness, and the way that they incubate new business. They bring us together as communities, provide markets for local farmers and food producers, offer venues for street festivals and often afford young people their first step on the career ladder, but across Britain’s high streets, the lights are dimming, the laughter in our pubs is falling silent, and shutters on shops are coming down for the last time. When high streets thrive, communities thrive. When our high streets retreat, so does civic society. We Conservatives profoundly value our high street enterprises, which is why one of our first actions in government will be to abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. In July, the Chancellor said that she will make the UK “the best place to start and grow a business”. —[ Official Report , 29 July 2024; Vol. 752, c. 1051.] Well, goodness me, she has an odd way of showing it! In her very first Budget, the Chancellor slapped businesses with a £25 billion tax raid, and with a national insurance jobs tax, which hit high-street businesses the hardest, and meant that it cost business owners more simply to give someone a job.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I enjoy a full English as much as I suspect my colleague does. It is not just breakfast that is under threat; it is also lunch, supper, tea, dinner and the great British pub.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I have so many wonderful contributions to take from my colleagues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will have his chance later.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  Rather than giving away our fishing for 12 years and getting nothing in return because of a dogma, or spending time on international affairs—giving away the British Indian Ocean Territory and paying for the privilege—the Government should be prioritising the needs of business and focusing on the specific barriers mentioned by the hon. Member. Doing so would make a huge difference to businesses in her constituency. It is not just the Chancellor. The Business Secretary seems to be doing his bit too, creating more small businesses by shrinking existing large ones. His 330-page unemployment Bill, which is due to come back before the House tomorrow, will make life a nightmare for every employer on our high streets. It will make flexible and seasonal working impossible, and will prevent employers from taking a risk on young people and work returners—some of the most vulnerable people in society—for fear of joining the backlog of 490,000 claims to employment tribunals.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure that we were in charge in the particular area that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned, but I am pleased to know that, like so many of us, he had his first experience of work—his first leg-up, his first work opportunity—in the retail and hospitality sector. It is hugely important, and gives people great opportunities in life. I have talked about our promises— [Interruption.] I do not want to get too deflected by stories about the Animal store, of which the hon. Gentleman clearly has enormously fond recollections, and where he spent many a happy hour.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has done a great deal of work on the Bill, and it is a great shame that he was cut short in his prime, but with respect the point is about choice for the individual. In many cases, the long-standing right will be to be represented by a trade union, but it could also be a mediator or a qualified professional in any other domain. The point is not to extinguish that choice, which is absolutely—he will know this—what the amendment would do. The Bill—from a Government who in too many domains are now tolerant of a two-tier system—creates a two-tier system for workers’ rights. Lords amendment 1 is a typical example of where the Government do not understand or have failed to listen to businesses, particularly hospitality and seasonal businesses. What started as an attempt to ban zero-hours contracts has morphed into a chain around the necks of both employers and workers. The Government will no doubt cry about unintended consequences when the time comes, but I can tell them now that the consequences will be clear, and a cacophony of business groups such as UK Hospitality, the British Retail Consortium and the Federation of Small Businesses have explained this precisely to them. I gently say that if the Government feel so strongly about zero-hours contracts, the best way of putting their own house in order would be to start with tackling precisely those that operate in the armed forces reserves. Lords amendment 48 would protect the countless businesses across the country that rely directly on seasonal work. From the coasts of Devon and Cornwall to Great Yarmouth, and from the Secretary of State’s and my own county of Sussex to Ayrshire, there are millions of workers employed in seasonal industries. Seasonal work often takes place in communities that are heavily reliant on tourism, both foreign and domestic, and that are competing in a competitive international market. The Government have already taken an axe to the hospitality and retail industries with the removals of relief. The amendment would be a very good way of going in some direction to support them. In opposing Lords amendment 49, the Government are showing their commitment to ignore small business above all others. The Secretary of State says that he wants to listen to businesses, and I take him at his word, but why then oppose this amendment, which would codify precisely that? Countless small business will have a real challenge in dealing with this Bill, which is now 330 pages of red tape. Why on earth would the Government put their Members through the Lobby to oppose listening and consulting with small businesses? We support Lords amendment 60, which has cross-party support, at the behest of millions of those who enjoy heritage railway attractions. If the Secretary of State has not yet made it to the Amberley museum, which is not that far from his constituency— [ Interruption. ] He knows of it? Well, he is welcome to come and visit and listen to how the volunteers who are gaining valuable experience will be affected. I am perplexed about why the Government are so opposed to Lords amendment 46 on the protection of whistleblowers. It is genuinely confusing. Time and again Ministers on both sides of this House have come to the Dispatch Box to talk about Government scandals. We have seen brave people in organisations try to speak up and raise their concerns, only to have them dismissed. The Government claim that the Bill is about workers’ rights yet seem to have zero interest in protecting workers who try to reveal serious problems in the private and public sectors. I urge all colleagues to read that for themselves and to make up their own minds on where they think the right place to be is. Good luck to those who vote against that entirely reasonable amendment, which would protect people who do the right thing, and then have to try to explain to their constituents why they did so.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the new Secretary of State to his place, and congratulate him as well as the hon. Members for Halifax (Kate Dearden) and for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) on their appointments. His is a vital role in Government, and it will surely be a delight and a privilege for him to champion our hard-working, innovative businesses in Cabinet and on the world stage as President of the Board of Trade. I particularly welcome his comments that the Government’s priority must be to “double down” on growth and position themselves as “an active partner that delivers success, supports new business and backs wealth creation.” Where he does that, he can be assured of our support, but if that is really his view, we should not be debating this Bill today and the Government should never have brought it forward. In fact, I well understand why Ministers may well be concerned about job insecurity and last-minute shift cancellations. After all, their predecessors, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas), had their own Front Bench shifts today cancelled by the Prime Minister with barely a week’s notice. Apparently, that boss did not even have the decency to fire them in person, but at least they can take comfort in knowing that with the current rate of departures from No. 10, there will soon not be anyone left to do the sacking.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend, with his experience, is exactly right. Just think about the impact on a small business of a fee of that magnitude and the length of time it takes to get justice. What is going to happen? This is a really important point. Those on the Government Benches will be living this reality over the remainder of their term, and they will have to account for it. Businesses will be discouraged from hiring anybody without a perfect CV and a proven track record of work. Who are we talking about? We are talking about young people, people with dyslexia and related conditions, and people with a period of inactivity on their CVs—such as former prisoners seeking a second chance to go straight. Those will be the victims of that particular measure. Labour Ministers should realise that they will be the first victims of disagreeing with Lords amendment 62. The long-standing principle here is a simple one: we should not be allowing strikes to be called when a majority of union members have not even voted, let alone voted in favour. A strike could still proceed with just over a quarter of those eligible. Opposing this amendment will guarantee that unions are held hostage by a militant minority who force strikes even when the union’s own members do not support one. We can ill afford more strikes that crush growth, prevent workers from getting to work and endanger lives, and the public will not forget the change that this Government seek to make. Amendment 61 is a Cross-Bench Lords amendment that would maintain a consensus arrived at by the Trade Union Political Funds and Political Party Funding Committee—that only those who actively choose to contribute to a political fund opt in to do so. This is a basic principle that the Government have applied to services everywhere else in the economy, from beauty boxes, gyms and meditation apps to Netflix and newspaper subscriptions. Why should Britain’s workers not enjoy the same right? The only conceivable reason—it brings shame on anyone who votes against the amendment—is to swell the coffers of one political party. Lords amendment 47, on the right to be accompanied, tries to finally level the playing field for the 80% of workers who are not in a union, but should have the same rights as trade union members to be supported in a disciplinary or grievance hearing. By voting against this modest but important reform, Labour is preserving what is essentially a closed shop that unions use to push people who do not want to join into doing so. We scrapped the closed shop decades ago, and no one should be bringing it back as a means of pressuring vulnerable workers into paying into union coffers.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  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.”