Andrew Griffith
MP for Arundel and South Downs · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. First, let me pay tribute to my own predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), and let me welcome the Chancellor to his role. He is already responsible for the highest borrowing costs for 28 years.”
“The Chancellor does not know the answer. On the Treasury’s own statistics, it would take 38,000 average income tax payers to make up for the loss of Chris Rokos. That is a lot of breathing space paid for. It means higher taxes for everyone else, or lower public spending. We know what Labour will choose.”
“I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two.”
“Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), were involved in the commencement of the planning for the negotiation that we are discussing today.”
“Without that, the Government could never have launched the consultation this morning on deepening our trade relationships with Indonesia, the Philippines, the UAE and Uruguay—all countries with whom the UK should seek closer ties. The next Conservative Government will go further and faster on trade.”
“Finally, I look forward to hearing an unabashed welcome for the benefits that will flow to his Maidenhead constituents from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds). Had his party’s policy been in force, this agreement could not have been struck at all.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Andrew Griffith, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 12.
“I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two. Now that he has acknowledged that the proposal from the Government was less sustainable than the status quo, will the Secretary of State remove the jeopardy and confirm that he will not be proceeding with the proposal, and will instead save West Sussex?”
“I have been very generous in praising the Government today, and on what I hope is not, but may be, the Minister’s final outing, I hope he will reciprocate by being honest with the country about why the deal was possible. I have just one question, and the interests of time a yes or no answer will suffice: does the Minister agree that, as a point of fact, it was only Brexit that made this agreement achievable?”
“Finally, I look forward to hearing an unabashed welcome for the benefits that will flow to his Maidenhead constituents from the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds). Had his party’s policy been in force, this agreement could not have been struck at all. The Liberal Democrats’ settled ambition is to march Britain straight back into a customs union, turning it back into a rule-taking vassal state, with none of the freedoms that, for example, the Canadian Parliament enjoys. The hon. Gentleman’s cheerleaders on the Liberal Democrat Benches would have legislated away every benefit that the Minister has described to this House. We warmly welcome this deal—no ifs, no buts. It is a win for Britain, a win for growth and a win for friendship between our two great nations.”
“Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), and I have agreed to make ambassador appointments among leaders in business, the City and former Lord Mayors of London. I gently point out one glaring omission in the Minister’s otherwise very positive statement about this excellent enhanced Swiss free trade agreement. In nearly 1,400 words, he did not mention the words “Brexit benefit” once. That is a curious insight, since this deal exists only since and because we left the European Union. A nation inside the customs union cannot cut its tariffs on sparkling wine, win tariff-free access for British lamb, gain mutual recognition of professional qualifications, or secure better access to Swiss public procurement.”
“Without that, the Government could never have launched the consultation this morning on deepening our trade relationships with Indonesia, the Philippines, the UAE and Uruguay—all countries with whom the UK should seek closer ties. The next Conservative Government will go further and faster on trade. We support deeper trade agreements with the UAE and Saudi Arabia, following the recent agreement with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and we will seek a trade agreement with Mercosur. We will boost rather than cut the number of Department for Business and Trade boots on the ground in Asia, Africa and Latin America. We will reintroduce a revised investment visa for those seeking to create wealth and jobs here in the UK. As part of a “trade first” culture change in the Foreign Office, the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon.”
“Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), were involved in the commencement of the planning for the negotiation that we are discussing today. The benefits of this deal are what taking back control looks like in practice: British lawyers advising in Zurich without requalifying, British firms winning contracts that an EU customs union would have blocked, and British travellers enjoying e-gate access and lower roaming tariffs. As the Minister said, this joins a growing number of such deals, including our accession to the CPTPP and agreements with Australia, New Zealand, the Gulf, India and the United States. This is Britain once again charting its way in the world, engaging directly with the leading or fastest-growing economies on the planet. Britain could strike this deal only because of our independent trade policy.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We Conservatives warmly welcome this excellent agreement and congratulate the Ministers and officials who delivered it. I was pleased, when I was the City Minister, to have been part of the team behind the forerunner, the Berne— [ Interruption. ] Would the Minister listen for a moment? The Berne financial services agreement with Switzerland was signed by the then Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt). That was one of our first ever post-Brexit agreements based on mutual recognition of each country’s regimes, and Conservative Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) and my hon.”
“The Government and their Lib Dem little helpers in the Lords voted against a Conservative amendment in the name of the noble Lord Hunt to limit support to £2.5 billion over three years. That is almost £2.3 million every single day. The cap was not plucked from thin air—that £2.5 billion was the Government’s own figure. In their refusal to accept a cap, the Government concede that the figure is likely to be more. That could have been 35,000 new police officers, eight brand-new hospitals or more than double what the Chancellor raised over the course of this Parliament by destroying the livelihoods of British farmers.”
“I am grateful to their lordships for their work on the Bill. We support the amendments before the House. Let me be plain from the outset: our objection has never been to steelmaking, or to the men and women who make steel; it is to a Government who have crashed around and used blunt instruments without ever having a detailed plan. Hope is not a strategy, and a blank cheque is not a plan. Nationalisation is a bad idea, and nothing that has yet been said at that Dispatch Box has told the House where the spending stops. The Government are taking us down a fast and expensive road with no idea where the exit lies. Even members of the Government concede in private that they rushed into something that they now repent at leisure. Let us look at what we have learnt over the passage of the Bill.”
“Today, we Conservatives have launched a campaign to save the summer job. Employment rights do not help young people if they cannot get a first experience of work, and they are trapped in a Catch-22 situation of needing experience to get work but not being able to get any during their education years. Young people say it, businesses say it and Alan Milburn, the former Labour Minister, says it. Will the Government now back our plans to save the summer job, cut employment red tape, support seasonal working and lower taxes?”
“This week, our hard-pressed automotive industry has sounded the alarm: under the zero emission vehicle rules, British car makers are being fined for making precisely the type of cars people want to buy. That is costing them £5 billion a year, denying consumer choice, damaging British jobs and putting automotive firms at risk. Like me, the Secretary of State met with car makers earlier this week, so will he listen to them, adopt the Conservative policy of scrapping these rules and support our great British automotive industry?”
“Will he commit to publishing the impact assessment on downstream steel sectors before Parliament rises for the summer? Does the Minister understand that by not exempting pre-agreed purchase contracts, which may in some cases run for years, he is damaging good, decent British manufacturing firms, even those in Rhondda and Ogmore? His exclusions rest on a test of “no production, or production paused”, but will he explain how he justifies keeping specialist grades in scope when in some industries, such as aerospace, it takes years to certify suppliers? Can he confirm that the EU’s reciprocal quota for exports from the UK will fully protect the 2.4 million tonnes of annual British exports of steel that would otherwise be at risk?”
“Of the 60 codes that we believe are relevant to aerospace and space, just two codes have been removed, and while quota uplifts have been applied, they are not particularly useful to the small-scale, high-value defence manufacturers, as commodity buyers will snap up all those quotas at the start of the year before they get a look-in. As a result, we are, I am sad to say, putting the defence of this country at risk by imposing a shock to defence industry prices, and it will either be the Treasury or the Ministry of Defence that picks up the bill. Projects such as AUKUS, Tempest, drones and much-needed munition rearming will all be vulnerable as a consequence. Finally, let me put some questions to the Minister on behalf of the industry.”
“The Government have left untouched the 50% tariff rate, and that will do great damage to British manufacturing, house builders and those who construct the nation’s infrastructure. It will mean higher inflation, fewer jobs, fewer homes and fewer public projects. The Government have made some welcome concessions on how much steel can be brought in but conceded nothing on the rate that punishes imported steel the very moment that the quota is exceeded. I know, as does the Minister, that he has received significant private representations from industry on this issue, particularly from defence and aerospace, and I imagine that the Minister does understand that this measure will not be enough.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the partial U-turns that have been announced, the engagement there has been and the reflection, even at this very late hour, that the original proposals from the Government would have done great damage to British manufacturing. This decision could, however, have come months ago. If not, it could have come weeks ago, when Members of the House and businesses started raising the alarm and engaging with the Department. It took this Government—if Members can remember—more than a year and three quarters to come up with their original steel strategy, yet the industry is now expected to adjust with less than one week to go. That is not a reasonable way on which to proceed.”
“I would not necessarily have expected to, but it would not be right for the record to reflect that he had only received the letter this morning.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know that in a former life, the Minister was punctilious about standards in this House, so I seek your advice as to how he may correct the record. He referred to a letter that I believe he said his office had received this morning or yesterday. In fact, the Department will have received copies of two letters, one which was sent a week ago, not on my behalf, but on behalf of hundreds of thousands of small manufacturing businesses that were desperately worried, with one week to go before the tariffs. There was a second letter on Tuesday, jointly from me and the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), again, sent on behalf of this vital industry, which keeps us all safe. I have not yet received a reply to either of those.”
“The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward measures to actively support rural areas, farming, traditional country sports, including trail hunting and shooting, and the equestrian sector.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Arundel and the South Downs, Declares that the UK’s rural traditions and heritage are of great importance in preserving our natural landscapes and the wider economy. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to bring forward measures to actively support rural areas, farming, traditional country sports (including trail hunting and shooting) and the equestrian sector. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003212]”
“I rise to present a petition from residents in my constituency of Arundel and South Downs in West Sussex. Hundreds of signatures have been gathered from local residents who see at first hand what feels like a constant attack on our countryside and country pursuits by this Government. For example, just in the past couple of weeks, we have seen the removal of plans for fast broadband fibre to thousands of rural homes.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. It is also always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Halifax. She is the second Minister in her role in this Government, and I sincerely hope that we are not due a third. I wish her well over the coming weeks. There was a time— [ Interruption. ]”
“Given the 64,000-case backlog, what resources does the Minister plan to give the employment tribunal to remove the constraining factors by having additional judges, hearing rooms and sitting days and longer hours? Perhaps she has a comprehensive plan that can reassure hon. Members that 64,000 cases is just a transient backlog, and that it will not grow. Finally, if the Minister is confident—as I am sure she is—about the Government’s reforms, which she mentioned in passing, will she commit today to publishing a clear timetable that identifies the day on which the backlog will be reduced to the pre-2024 level she inherited?”
“If it is the Government’s new principle that the only fair period is 26 weeks, there will be plenty of opportunities to extend that across to other parts of Government in a symmetrical way. Can the Minister share any specific assessment her Department has made of how many additional claims these two instruments alone will generate? We have heard about the 17% overall increase in tribunal claims, but can we have an understanding of the additional claims that relate just to these measures, so that Members can make an informed decision when they cast their vote? That is unless the Minister is kind enough to withdraw the measures today.”
“I believe in the good of Members, so I do not really believe that anybody on the Government Benches came here to put young people out of work, but the law that we pass most often is the law of unintended consequences. I urge Government Members to look at their consciences and decide whether putting more of our young people out of work is really what they came here to do. I will conclude with a few points to the Minister, if she would be so kind as to respond. First, she talked about the idea that six months is somehow fairer than three months. If that is the case, and if it is the Government’s position, will she make representations to the Chancellor to similarly apply that 13-week increase to 26 weeks when it comes to HMRC? The ordinary taxpayer does not have that same luxury of time.”
“I would be delighted if any Government Member wanted to intervene to tell me the rate of unemployment among 16 to 24-year-olds today, and how much that has increased in the last 24 months under this Government as a result of both the swingeing increases in tax and the crushing amount of red tape. In the absence of anyone intervening, and to move us forward quickly, I can reveal that the figure is 16.2%. That means that one in six of our young people between the ages of 16 and 24 who are actively looking for work—who are dispiritedly firing off application after application—are simply unable to find the work that they seek. That is 735,000 young people, almost three quarters of a million.”
“The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that about 80% of the costs that the system imposes on employers are passed on through lower wages, so it is the workers we seek to represent, our constituents, who ultimately bear the cost. Business has continually warned that increasing the already 13-week time limit would potentially significantly increase the jeopardy and therefore the risk. And who ultimately pays the price? This may be a fact that Government Members do not wish to fully contemplate, assimilate and understand, but the people who pay the price are the young people who are denied those opportunities.”
“The Government’s overall economic analysis of the Employment Rights Act, of which these regulations are a small measure, implies that the volume of cases in the failing, unreformed employment tribunal system is expected to increase by about 17%—this is the economic analysis of the Department for Business and Trade from January 2026. That is 17% more cases on a backlog of 64,000, which is growing by the day and resulting in delays to claims of more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. I will not detain the Committee with every single measure in the 330-page unemployment Act that the Opposition oppose—that is largely behind us—but there is no reason, when we are in a hole, to keep digging and make the situation worse.”
“The backlog is growing. The prospect of claimants and employers receiving settlement of those claims now dates back more than two years in many parts of the United Kingdom. Again, I urge the Minister to correct me if any of these statistics, based on the figures of the Office for National Statistics on gov.uk, are somehow erroneous, or if I am portraying a false narrative of the situation as it exists today. In these Committee Rooms, we are supposed to engage our minds and properly look at the evidence, not just vote the way we are told. Wouldn’t that be a good idea: evidence-based policymaking, rather than simply yielding to whatever the Government ask and whatever officials put in front of us?”
“The open caseload of single claims stands at a record 64,157 in the last available figures, which is a 55% increase in a single year. One does not need Carol Vorderman’s maths ability to understand that the backlog has grown by more than half in the last 12 months alone, firmly on this Government’s watch. It is not too late for the Government to recant, to see the light and the wisdom, on this statutory instrument, and perhaps ingratiate themselves with the next Prime Minister and Chancellor, who are more firmly committed to the growth that has eluded the incumbents. New single claim receipts rose by 39% last year to 50,000. That is the addition to the stack of claims, while—please write this down—disposals fell by just 12%. As we sit in this non-air-conditioned Committee Room this afternoon, more claims are being added to the pile.”
“It belies their lack of knowledge of working in business, for they do not understand the stifling impact of piling regulation upon regulation and doubling the period of jeopardy for an employer at a time when, as the Minister acknowledged, our employment tribunals are drowning, deluged and failing. I suspect that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have some appreciation, although maybe not the full horror, of what is going on right now in our employment tribunals. I would certainly like to hear more from the Minister and her officials about their plans to remedy a situation that we all should recognise as a crisis. To be fair, this did not all happen on the current Government’s watch. It dates back too many years, but it is getting worse by the week.”
“There was a time not so long ago when we had a Government who said that they were obsessed with growth—that it was their core, underlying mission. Casting my mind back to that moment makes me feel old, but my goodness, what a long way we have travelled over the last almost two years. I say that because no Government who were obsessed with growth, no Government who were genuine about creating the economic conditions for prosperity that provide our public services with the resource they need, and no Government who were sincere about giving the young people of this nation the opportunity to find work and climb the ladder of opportunity would, in all seriousness, have introduced these measures.”
“Thirdly, after listening to industry, will the Government please delay these tariffs for at least six months so that they can get this right?”
“Will the Minister listen to Stephen Morley, president of the Confederation of British Metalforming, who says: “The UK risks accelerating the decline of its manufacturing base rather than preserving it”, or Simon Boyd from REIDsteel, a British steelmaker, when he says that these measures will kill off “downstream customers of steelmakers in the UK”? I am sure that is not the Minister’s intention, but with just two weeks to go, with respect, it is time to stop listening and start acting. Will the Minister answer three questions? First, will he confirm today that the measures will not be applied retroactively throughout the whole life of existing, agreed contracts? Secondly, will he exempt steel—especially in categories 14 and 27—that is simply not made here in the necessary volumes?”
“I thank the Minister for that statement. Aerospace, the automotive sector, Formula 1, the construction sector, and manufacturing businesses that use steel, which employ 300,000 people, are all being impacted by Labour’s botched tariffs. Many specialist steels—the Minister may have heard this from manufacturing businesses—are not, as it stands, even produced in the UK. That is a real issue when it comes to, for example, categories 14 and 27, which are used in aircraft wings, or in defence applications that we need to make ourselves safe. Where defence companies have cost-plus contracts, the tariff on steel that is not made here will just get added to the bill for the Ministry of Defence.”
“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.””
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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—”
“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—”
“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.”
“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.”