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 7 of 12.
“Not everyone needs to run a business, but for those who do, we want a country that values, cherishes and honours its wealth creators; where transforming a side hustle into a main hustle is straightforward; and where His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is transformed from a predator to a partner, and the tax system goes out of its way to reflect the risk of investing, and of running a business. We want our regulators to think carefully before they intervene, and not to pounce on every perceived failure as another reason to try to eliminate risk.”
“Our business community is ravaged; my hon. Friend is exactly right. We are plummeting to depths last reached only when the entire global economy was shut down due to an unknown pathogenic virus. If that is the bar the Government set themselves, I urge them to have a little bit more ambition and confidence in their ability to grow our economy. No nation can spend its way to growth, or tax its way to success. I fear that we are about to see a case study showing exactly that this does not work. It has been tried before, and it did not work then. We cannot afford the ignorant short-sightedness of this Government. To achieve growth, we need a country in which everybody’s spark of ambition can find ignition.”
“Members have said, it is sad that investors and employers clearly do not have faith in this Government to deliver the contract between the state and those who seek to run a business. Instead of this Government opening up investment for wonderful British businesses around the world, top investors are fleeing the country and taking their wealth, creativity and entrepreneurship elsewhere. What could be sadder?”
“So many businesses feel like that, even when HMRC is doing its legitimate job of trying to balance the books and raise money for the public purse. That is because of how it goes about that job, its one-sided nature, and the uncertainty that it inflicts on small businesses, whose biggest asset is their time, and whose greatest opportunity cost is the need to comply with myriad regulations and taxes. We want a Government with a philosophy of trust in business, and a Government who celebrate personal responsibility and clear the path for innovation. That requires the courage to champion risk-takers and elevate enterprise above sectional interests. As right hon. and hon.”
“We could take that approach from a perspective of trying to grow the economy, in order to reduce energy costs to a competitive level, or because one believes in the climate transition but understands that special skills in dealing with the harsh offshore environment need to be nurtured, rather than squandered in a way that results in people with those skills fleeing elsewhere.”
“One is tempted to say that we should try to remove this wretched Government as quickly as possible. That, of course, is part of the answer. We need a Government who listen to the points my hon. Friend makes so eloquently on behalf of her constituents and the industry; a Government who understand the reality of the energy situation and the high cost of energy for business, rather than pursuing a failed dogma and ideology that is not being pursued by the rest of the world; and a Government who listen to enterprise and businesses, many of which I have met.”
“That is what a party that is truly on the side of business looks like. I urge Government Members to do a little less talking and a little more listening. They should think of every business owner and employee whom they told, during the election campaign, that the Government would have their back, and ask themselves whether their actions, rather than their words, have proved that to be anything like the case. With employment falling, wealth creators leaving this country at a rate never before seen, businesses closing, investment crashing and inflation rising today, the Conservatives certainly do not believe so. I commend this motion to the House.”
“] Conservative Members could usefully listen and learn. This could be an exercise in understanding what a proper strategy that is on the side of business looks like. We back the millions of entrepreneurs and businesses who create wealth and jobs across this country. We are unafraid to talk about the need for business, and celebrate private capital, international investors and risk taking. It was the Conservatives who delivered the single biggest tax cut for business in modern history through the move to full expensing, and the Conservatives who slashed business rates when we introduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief, and during that terrible covid pandemic, it was the Conservatives who provided billions in finance to keep business and the economy going. That is what leadership looks like.”
“When the Minister responds, perhaps he will share with us whether he believes that the tax measures advocated by the Deputy Prime Minister, which will have a chilling effect on business, are the right way to proceed. Whether they are stabbed by employment red tape or shot by higher taxes, the outcome for businesses is the same. The Government duck the difficult questions while the Chancellor fiddles the fiscal rules, making it up as she goes along. Families know that the cost of living is getting higher under Labour. [ Interruption. ] The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury is so animated that I feel I should keep going, rather than disappoint him. He should listen, rather than chunter. The Conservative party has a clear vision. It understands business from first principles— [ Interruption.”
“It is a truism—one that we Conservative Members have to continually teach Labour Members, I regret to say—that we do not make the poor richer by making the rich poorer. Like all socialists, Labour Members are attracted to superficial measures that will ultimately make all of us poorer. Those of us who are left behind will have to pay more, or endure less well-funded public services, as a result of this Government shepherding the golden geese into a pen and then exiling them. The Deputy Prime Minister was right in her memo, which we saw today: this Government are indeed coming for your job, your business, your pension and your savings. It is all very clear in black and white. Whether Members are Team Rayner or Team Reeves, when it comes to decisions on the economy, it is all bad for business.”
“I hope we continue to work collaboratively and supportively with the Government, along with the excellent Select Committee of which my right hon. Friend is a Member. None of that helps if wealth creators and global investors have left these shores due to vindictive measures that simply will not raise anything like the money needed. It is perfectly okay to admit when one makes a mistake, and in this case Treasury Ministers have made a mistake. The amount raised will be nothing like the amount expected. The Centre for Economics and Business Research has done important research on that, and found that the cost will be significant. Far from raising money for the Treasury, the country will, I am afraid, lose money.”
“I thank my right hon. Friend and predecessor in the role of City Minister. This is an important point: where we can, we will support the Government in continuing the work, which he and I started, of trying improve the investment outcomes for our economy. We want to increase equity investment to mobilise pension funds and, most importantly, deliver good returns for our investors: the constituents who send us here, and who want the best possible outcome for their pension. It is really important that the Treasury leans into that, and that we have abundant capital markets that are well regulated but not over-regulated. We must create the right culture when it comes to the advice guidance boundary, our tolerance of risk, and our financial literacy and education in our schools. That is a really big point.”
“I have no idea why the European Union member nations would cut themselves off from the UK’s excellent defence primes, unless this is once again a protectionist industrial policy cloak—and what twisted deal-making trades fishing rights for the French for working more closely together, as we have so many times, on Europe’s defence? We warned that Labour would betray our fishermen, and it has sadly proved us right by putting fishing rights back on the negotiating table.”
“That is disrespectful of Parliament, and forces this House to rely on leaks and read between the lines of Downing Street press handouts. If those leaks are to be believed, we know that Labour is planning on signing up the British armed forces to an EU army, binding our strategic military decision-making powers to bureaucrats in Brussels. [ Interruption. ] The Minister is very welcome to rule these things out—perhaps he will be more forthcoming than the Paymaster General was earlier. When it comes to security, there is no bigger challenge than our borders—I think even the Prime Minister recognised that on Monday—but the UK’s request for shared access to a joint illegal migrant database has already been rejected by the European Union. So much for co-operation on security. Defence procurement must never be “pay to play”.”
“For example, one of the biggest frictions our businesses face today is the denial of the use of e-gates, which was imposed by the European Union out of spite. There was no such small-mindedness from us. However, the problem we face today is that the Government have failed to come to this House and explain exactly, or at all, what the Prime Minister’s EU reset will look like. We have seen nothing on the Government’s negotiating objectives, their red lines or the supposed benefits, and we have not seen an impact assessment or even an interim update. Of course, I understand there will be finer negotiating details that the Government will not want to share, but that is very different from sharing absolutely nothing.”
“We were right not to follow Labour’s advice then, and the Government would be right to listen to our advice now, yet it appears that they still have not learned. As we heard from many speakers this afternoon, the opportunities of the future will fall to those states that are agile—opportunities in areas such as artificial intelligence, genomics, space, the creative industries, financial and professional services, and the life sciences. This country already has a good deal with the European Union. We have a mutually advantageous zero-tariff agreement that is valued at £184 billion in services and £174 billion in goods. Nothing is perfect, and where there are sensible measures—such as pursuing opportunities for mutual recognition—they should be explored.”
“Next Monday’s EU surrender summit formally marks the start of Labour’s plan to dismantle the powers of not just the Government, but this House, and push us back into the European Union as a passive rule taker. We Conservatives ask, “To what end? Why are the Government capitulating the very same hard-fought Brexit freedoms that permitted the signing of two trade agreements—notwithstanding their limited scope—in the past seven days?” Had we followed the policies that Labour was advocating in opposition, this Government would never have been able to reach an agreement with the USA or with India. They would not even have been in the room; they would have been one of 28 member nations, resorting to asking—begging—Ursula von der Leyen to perhaps consider putting British interests first.”
“I am afraid to say that the next item on this bleak agenda of declinism is the betrayal of the 17 million people who voted for this country to leave the European political union. This should come as no surprise to anyone, because those on the Benches opposite—and, I regret, some of those on the Benches to the left of me— voted against Brexit on no fewer than 48 different occasions. If this debate is reminiscent of the past, it is because that is precisely where some Members wish to take us back to. Ever since they were seduced by Jacques Delors, the Euro-socialist, their hearts have never been in the mission of taking back control of our laws.”
“Friends the Members for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez), for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan), for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) and for Windsor (Jack Rankin)—what a fantastic set of knowledgeable contributions and real concerns about the impending EU surrender summit. It is in the spirit of such rigorous debate that this House finds its strength and purpose. It has been less than a year since the general election. In that time, this Labour Government have tanked the economy, crushed British business, seen—as we have learned today—100,000 fewer people in employment, driven wealth creators overseas at the rate of one millionaire every 45 minutes, and shattered any signs of economic growth.”
“We have had a strong debate this afternoon, with many contributions on both sides. I thank so many of my hon. and right hon. Friends, including my hon. Friends the Members for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), my right hon. Friends the Members for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), who knows a great deal about this subject, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon.”
“They are determined to deal away our hard-fought freedoms, and we will lose control of our borders, our laws, our fish and our armed forces. I urge the Minister to come clean and to have the honesty to explain to this House and this country why Labour is preparing to surrender the right of the British people to choose their own destiny. We know that when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.”
“Can he reassure taxpayers, or those who have lost their winter fuel allowance or whose benefits are set to be cut, that the UK will not be agreeing to any new payments to the EU? Is he able to confirm, for the benefit of our coastal communities, that there will be no concessions on fishing rights? Can he assure the House that there will be no rule taking, dynamic alignment, or extension of European Court jurisdiction? Will he pledge, in deeds as well as words, that there will be no compromise on the primacy of NATO as the successful cornerstone of European security? If the Minister is not able to provide those assurances, this Government are betraying Brexit. All of the evidence that we have seen today suggests that they are limbering up for a surrender summit to damage Britain’s interests.”
“The Conservatives are certainly not opposed to co-operation with Europe as one among other markets—that much should be obvious from the hard-fought trade agreement that we obtained under the last Government—but we must not in any circumstances surrender our Brexit freedoms so that the Prime Minister can reassure his next law school reunion that he has undermined our sovereignty. After the earlier equivocation from the Paymaster General, let me give the Minister—they have been chuntering all afternoon—a final chance to answer these questions once and for all. Can he reassure the millions of people who voted to leave the EU that his surrender summit will not betray their wishes? Will he confirm that there will be no backsliding on free movement or compulsory asylum transfers?”
“The wrong type of youth mobility scheme would disadvantage young British workers who, thanks to this Government, are already struggling to get a foot on the ladder, whether for a job—unemployment is up again today—or to secure a roof over their heads in Britain’s housing market. What part of the Government’s objective involves making things harder for our young people? What we do see is the Government proceeding at breakneck pace with the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill. Beware of Bills with boring names, Madam Deputy Speaker! This is a Trojan horse, blank-cheque Bill giving Ministers the power to roll back Brexit, sign us up to EU rules and abandon imperial measurements for good, all at the stroke of a pen. It provides unchecked ministerial power to make us a passive rule-taker of Brussels diktat. Let me be clear.”
“I am afraid the Minister is as talkative as a haddock when it comes to clarifying his objectives, but perhaps he will confound our expectations when he sums up the debate. Just as the Prime Minister pretends to talk tough on immigration, by the same token he plans to open our borders to an EU youth mobility scheme. Perhaps the Minister will deny that, but it could mean millions from Boulogne to Bucharest. Limited volume schemes with comparable economies whereby the UK is able to decide who comes here are fine in principle. We have such a scheme with Australia, but Australia is 10,000 miles away and its economy is very different from those that we are discussing.”
“Will he announce a pause of the devastating jobs tax until a full trade agreement can be concluded and stop the surge in business rates so many businesses are facing, and will he finally shelve the unemployment Bill that is already seeing British businesses cutting jobs and choking under 300 pages of incoming red tape? Lastly, will he ask the Prime Minister to sack his Energy Secretary and finally produce a real policy to cut energy prices to globally competitive levels? If the Government are serious about helping businesses, now is the time. What we see is that once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses.”
“Will the Minister set out clearly to the House the trade-offs that have been made? I note with concern that two days on, we have still not had sight of the detail of the UK-India trade deal. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see the full detail of both deals? How does this deal defend our beef, lamb, pork and poultry farmers, with not just words, but actions? Does it protect the special status of Northern Ireland, and does it cover the British overseas territories? In the meantime, while businesses continue to suffer and struggle with elevated US tariffs and as they face quotas and uncertainty, will the Minister finally take steps with his colleagues to ease the burden his Government chose to impose on them?”
“However, if I have understood the Minister correctly, we are still not back to the position as it was at the beginning of February. Perhaps he can clarify that British goods will still be more expensive in the US than they were before—for all the talk of the special relationship, that puts us in the same category as countries like Burundi and Bhutan. More than what is in this deal today is what is not. From the little the Government have shared, it is clear that it does not go anywhere near far enough. It is a Diet Coke deal—not the real thing. It is not the comprehensive free trade agreement that a true plan for growth requires. What about the film and television industry, which was being threatened earlier this week with a 100% tariff? Can the Minister assure us now that there will be no such imposition? What is the price of this deal?”
“As the Government limber up for their surrender summit later this month, I ask the Minister to rule out today—once and for all—any form of dynamic alignment. We are the only party whose position on trade with the United States has been consistent. When the Conservatives published the opportunities for a deal in 2020, the now Prime Minister said he would never countenance an agreement, the now Education Secretary called it foolish, and the now Energy Secretary said it was a spectre hanging over us. The Conservatives do welcome the news of a reduction in selected tariffs on things like automotive exports and steel today. Any reduction is better than no reduction; jobs and investments were at risk, and all mitigation is to be welcomed.”
“Thank you for ensuring that the House had the opportunity to hear this statement today, Mr Speaker. Free trade betters us all. It has lifted billions from poverty and has made us the country we are today, and the country that had the ability to join the fight for Europe’s freedom 80 years ago. Unfortunately, this is not the historic free trade deal we were promised. Any reduction in tariffs is welcome, but British businesses are still facing higher tariffs now than they did in February. This is not the deal we were promised, and the Government still have much work to do. Let us be crystal clear: it is our freedom to make our own trade policy that made even today’s deal possible. I hope the Government are now converted to our cause, and regret the 48 times they tried to take us back into the European Union.”
“In a grave and exceptionally rare step, five major business groups, including the Confederation of British Industry, Make UK, the Institute of Directors, and the Federation of Small Businesses, have all written to condemn the Employment Rights Bill, and their views are shared by UKHospitality and many others. They say that the Bill will damage growth and employment. I know that, and the Minister knows that. This Bill will hurt business. Every business tells me this, and they are telling him exactly the same. Does the Secretary of State think that is why so many of his Ministers are unable to name a single business that supports the Bill and his Government’s jobs tax?”
“The Secretary of State says that all the funding required for the nationalisation of British Steel will come out of existing budgets. We have seen his Department’s budget—we had an estimates day debate in the House not long ago—and there was no unallocated pot. Could he be a little more specific about exactly which budget the money is coming from?”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. I think it is widely agreed that the cost of nationalising British Steel could run into the billions. Is he really saying that he plans to raid the previously allocated £2.5 billion green steel fund from the national wealth fund, and how is he doing that given that the national wealth fund is operationally independent? Is not the truth that, sooner or later, this will have to come from his department’s budget at the expense of financial support for the automotive sector, exporters and hard-working trade negotiators?”
“We all seek more trade with our European neighbours, but we already have a tariff-free deal for the export and import of goods. There are some wins to be had: the European Central Bank, for example, is restoring clearing to the UK, which is pragmatic, sensible and a reflection of the facts on the ground; but those opportunities do not appear to us to be what the Government are focused on. Perhaps the Minister will correct us on that. It is clear that Labour’s EU reset—perhaps to the welcome of many of the Minister’s colleagues—is actually a plan carried forward from Opposition dating back to the referendum in 2016, with the objective of overturning that referendum in substance, if not in name.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this debate. I thank the many colleagues who contributed, and commend your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, in giving so many colleagues the chance to do so. I also commend the efforts of the Business and Trade Committee, which has come up with a report containing many worthy and sensible suggestions. We owe it to the British businesses that create growth, jobs and the wealth of our country to secure for them the most favourable terms for the UK in the tapestry of global trade, wherever the markets may be. That means focusing on areas of maximum opportunity wherever they are, and on sectors where we can benefit from growing markets, innovation and indeed our shared values.”
“It has been 170 days since President Trump was elected, but the Government have yet to publish any objectives for their negotiations with the US. Whatever we might think about those objectives, British exporters today are paying the price for the absence of that agreement. Through that absence of transparency, Parliament is being disrespected and none of us has any idea which businesses or farm sectors may pay the price for that deal in future. Our hard-won freedoms offer us the unrivalled chance, if we seize it, to steer our own course in a difficult and uncertain world. We can have the best of all worlds: trade with Europe, North America, the gulf, Asia and Africa. The Conservatives would not pursue one of those many attractive opportunities in a prejudiced way at the expense of others, and I hope that is also the Government’s position.”
“It was not the US that unilaterally threatened to invoke article 16 to prevent British citizens having access to vaccines; it was not the US that kicked the United Kingdom out of Horizon, a scheme entirely separate from our membership of the European Union; and it is not the US that is still depriving British citizens of the use of e-gates when they travel—an opportunity that we afford visitors from the EU coming to this country, so let us just have some balance in that debate. To be clear, given the relative scale of the opportunity and the fact that we already have a free trade goods deal with the European Union, were we in government, the Conservatives would have prioritised—right now—a US trade deal.”
“While previous Governments have put in place youth mobility schemes of a certain volume, as the Government considers that return, it would be interesting to hear what the impact would be on British graduates, whose wage premium is the lowest it has ever been. What impact would opening the floodgates have on the rental crisis in London, or on the burdens of the NHS? There was some talk about improving education, but we already have visa schemes for work and visa schemes to come here to study. What will be the incrementality of a youth mobility scheme? We have heard a number of times about this being a moment for cool heads, not for piling on retaliatory tariffs in a global trade war, and Members will commend themselves on how progressive and level-headed they are, but let us take a balanced view.”
“The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill currently before Parliament is perhaps one of the most blatant examples of how a Government may fail the test. It is a Trojan horse, a blank cheque forcing this Government to become a rule-taker. I realise that many colleagues are new to this place, although many are not and have much more distinguished service histories than myself, but I hope that when colleagues look at that Bill and it is scrutinised in the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Commons legislative Committees, they will look at the deficiencies of that Bill under this or any other Government going forward. We have heard calls for a return to open borders via a youth mobility scheme.”
“I see no intervention coming, so I will move on, but the EU is litigating against the British Government right now to prevent that environmental protection measure from being implemented. The last two tests are: no rule taking, dynamic alignment or ECJ jurisdiction; and, notwithstanding working with anybody on a defence pact—I agree with the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) that there must be no linkage between defending European soil and the transactional approach to British fishing taken by some countries—no undermining of or compromise on the primacy of NATO. Those are the tests that, in our view, will maintain the trust of the British people. I hope that the Minister will put our fears to rest.”
“Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) set out the misguided but at least honest approach of desiring to return to the rule of Brussels via a full customs union, which I understand is not on the Government’s agenda. We Conservatives have set out five clear tests to protect people’s trust and confidence. There must be no backsliding on free movement, no new money paid to the European Union and no reduction in our fishing rights, including—I will take an intervention from the Green party’s hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on this if she would like—no backsliding on the environmental protection for sand eels that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says is vital to the protection of British seabirds and puffins.”
“I will not give way, as everyone has been very good on timing. I will get through my speech to give the Minister as much time as possible to deal with all of the points raised. In all seriousness, across all western European economies, we face a real crisis of trust in politics and a rise in extremism among people who do not necessarily see the solutions to the problems their countries face in arguing them out reasonably, as we are doing today. Why any genuine democrat, whatever their personal views, could possibly think that reversing a decision made by the people in 2016 is the right approach— [ Interruption. ] Although it is refreshing to make common cause with the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy),who indeed does not do that, it is also refreshing, sort of, to hear the hon.”
“Instead, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero seems dead set on delusional policies that drive energy prices in this country even higher. We cannot make steel sustainably when we have the highest energy prices in Europe. Prices for industrial energy in Birmingham in this country are four times higher than those in Birmingham Alabama. We cannot make steel if we do not have coal. As Nissan’s Alan Johnson said today, the “simple fact” is that the UK is “too expensive… Once you’ve paid your electricity, gas, NICs we are too expensive—any industrial strategy that does not tackle that is a waste of time.” Well, we are here once again. There is no steel strategy, no industrial strategy, no export strategy and no energy strategy.”
“To date, how much has the Department spent, or how much has it committed to underwrite—that is a straightforward question that deserves an answer? Given that her Department had no budget for revenue support of steel, has the Minister been able to secure additional funds from the Treasury, so that other sectors or support for British exporters do not pay the price? We have seen no further detail of the Government’s proposed steel strategy, or any confirmation of longer-term plans to protect British steelmaking. Labour Members refused to back a coking coalmine to produce some of the raw materials that blast furnaces rely on. Instead, they wait for shipments to arrive from halfway around the world. Most importantly, the Government have not set out how they intend to reduce the enormous burden of sky-high energy costs.”
“Instead of a statement from the Treasury today, the Chancellor is running to the International Monetary Fund in Washington to explain how she broke the UK economy. Steel nationalisation, the IMF downgrading growth forecasts, trade union summits in No.10—it is all sounding a bit 1970s. The simple problem is that we do not know the answers to any of these questions because the Government have failed to publish an impact assessment. Will the Minister confirm to the House when they plan to do so? Has anyone in government asked the Office for National Statistics whether British Steel will now be classified as a publicly owned entity? Has the ministerial team discussed the impact of the takeover with the Chancellor on her already evaporated fiscal headroom?”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I join her in thanking the Scunthorpe workers for their efforts over the last few weeks. We are here once again because the Government had no plan—they failed to prepare, they bungled negotiations, and they took too long to listen to the warnings. What do we have to show for it? We have this botched nationalisation and a potential bill for the taxpayer stretching into the billions. I say billions, but it remains entirely unclear how much this bungled 11th-hour decision will cost, while the assets still belong to China. I hope that Members across the House will agree that this is a complete mockery of transparency and accountability, and I hope that the relevant Select Committees will take it upon themselves to conduct their own inquiries.”
“This is a failure on the Government’s watch. Let us be crystal clear what today means: we are entering a tunnel with only one exit. This is a botched nationalisation plan, revealing that the Government have no plan. In government, we acted to secure Port Talbot and we were negotiating a plan, including British Steel’s preferred option of an electric arc furnace on Teesside, which would have limited job losses and kept Scunthorpe running in transition. Once again, when Labour negotiates, Britain loses—the Chagos islands, US tariffs, the train drivers and now this latest crisis. A bad toolmaker blames his tools, but this time the Government have only themselves to blame.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for taking the time to brief me last night ahead of today’s sitting, and for advance sight of his speech. To fail to prepare is to prepare to fail. What a way to proceed: recalling Parliament for only the sixth occasion since the end of the second world war to debate a Bill published only 90 minutes ago. This would be conduct unbecoming of a parish council. Our country, our economy and this Parliament all deserve better. That is why the amendment in my name would at least put a sunset on the Bill, and I hope the Government will accept it. Today is not a failure by the steelworkers of Scunthorpe and elsewhere, their families or the community. They have toiled for generations to ensure that we have the primary steel we need for our structures, our safety and our security.”
“I will talk about the difficulties facing steel around the world, but let us just be clear what is happening today: the British people must not have lost their winter fuel allowance and their disability benefits in order that China can walk away from its liabilities, leaving British taxpayers to pick up the bills. Steel needs energy, and energy needs steel. No one denies that steelmaking has been difficult for some time, but Scunthorpe is the victim of a dishonesty that pretends it is better for the environment to ship coke halfway around the planet than from down the road, and of an energy policy that has driven costs higher than in any competing nation. No one is more responsible for this than the Energy Secretary and the Prime Minister who appointed him.”
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is sad to say that Scunthorpe is the victim of exactly that policy: putting ideology before British interests.”