UK-EU Summit

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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”. 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.

[Harriet Cross]

My hon. Friend has referred to the betrayal of our fishermen. I wonder whether the Minister will take the opportunity to deny media speculations that the Government are about to consent to multi-year agreements. The fishermen want single-year agreements, which are the international norm. Can the Minister rule that out today?

[Andrew Griffith]

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. 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. 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? 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. 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.

Trade Negotiations

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 8th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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. 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. 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? 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? 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.

[Mr Alexander]

Where to begin, Mr Speaker? As I sought to reflect in my statement, and as the Prime Minister remarked only a few minutes ago,

“This is jobs saved…not job done.”

It is significant that two former Conservative Prime Ministers —the former Members for Henley and for Maidenhead, as I recollect—sought and failed to deliver a US trade deal, in the same way that the former Government failed to deliver a deal with India. Important though it is to hear the views of the Opposition about trade deals that were not done, I think it is also important to hear from the Government about trade deals that have actually been done.

I am grateful, none the less, that the shadow Secretary of State found it in himself to welcome the tariff reductions that have been achieved. I think there will be relief at JLR in particular this evening that the calm, cool-headed approach taken by the Prime Minister and the negotiators has yielded a significant reduction of tariffs to a critical supply chain and a critical set of British exporters.

On Brexit, I respectfully say that this House has debated Brexit innumerable times over the years since 2016. I simply observe that we as a Government are more interested in new markets than in old arguments, and that there have been plenty of opportunities to rehearse those old arguments. I can also assure the House that, as we look ahead to the first EU-UK summit on 19 May, having delivered deals with India and the United States, we are now looking to reset that relationship with our friends, neighbours and partners in the EU, not least because three of our five largest trading partners are actually members of the European Union.

On the specific points about the film industry, we continue to negotiate on the UK’s behalf—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, who is chuntering from a sedentary position, seems to suggest that we can unilaterally declare the policy of the United States. Negotiations involve two parties. That is a lesson that the Conservatives could have learned when they failed to secure a US trade deal in the past. It is by listening and working together with our partners in the United States that we have been able to make progress today. As the Prime Minister said:

“This is jobs saved…not job done.”

There is further work to be done, and we fully intend to take that work forward.

On agriculture, I think it is important to say that the red line that we maintain consistently in relation to SPS measures has been protected. I am grateful to have the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs on the Front Bench with me. We have maintained those critical animal welfare standards. All of the speculation in relation to chlorinated chicken or hormone-injected beef has turned out to be unfounded.

It is important to recognise what was agreed today. Let me be clear to the House: this agreement will provide the United States with an initial tariff rate quota on beef of 10,000 tonnes, increasing by 1,000 tonnes per year to a cap of 13,000 tonnes. Let me put that in context for the House and for those on the Conservative Front Bench. The previous Government agreed under the UK-Australia FTA to a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year, which incrementally increases to—wait for it—110,000 tonnes per year, and ultimately becomes unlimited, subject to the safeguard regime. A sense of balance, proportion and understanding is required when discussing not only the safeguards that have been maintained and protected by the British Government, but the deal that has been struck in relation to beef. We need to keep the market access granted to the United States in the context of the wider economic benefits that this deal has secured for the United Kingdom.

On the rather diminishing political points that the shadow Secretary of State sought to make in relation to domestic legislation, I can assure him that the domestic legislation and the programme of the British Government remain unchanged as a consequence of today’s landmark deal. As far as I am aware, that is also the case in relation to the membership of the Cabinet. I am very relieved to say that it is the Prime Minister who is in charge of choosing members of the Cabinet, not the Conservative party, although the shadow Secretary of State does have a distinguished record of service alongside Liz Truss in a previous Government.

EU Trading Relationship

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

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.

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.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Andrew Griffith]

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. 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 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister. He has until 4.55 pm if he wants it, but if he is feeling generous, he may want to leave the Member in charge a couple of minutes to wind up.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrew Griffith Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising the subject of those deeply concerning reports. It is completely unacceptable for anyone to experience racism, discrimination or prejudice in the health service, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary takes such reports extremely seriously, because it is a fundamental principle that the NHS provides care and treatment for everyone, regardless of race, faith or background.

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

But it’s okay in the justice system?

[The Prime Minister]

This is a really serious issue. The hon. Gentleman has let himself down, and he knows it. I expect all trusts and healthcare providers to take necessary action against any staff who have expressed views that do not reflect the views and values of the NHS.