and if you want to continue watching the bbc news at 10pm, please turn over to bbc1, or you can watch on iplayer. next, it's newsnight.

billions of pounds of investment after the prime minister brings corporate giants to a london summit. but can keir starmer deal with growth and be pro—business and pro—worker? and a draft law to help teenagers beat phone addiction on the way. welcome to newsnight, with interviews and inisghts. "this is the moment to back britain." that's what? sir keir starmer told an audience of global business leaders at his international investment summit today. last week he was unveiling his package of workers�* rights legislation, which some business leaders said lacked any pro—growth element. and today the chancellor gave the biggest hint yet that national insurance contributions for employers will go up in this month's budget.

so can the government really get businesses to deliver the growth they have promised while adding to the day—to—day costs of business? your panel tonight, former tory mp and business minister paul scully, and from the observer, columnist sonia sodha. in a moment trade minister douglas alexander on growth, workers�* rights and brexit, but first, nick is here as always. some up the day. this is a really big dealfor this some up the day. this is a really big deal for this government because they need us to be focusing on big stuff like this to take us away from talking about donations and things like that. at the end of the day, what do we have? £63 billion of agreed investment in this country which is all down to this newly elected labour government. even keir starmer talked about the importance of the relationship between politicians and business. he said businesses need growth for their shareholders and politicians need growth because that helps them get re—elected. there was a novel approach to this because we had an

investment conference before the budget. there are good reasons for that, you need a big lead up for the office for budget responsibility to do its fiscal forecast, office for budget responsibility to do its fiscalforecast, but office for budget responsibility to do its fiscal forecast, but that creates uncertainty over the fiscal framework. today the chancellor and the prime minister did get dragged into the budget speculation today and gave us some nuggets. the prime minister made it clear that speculation about capital gains tax going up 39%, he suggested we are not heading in that direction. the chancellor pretty much indicated what we have been reporting on, heading in the direction of changing the debt measurement and increasing the debt measurement and increasing the national insurance of employers and not employees, so keeping in line with the labour manifesto. the chancellor also talking about how corporation tax had been capped in this parliament at 25%. but there was a reception tonight and they want us to be focusing on the £63 billion investment. paul want us to be focusing on the £63 billion investment.— billion investment. paul scally, former business _

billion investment. paul scally, former business minister, - billion investment. paul scally, former business minister, you | billion investment. paul scally, - former business minister, you must welcome the amount of investments? £63 billion coming into the uk economy— £63 billion coming into the uk economy is a really good thing for us as_ economy is a really good thing for us as a _ economy is a really good thing for us as a country. i am back into business — us as a country. i am back into business now and i will be welcoming that as _ business now and i will be welcoming that as well. i think only about 10% of it is— that as well. i think only about 10% of it is new. — that as well. i think only about 10% of it is new, announced today. a lot of it is new, announced today. a lot of that _ of it is new, announced today. a lot of that was — of it is new, announced today. a lot of that was from auctions before the data centres that were announced and those _ data centres that were announced and those things that will come in, but overall— those things that will come in, but overall there is the package. what we have _ overall there is the package. what we have got to see now is the budget and because that package has been announced, that is why they are talking — announced, that is why they are talking about it now. but we have to see whether it will be good for the labour— see whether it will be good for the labour government in the long run. we recatt— labour government in the long run. we recall when you work for ed miliband when he was labour leader and he talked about the predators. did that come into your mind today? it did a bit but labour are desperate _ it did a bit but labour are desperate for— it did a bit but labour are desperate for growth - it did a bit but labour are desperate for growth and i it did a bit but labour are - desperate for growth and that is it did a bit but labour are _ desperate for growth and that is why they are _ desperate for growth and that is why they are chasing _ desperate for growth and that is why they are chasing this _ desperate for growth and that is why they are chasing this investment - desperate for growth and that is why they are chasing this investment and they are chasing this investment and the country— they are chasing this investment and the country needs _ they are chasing this investment and the country needs it, _ they are chasing this investment and the country needs it, we _

they are chasing this investment and the country needs it, we have - they are chasing this investment and the country needs it, we have had i the country needs it, we have had two low— the country needs it, we have had two low levels _ the country needs it, we have had two low levels of _ the country needs it, we have had two low levels of business - two low levels of business investment _ two low levels of business investment for— two low levels of business investment for the - two low levels of business investment for the last . two low levels of business investment for the last 13| two low levels of business l investment for the last 13 or two low levels of business - investment for the last 13 or 14 years — investment for the last 13 or 14 years but _ investment for the last 13 or 14 years. but what _ investment for the last 13 or 14 years. but what they— investment for the last 13 or 14 years. but what they are - investment for the last 13 or 14| years. but what they are finding when _ years. but what they are finding when you — years. but what they are finding when you are _ years. but what they are finding when you are in _ years. but what they are finding when you are in government - years. but what they are finding when you are in government is. years. but what they are finding i when you are in government is you have _ when you are in government is you have to _ when you are in government is you have to have — when you are in government is you have to have trade—offs. _ when you are in government is you have to have trade—offs. you - when you are in government is you have to have trade—offs. you mayl have to have trade—offs. you may find you _ have to have trade—offs. you may find you are — have to have trade—offs. you may find you are talking _ have to have trade—offs. you may find you are talking to _ have to have trade—offs. you may find you are talking to the - have to have trade—offs. you may find you are talking to the ownerl have to have trade—offs. you may. find you are talking to the owner of piano _ find you are talking to the owner of piano where — find you are talking to the owner of piano where there _ find you are talking to the owner of piano where there are _ find you are talking to the owner of piano where there are questions i piano where there are questions about— piano where there are questions about how— piano where there are questions about how they— piano where there are questions about how they treated - piano where there are questions i about how they treated employees piano where there are questions - about how they treated employees in the very— about how they treated employees in the very recent — about how they treated employees in the very recent past _ about how they treated employees in the very recent past in _ about how they treated employees in the very recent past in the _ about how they treated employees in the very recent past in the way - about how they treated employees in the very recent past in the way that l the very recent past in the way that both the _ the very recent past in the way that both the labour— the very recent past in the way that both the labour party _ the very recent past in the way that both the labour party and - the very recent past in the way that both the labour party and the - both the labour party and the conservatives _ both the labour party and the conservatives did _ both the labour party and the conservatives did not - both the labour party and the conservatives did not like. - both the labour party and the conservatives did not like. inl both the labour party and the l conservatives did not like. in a predatory _ conservatives did not like. in a predatory way? _ conservatives did not like. in a predatory way? i _ conservatives did not like. in a predatory way? i would - conservatives did not like. in a predatory way? i would say - conservatives did not like. in a predatory way? i would say it i conservatives did not like. in a - predatory way? i would say it was. but actually _ predatory way? i would say it was. but actually when _ predatory way? i would say it was. but actually when you _ predatory way? i would say it was. but actually when you look - predatory way? i would say it was. but actually when you look at - predatory way? i would say it was. but actually when you look at the l but actually when you look at the workers' — but actually when you look at the workers' rights _ but actually when you look at the workers' rights package, - but actually when you look at the workers' rights package, the - but actually when you look at the workers' rights package, the uk. but actually when you look at the l workers' rights package, the uk is far behind — workers' rights package, the uk is far behind on— workers' rights package, the uk is far behind on our— workers' rights package, the uk is far behind on our european- far behind on our european competitors _ far behind on our european competitors and _ far behind on our european competitors and the - far behind on our european competitors and the oecdi far behind on our european- competitors and the oecd average when _ competitors and the oecd average when it— competitors and the oecd average when it comes _ competitors and the oecd average when it comes to _ competitors and the oecd average when it comes to labour— competitors and the oecd average when it comes to labour market i when it comes to labour market protections _ when it comes to labour market protections in— when it comes to labour market protections. in germany- when it comes to labour market protections. in germany it - when it comes to labour market protections. in germany it has i when it comes to labour market. protections. in germany it has high levels _ protections. in germany it has high levels of— protections. in germany it has high levels of investment _ protections. in germany it has high levels of investment and _ protections. in germany it has high levels of investment and better - levels of investment and better employment _ levels of investment and better employment protections. - levels of investment and betteri employment protections. there levels of investment and better. employment protections. there is levels of investment and better - employment protections. there is no question— employment protections. there is no question that — employment protections. there is no question that we _ employment protections. there is no question that we could _ employment protections. there is no question that we could be _ employment protections. there is no question that we could be in - employment protections. there is no question that we could be in that - question that we could be in that place _ question that we could be in that place it— question that we could be in that place it is— question that we could be in that place it isjust_ question that we could be in that place. it isjust some _ question that we could be in that place. it isjust some of- question that we could be in that place. it isjust some of the - place. it isjust some of the challenges _ place. it isjust some of the challenges in _ place. it isjust some of the challenges in getting - place. it isjust some of the challenges in getting there | place. it isjust some of the - challenges in getting there when you are getting _ challenges in getting there when you are getting investment— challenges in getting there when you are getting investment from - challenges in getting there when you are getting investment from a - are getting investment from a company_ are getting investment from a company like _ are getting investment from a company like piano, - are getting investment from a company like piano, that- are getting investment from a company like piano, that willl are getting investment from a - company like piano, that will raise questions — company like piano, that will raise cuestions. ., , ., , questions. some of those questions i raised with the _ questions. some of those questions i raised with the trade _ questions. some of those questions i raised with the trade minister- questions. some of those questions i raised with the trade minister and .

raised with the trade minister and we will come back to you to have this conversation in a second. douglas alexander is the trade minister. i asked him about the accusation that regulators are blocking growth. no, the prime minister was quite clear, saying the old argument that said either you're in favour of regulation or you're against regulation simply doesn't make sense in today's world. what we're looking for is effective regulation. so, for example, if there are highly skilled workers that the uk economy needs, of course we should be looking for ways to facilitate them as part of the government's commitment to raising the trend rate of growth. on the other hand, we do need effective regulation, not no regulation, to make sure that the right kind of workers are able to work here in the uk. keir starmer said today that your workers' rights plan, announced last week, is pro—growth, but not according to the federation of small businesses, who've said dropping 28 new measures onto small business employers all at once leaves them scrambling to make sense of it all and beyond words, your plan lacks any real pro—growth element and will increase economic inactivity.

well, we're not going to satisfy everyone with every measure that we announce as a government. that's the federation of small businesses. they know what they're talking about. but let me be clear. we are absolutely committed to making sure, for example, in terms of consultation periods, the engagement we've had with the fsb and others, both to listen to business, they can't be every seat at the table, but they need to have a seat at the table. and at the same time, if you look at the way we've introduced the new deal for working people legislation, i think, a, we've consulted carefully. second, we have listened to business. so, for example, around the issue of probationary periods, they said, listen, we understand that you want to introduce rights on day one, but we do want a longer probationary period so that if someone doesn't work out in the workplace, we are able to exit them from the organisation. so in that sense, we have listened carefully to business. and, frankly, if you look at the 300 businesses that we had in the guildhall today, they don't want to compete on the basis of low skill, low wages, precarious work practices. they actually want to be high skill, high investment, high productivity businesses.

institute of directors says your plans will become, will make it more expensive and time consuming to recruit workers. the head of the employment lawyers association says he has no doubt it will mean extra costs for businesses. i mean, you can at least acknowledge that, if you add, you know, statutory, sick pay from the first day somebody is ill rather than the fourth day, paternity leave from day one, unpaid parental leave from day one, you've got to accept that will ask... if you're asking me to apologise for statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay, you've come to the wrong politician. i wasn't asking you that, i wasn't asking you that. the question, no, please. the question was, you've got to accept that will add cost to businesses. but i'm saying, what's our vision of the economy? sure, but if you could answer the question. if you let me answer the question, i'll do my best. go for it. we have a vision of the economy, which is high skill at high wages, high productivity... of course you do! let me finish the sentence. that's a vision of the economy, which is consistent with a high investment economy,

which is the theme of today's summit. some businesses would say, well, why are you investing in plant? why don't you just extract profit? now the reality is we've got a choice. we don't want to be a bargain basement economy with precarious workers, with poor rights. we want to be competing at the upper end of the labour market and at the upper end of the value chain. so of course, there's a different way to run the economy. but as a labour government, we genuinely believe we've struck the right balance between being pro—growth, pro—business and pro—worker. ok, so are you saying you don't accept these measures will add cost to businesses? we're saying they're the right measures for the country and are contributing to the kind of economy that will deliver higher... so if it add costs, that's fine, because it fits your vision. if you treat your workers properly and you give them statutory rights, we don't believe that actually impairs your long—term productivi... we don't believe?! they don't impair your productivity, but... we don't believe or they don't? well, if you look at the most successful businesses in the country, do they run precarious workforces and sack workers at will? no, they don't. they treat them well, they invest in them. they give them the skills and the productivity they need to add value in the future. so in that sense, look at the businesses around the table today.

many of them... they're huge businesses. i'm talking about small and medium sized but, yeah, fair enough, carry on. but i think as workers you've got the right to reasonable standards of employment, whether you're in a small business or a large business. one of the businesses there today was the australian bank macquarie, set to invest about £20 billion, i think, in various energy projects here in the uk. they used to run thames water. um, and their record on thames water was widely criticised. on their watch, debt almost doubled to £11 billion, while they took £879 million in dividends. they've just reversed their previous ban on investing in coal. earlier this year, they agreed to pay $70 million to us regulators after being accused of overvaluing some of their investments. are you ok with all that? what we need in the uk is the right regulatory framework so that any bank, be it macquarie or anybody else, adheres to the right laws. and in that sense, i was sitting next to steve reed, the defra secretary, the environment secretary, he's already getting down to work

in sorting out the regulatory mess and failure that we inherited in the water industry. right. apart from national security then, because i'm guessing that is a red line when it comes to investing in this country, would that be fair? of course we've got very strict... essentially, our approach is to say, promote what we can and protect what we must. so apart from national security, are there any other red lines for businesses and states around the world investing in the uk? in what sense do you mean red lines? give me examples of what you mean. well, as trade minister, you and the business secretary went to saudi arabia last month to drum up trade and investment here in the uk. as you know, the saudi state was responsible for the murder of the journalist jamal khashoggi, according to the special rapporteur, agnes callamard. are you ok with that? no, of course. and even at the time, although we weren't in government, the british government were very clear in their condemnation of that appalling act. and now, and now you're going there to drum up business for the uk, what you, what, the condemnation gets put to one side?

no, because as a government, we're a strong advocate for human rights and the rule of law internationally. and in that sense, we don't miss the opportunity when we're engaged in discussions of raising that point, whether with that government or indeed with other governments. i guess i'm asking, do you believe in an ethical trade policy? we believe in the case for advocating human rights to every country. we are a strong and powerful advocate, notjust for human rights, but we're also, we have a prime minister who's a human rights lawyer. so if you're asking me, do we believe in the rule of law internationally? absolutely. and one of the challenges, after what we saw under borisjohnson and the threat of international law breaking, is that we are once again an advocate for international human rights and indeed for the rule of law. we certainly are that. keir starmer didn't mention brexit once today. i think this kind of, are you mentioning this word or that word, the kind of gotcha, did you say this or that? he spoke very eloquently about the fact that the uk is back, and he talked eloquently about our partners and friends across 21 miles of the channel in the european union. so whether you mention

the word brexit... it's just such a huge thing when it comes to trade and investment, isn't it? i mean, you know that the outward investment, overseas investment in the uk flatlined after 2016. totally, 47% of our trade is with the european union. yeah, exactly. so what matters to me is not whether the prime minister mentions that word, but whether. .. ok, that was a way into the question. at blenheim palace or in berlin or in paris, has the prime minister made the case for a fundamental reset with our friends and colleagues in europe? and he has, and frankly... but it's not that fundamental, is it? ..matter more than the speech today. douglas alexander, thank you very much for talking to me tonight. thank you. paul scally, can the uk get all this growth without a serious renegotiation with the eu? i growth without a serious renegotiation with the eu? i think keir starmer _ renegotiation with the eu? i think keir starmer has _ renegotiation with the eu? i think keir starmer has made _ renegotiation with the eu? i think keir starmer has made his - renegotiation with the eu? i think keir starmer has made his views | keir starmer has made his views clear— keir starmer has made his views clear about — keir starmer has made his views clear about what he wants to do with the ell _ clear about what he wants to do with the ell yes. — clear about what he wants to do with the eu. yes, they can. ithink they can because — the eu. yes, they can. ithink they can because for me i supported

teavinq — can because for me i supported leaving the eu because of political control— leaving the eu because of political control more than anything else. but ithink— control more than anything else. but i think if— control more than anything else. but i think if you — control more than anything else. but i think if you continue to talk to the eu — i think if you continue to talk to the eu and _ i think if you continue to talk to the eu and you find ways that actually — the eu and you find ways that actually satisfies both the eu and the uk, _ actually satisfies both the eu and the uk, then you can have a mutual tradinq _ the uk, then you can have a mutual trading operation. but don't forget there _ trading operation. but don't forget there is— trading operation. but don't forget there is so— trading operation. but don't forget there is so much for other countries in opportunity as well, especially in opportunity as well, especially in labour — in opportunity as well, especially in labour. , , , in opportunity as well, especially in labour. ,, , ., ., �* in labour. the issue is labour don't want to reopen _ in labour. the issue is labour don't want to reopen this _ in labour. the issue is labour don't want to reopen this issue - in labour. the issue is labour don't want to reopen this issue of - in labour. the issue is labour don't| want to reopen this issue of brexit, as we _ want to reopen this issue of brexit, as we saw— want to reopen this issue of brexit, as we saw in— want to reopen this issue of brexit, as we saw in that _ want to reopen this issue of brexit, as we saw in that interview. - want to reopen this issue of brexit, as we saw in that interview. where| as we saw in that interview. where we are _ as we saw in that interview. where we are as — as we saw in that interview. where we are as a — as we saw in that interview. where we are as a country— as we saw in that interview. where we are as a country with _ as we saw in that interview. where we are as a country with sluggish l we are as a country with sluggish growth _ we are as a country with sluggish growth and — we are as a country with sluggish growth and productivity - we are as a country with sluggish growth and productivity issues, l we are as a country with sluggish . growth and productivity issues, one of the _ growth and productivity issues, one of the first— growth and productivity issues, one of the first things _ growth and productivity issues, one of the first things you _ growth and productivity issues, one of the first things you would - growth and productivity issues, one of the first things you would like . of the first things you would like to do— of the first things you would like to do is— of the first things you would like to do is what— of the first things you would like to do is what you _ of the first things you would like to do is what you can _ of the first things you would like to do is what you can do - of the first things you would like to do is what you can do to - of the first things you would like l to do is what you can do to reduce barriers _ to do is what you can do to reduce barriers to— to do is what you can do to reduce barriers to trade _ to do is what you can do to reduce barriers to trade with _ to do is what you can do to reduce barriers to trade with your- to do is what you can do to reduce barriers to trade with your nearest tradinq _ barriers to trade with your nearest tradinq bloc — barriers to trade with your nearest trading bloc. unfortunately- barriers to trade with your nearest trading bloc. unfortunately in - barriers to trade with your nearest trading bloc. unfortunately in the i trading bloc. unfortunately in the last seven — trading bloc. unfortunately in the last seven or— trading bloc. unfortunately in the last seven or so _ trading bloc. unfortunately in the last seven or so years _ trading bloc. unfortunately in the last seven or so years the - trading bloc. unfortunately in the last seven or so years the uk - trading bloc. unfortunately in the last seven or so years the uk hasj last seven or so years the uk has put up _ last seven or so years the uk has put up those _ last seven or so years the uk has put up those trading _ last seven or so years the uk has put up those trading barriers - last seven or so years the uk has put up those trading barriers and | last seven or so years the uk has i put up those trading barriers and it is bonkers— put up those trading barriers and it is bonkers when _ put up those trading barriers and it is bonkers when you _ put up those trading barriers and it is bonkers when you look - put up those trading barriers and it is bonkers when you look at - put up those trading barriers and it is bonkers when you look at what i put up those trading barriers and it. is bonkers when you look at what has been going _ is bonkers when you look at what has been going on— is bonkers when you look at what has been going on with _ is bonkers when you look at what has been going on with our— is bonkers when you look at what has been going on with our economy. - been going on with our economy. labour— been going on with our economy. labour don't _ been going on with our economy. labour don't want _ been going on with our economy. labour don't want to _ been going on with our economy. labour don't want to go - been going on with our economy. labour don't want to go there. i labour don't want to go there. obviously. _ labour don't want to go there. obviously, there _ labour don't want to go there. obviously, there are _ labour don't want to go there. obviously, there are other- labour don't want to go there. i obviously, there are other things you can _ obviously, there are other things you can do — obviously, there are other things you can do to— obviously, there are other things you can do to try— obviously, there are other things you can do to try and _ obviously, there are other things you can do to try and produce - you can do to try and produce qrowth — you can do to try and produce growth it— you can do to try and produce

growth it is— you can do to try and produce growth. it is difficult- you can do to try and produce growth. it is difficult becausej you can do to try and produce i growth. it is difficult because it is not _ growth. it is difficult because it is not like _ growth. it is difficult because it is not like we _ growth. it is difficult because it is not like we can— growth. it is difficult because it is not like we can go— growth. it is difficult because it is not like we can go knocking i growth. it is difficult because it. is not like we can go knocking on the eu's— is not like we can go knocking on the his door— is not like we can go knocking on the eu's door and _ is not like we can go knocking on the eu's door and rejoined - is not like we can go knocking on the eu's door and rejoined the i the eu's door and rejoined the single — the eu's door and rejoined the single market _ the eu's door and rejoined the single market and _ the eu's door and rejoined the single market and the - the eu's door and rejoined thel single market and the customs the eu's door and rejoined the - single market and the customs union tomorrow. _ single market and the customs union tomorrow. that— single market and the customs union tomorrow, that would _ single market and the customs union tomorrow, that would be _ single market and the customs union tomorrow, that would be difficult- tomorrow, that would be difficult probably— tomorrow, that would be difficult probably politically _ tomorrow, that would be difficult probably politically but _ tomorrow, that would be difficult probably politically but from - tomorrow, that would be difficult probably politically but from a i probably politically but from a substantive _ probably politically but from a substantive effective. - probably politically but from a substantive effective. the - probably politically but from a substantive effective. the eui probably politically but from a i substantive effective. the eu has moved _ substantive effective. the eu has moved on — substantive effective. the eu has moved on since _ substantive effective. the eu has moved on since brexit. _ substantive effective. the eu has moved on since brexit. but - substantive effective. the eu has moved on since brexit. but we i substantive effective. the eu has. moved on since brexit. but we can't .et moved on since brexit. but we can't get away— moved on since brexit. but we can't get away from — moved on since brexit. but we can't get away from the _ moved on since brexit. but we can't get away from the fact _ moved on since brexit. but we can't get away from the fact that - moved on since brexit. but we can't get away from the fact that leavingl get away from the fact that leaving the eu _ get away from the fact that leaving the eu had — get away from the fact that leaving the eu had a — get away from the fact that leaving the eu had a big _ get away from the fact that leaving the eu had a big impact— get away from the fact that leaving the eu had a big impact on- get away from the fact that leaving the eu had a big impact on trade . get away from the fact that leaving . the eu had a big impact on trade and therefore _ the eu had a big impact on trade and therefore on — the eu had a big impact on trade and therefore on gdp. _ the eu had a big impact on trade and therefore on gdp. infe— the eu had a big impact on trade and therefore on gdp.— therefore on gdp. we have had slu: cish therefore on gdp. we have had sluggish growth _ therefore on gdp. we have had sluggish growth for— therefore on gdp. we have had sluggish growth for about - therefore on gdp. we have had sluggish growth for about 20 i therefore on gdp. we have had - sluggish growth for about 20 years. there _ sluggish growth for about 20 years. there have — sluggish growth for about 20 years. there have been dips as well. but ou can't there have been dips as well. but you can't have... when _ there have been dips as well. but you can't have... when we - there have been dips as well. but you can't have... when we had i there have been dips as well. but i you can't have... when we had that hiatus previously. _ you can't have... when we had that hiatus previously. you _ you can't have... when we had that hiatus previously. you cannot - you can't have... when we had that hiatus previously. you cannot deny| hiatus previously. you cannot deny that putting _ hiatus previously. you cannot deny that putting op _ hiatus previously. you cannot deny that putting up trading _ hiatus previously. you cannot deny that putting up trading barriers - that putting up trading barriers with your— that putting up trading barriers with your closest _ that putting up trading barriers with your closest neighbour - that putting up trading barriers with your closest neighbour isi that putting up trading barriers i with your closest neighbour is not that putting up trading barriers - with your closest neighbour is not a huge _ with your closest neighbour is not a huge economic— with your closest neighbour is not a huge economic positive. _ with your closest neighbour is not a huge economic positive. eatery- with your closest neighbour is not a huge economic positive. every fiscal forecast by the _ huge economic positive. every fiscal forecast by the office _ huge economic positive. every fiscal forecast by the office of— huge economic positive. every fiscal forecast by the office of business . forecast by the office of business responsibility has talked about how it is a 4% hit to gdp. it is responsibility has talked about how it is a 4% hit to gdp.— it is a 4% hit to gdp. it is a two-way — it is a 4% hit to gdp. it is a two-way hit _ it is a 496 hit to gdp. it is a two-way hit so _ it is a 496 hit to gdp. it is a two-way hit so that - it is a 496 hit to gdp. it is a two-way hit so that is - it is a 496 hit to gdp. it is a two-way hit so that is why| it is a 496 hit to gdp. it is a i two-way hit so that is why we it is a 496 hit to gdp. it is a - two-way hit so that is why we need a two—way hit so that is why we need a mature _ two—way hit so that is why we need a mature relationship with the eu, but we also _ mature relationship with the eu, but we also must look at the asian countries — we also must look at the asian countries and india and china. what

is interesting _ countries and india and china. what is interesting about _ countries and india and china. twist is interesting about that mature relationship, talking to eu diplomats, they say it is lovely that keir starmer is smiling, that is lovely, but they all say what do you want in the uk? keir starmer says i would like a veterinary agreement which will reduce eu checks. they say, that is marvellous. what do we get in return for it? you are chair of four businesses, can use it earlier?— can use it earlier? yes, to start-ops _ can use it earlier? yes, to start-ups and _ can use it earlier? yes, to start-ups and small - can use it earlier? yes, to - start-ups and small companies that start—ups and small companies that are disrupting the industry. fine. do think there's _ are disrupting the industry. fine. do think there's a _ are disrupting the industry. fine. do think there's a trade-off - are disrupting the industry. f he: do think there's a trade—off between the workers' rights and having a higher sustained growth in the g7 which is what the labour goal is? what we have to be really careful about _ what we have to be really careful about is — what we have to be really careful about is putting too much onus on small— about is putting too much onus on small businesses which are not as able to— small businesses which are not as able to cope as bigger businesses with big _ able to cope as bigger businesses with big hr departments, they can respond _ with big hr departments, they can respond to some of the regulation coming _ respond to some of the regulation coming in. — respond to some of the regulation coming in, because the power ultimately, today was all about investment, welcome as it is, for

bil investment, welcome as it is, for big companies that... but the growth comes— big companies that... but the growth comes from — big companies that... but the growth comes from small businesses scaling up comes from small businesses scaling up and _ comes from small businesses scaling up and that's 1418 00:17:05,013 --> 00:17