Alison Griffiths MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 9 Sept 2026 · Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a positive debate. I reiterate the call of the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for the Government to make a statement on the third catastrophic systems failure of NATS. It is simply not good enough that the Secretary of State has come to the House only for Second Reading, and not to take questions from hon. Members. I am also deeply concerned to hear that she thinks six months is an acceptable time to take to report on this subject. The Opposition’s ambition is to foster the conditions for a safe, competitive and world-leading aviation industry, which appears to be an uncontroversial aim. However, as was highlighted by the shadow Secretary of State, while this is an important administrative Bill, the soaring ambition the sector deserves is sadly missing. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions today. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) provided significant support for Lord Young’s amendment in the Lords, but I particularly enjoyed hearing about his British standard suitcase. The wider consensus has related to airport drop-off charges, and we have heard Members from right across the House endorse a review and keeping clause 7 in the Bill. The Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), and the hon. Members for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) all mentioned that subject—and spoke at length, in some cases. I endorse their thoughts on the issue. The Opposition believe in the world-leading potential of our aviation sector. We want to encourage the enterprise, innovation and competition that will help it to thrive. However, on the searing cost to consumers of drop-off charges at airports, we urge the Government to keep clause 7 in the Bill. The Government’s surface access strategies and targets incentivise such charges while penalising drivers. Airports openly use them to discourage people from travelling to the airport by car. At Gatwick, an airport heavily used by my constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, it now costs £10 for 10 minutes—that is £1 a minute to drop off a loved one. This cost is felt disproportionately by disabled and elderly passengers and others with limited mobility. For them, using public transport to get to the airport may not be an option. The Opposition welcome the fact that the Bill will provide greater protections for disabled passengers at the airport, yet it must not make it more expensive for them to get there. The Government must address that contradiction, and they should accept clause 7. Yesterday we saw the limits of the consumer protections put in place by the Bill: a national air traffic control systems failure that has resulted in 900 flights—so far—being disrupted. The knock-on disruptions are likely to last for days. In the Lords, the Government voted down Lord Young’s amendment, which would have mandated a scheme to reimburse airlines and passengers for failures outside their control. The Government assured peers that a reimbursement scheme was unnecessary, yet now airlines and passengers will be forced to pick up the tab for cancellations over which they have no control. Is that fair? I want to close by expressing my thanks to Conservative and Lib Dem colleagues in the other place, led by Lord Moylan. After their hard work, the Bill now delivers the necessary continuity of regulation that keeps our aviation industry safe, following our departure from the European Union, and it enhances the safeguards around travel arrangements for disabled passengers. Despite the concerns that we have outlined, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will support the Bill’s progress through the House, together with its aims of driving economic growth, strengthening aviation security and enhancing consumer protections.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  We are 26 months in, and the Secretary of State has already admitted that the real cost that the Government have not assessed are the costs of the lost programmes, projects and services that have not been delivered in West Sussex and Arun because the bandwidth, headspace and resources have been devoted to LGR. Can she tell me, first, what has been the financial cost—nationally, in West Sussex and in Arun—of this so far failed experiment with LGR? Secondly, how many months can the district councillors elected in 2027 expect to serve?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents will have been pleased to hear from Sir Jon Cunliffe, who produced 88 recommendations last July. However, his diagnosis is rather different from that of the Prime Minister. He believes that governance and regulation are the key to better performance, rather than some ill-defined version of “better public control”, which, according to the Government’s own assessment, would cost more than £100 billion. Will the Prime Minister promise to enact all 88 of those recommendations without delay?

• 1 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation: Cambridgeshire · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend just mentioned West Sussex, which has also seen the deferral of any decision and a request for a third option despite the fact that the democratically elected councils had offered up two of their own proposals. We are still waiting for a decision and the way forward is still unclear. Does he agree that in both Cambridgeshire and West Sussex, this Government’s inaction and indecision are causing real harm to our constituents because all our council officers are taking so long to deliver this?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House will know that I hold him in great respect, but over the two years for which I have been in this place, I have seen a pattern of behaviour in the final week before the recess—business is announced at the very last second, particularly when it concerns local government reorganisation—and we are seeing an increase in that behaviour in relation to this important issue. The Leader of the House is being disingenuous. He is suggesting that this is a binary issue: that either we ask the new Prime Minister, as of Monday, to come to the House one extra day late, or we discuss Iran. I think that that is an insult to my constituents, and I ask once again that the Leader of the House reconsider his position.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Maritime and Coastguard Agency · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, I met Paul Greenwood of the Selsey coastguard, one of a team of CROs who cover my constituency. The Court ruled that coastguards can be workers when paid for duties; it did not order Ministers to scrap payments. Can the Minister tell me what lawful alternatives were considered, why the impact assessment has still not been published and whether he will publish the MCA survey? Will he pause September’s change while considering an approach that will not risk gaps in emergency cover when people in coastal communities such as mine dial 999?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Local businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tell me that they are not recruiting due to the additional cost and uncertainty created by the Employment Rights Act 2025. Has the Secretary of State assessed the impact of Government policy? Employment rights count for little if people cannot get a job in the first place.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. My constituent, Joanna, has worked tirelessly to highlight the lack of a dedicated selective mutism pathway in West Sussex. Children are being left without the support they need, so will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that this gap in provision is finally addressed?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Human Rights: Supply Chains · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd, and I join other Members in thanking you for chairing this debate. Also, if your Wikipedia page is correct, may I be the first to wish you a very happy birthday for Saturday? I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate and to Members from across the House for the thoughtful and serious way they have approached it. The hon. Gentleman really brought to life the way that globally sourced products are infiltrating every part of our daily lives, and I thank him for that. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for sharing the benefit of his many years working on this issue. I thank the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) and for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West); they all brought different perspectives, for which I am grateful. There have been differences in opinion this afternoon about the causes of the problem, the strength of the enforcement required and the precise tools the Government should use, but there should be no disagreement on one central point: goods produced through forced labour, modern slavery or serious human rights abuses have no place in UK supply chains. The question is whether the Government are prepared to deliver serious enforcement, potentially with the support of new technologies and businesses such as Oritain; or whether they will simply pile fresh cost and complexity on to responsible British businesses while the worst offenders continue to evade accountability. The Joint Committee on Human Rights was right to highlight the fact that goods produced wholly or partly through forced labour are being sold in this country. It is also correct that the current framework has not been enforced strongly or consistently enough to stop that happening. The overwhelming majority of firms—responsible retailers, manufacturers, importers and investors—want to do the right thing. They invest time, money and effort into understanding their supply chains and meeting their responsibilities. They should not find themselves being undercut and placed at a competitive disadvantage by organisations willing to look the other way, nor should they be buried under layers of poorly designed and duplicative new obligations, which create cost and complexity without improving outcomes or catching the individuals who break the law. The Modern Slavery Act, which was introduced by Baroness May of Maidenhead when she was Home Secretary, was a landmark piece of legislation and placed the issue of modern slavery firmly on the national agenda. It was also Conservative Governments that imposed sanctions on those responsible for the persecution of Uyghurs, strengthened export controls, and introduced tougher penalties for businesses that fail to meet their obligations. Those achievements should not be diminished, but equally we should not pretend that enforcement cannot be strengthened. We support enforcing the laws that we already have. The first test for the Minister is whether she is prepared to make the existing framework bite on the bad actors. The task for the Government is to strike the right balance between being strong where enforcement is needed, being clear where expectations must be met, being proportionate where businesses are already acting responsibly, and being practical enough to work in the real world. Public procurement—I include in that Great British Energy, which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green—has an important role to play in this effort. Government must lead the way. Taxpayers rightly expect that public money is not rewarding forced labour, serious exploitation or suppliers whose conduct falls far below the legally prescribed standards. The challenge is making that principle work in practice, with rules that are clear, usable and targeted at those who break them. The risks exist across apparel, food and manufacturing, and they exist in sectors that are becoming increasingly important to our future economic and national security. Global supply chains were once viewed mainly through the lens of cost and efficiency; the assumption was that they would deliver cheaper goods and greater prosperity. We now understand that they can also create strategic vulnerabilities when too much control is concentrated in too few hands. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has been particularly persistent in drawing attention to concerns around Xinjiang, polysilicon and critical minerals. He is right to do so. Growth and trade must never come at the price of our values, and pursuit of warmer relations with Beijing must not mean going soft on human rights or turning a blind eye to slave-made goods entering our market. If our standards apply only when the politics are convenient for them to apply, then they are not really standards at all. The framework must address risk wherever it appears, it must apply consistently, it must be based on evidence, and it must be enforced fairly. The Minister has heard the points raised in this debate and no doubt she will address them directly. After the Government’s jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act and a surge of new regulation, businesses are entitled to ask whether labour supply chain plans will be properly thought through and will address their actual needs. I have some straightforward questions for the Minister. When will the Government’s review of responsible business conduct conclude? What steps does she intend to take to strengthen enforcement? How will she improve traceability in high-risk and newly emerging sectors? How will she protect legitimate businesses from unnecessary burdens while ensuring that bad actors and the worst offenders face meaningful consequences? What lessons has she drawn from allies, including the United States, the European Union and others, about what works in practice? How will she ensure that the United Kingdom remains a leader, rather than a follower, in confronting modern slavery and forced labour? Warm words, statements and reviews on their own will not solve this problem. The Modern Slavery Act was a significant Conservative achievement, and we are rightly proud of it. The challenge now is to ensure it is enforced as seriously, practically and effectively as possible. That is the standard that Parliament should expect, and it is the standard against which we will judge the Government’s response.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a powerful point about trust and promises being made but not delivered. Twenty years ago, Littlehampton hospital in my constituency closed, with the promise that a replacement health service would follow. In Rustington, there has been a lack of consultation and the hospital has closed; we are hoping it will reopen. Does the hon. Lady agree that consultation, trust and following through on promises are so important?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on securing this vital debate. I also commend the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) for sharing her experiences in a community hospital setting, which were really interesting to hear. When I think about community hospitals, I think about trust. I think about the residents in my constituency who lost Littlehampton hospital more than 20 years ago. They were told it would be rebuilt. They were told not to worry. Yet to this day, many local people, like my constituent Sandra, still talk about what was taken away from them. The site is still cordoned off, unused. When local NHS leaders ask my constituents to trust them today, they are speaking to people who have heard those reassurances before, only to see valued community hospitals taken away from them. That brings me to Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington. For many of my constituents across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and our villages, Zachary Merton is not simply a building: it is somewhere they received treatment, welcomed children into the world and visited loved ones receiving palliative care. It is somewhere that provided those services close to home when they were needed most. The decision to permanently close in-patient services and remove beds at this much loved community hospital has caused enormous concern. Residents packed a public meeting that I organised last month. Hundreds more have signed petitions, written to me and contacted my office. They are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a voice. West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has already determined that closing Zachary Merton was a “significant variation” in service provision. That is vital because Parliament has established a statutory process for a reason. Residents trust those of us who sit in this place to ensure that those processes are followed. We are not talking about moving a cupboard from one room to another; we are talking about the permanent loss of healthcare services. What on earth is the point of Parliament setting rules around consultation if local NHS leaders can simply decide that they do not apply? What is the point of local authority scrutiny committees examining those decisions if their conclusions can be brushed aside? What is the point of telling residents that they have a right to be heard if services can be removed from them before they are ever given that opportunity? That is what my constituents simply cannot understand. Frankly, neither can I. I have formally asked the Secretary of State to call in the decision to close Zachary Merton hospital. I raised it again at Health questions only last week, and I will continue pressing until my constituents get the answers, consultation and respect they deserve. My constituents have heard this story before. They were told that Littlehampton hospital would close temporarily, but temporary became permanent, and 25 years later people still talk about the services that were lost. So when residents are told not to worry about Zachary Merton, can Ministers really be surprised that they are sceptical? Community hospitals should be part of the future NHS, and they should help keep care close to home. They support rehabilitation and reduce pressure on acute hospitals. Most importantly, they give people confidence that local healthcare services will still be there when they need them. They must not become easier places from which to remove services. My constituents have already seen one community hospital disappear. Their trust must not be taken for granted again, either by local NHS decision makers or by this Government. They are determined not to see history repeat itself, and so am I.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  As this is a debate on dentistry in West Sussex, I invite the Minister to share the numbers that relate specifically to West Sussex rather than to the country.

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  In Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and in significant parts of Chichester, we have coastal areas. In our manifesto, the Conservative party pledged golden handshakes to attract dentists to coastal constituencies, because we know that is one of the issues. Could you tell please me what specific proposals you have to attract dentists to coastal constituencies?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Access to Dental Services: West Sussex · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), my constituency neighbour, on securing this very important debate. Access to NHS dentistry is one of the issues that my constituents raise with me most often, and when they do, they are not talking about contract reform, commissioning arrangements or NHS structures. They are talking about pain, cost, worry and ringing practice after practice but still not being able to get an appointment. Anthony in Littlehampton contacted me after being told that he needed a crown. He is on personal independence payment and employment and support allowance. The treatment that he needs would cost hundreds of pounds. His question was simple: how is he meant to afford that? Clare in Bognor Regis did everything that patients are told to do. She remained with her NHS dentist and kept up with her appointments. Yet she was then told that NHS provision at her practice was being reduced and that she would be placed on a waiting list. Jill in Middleton-on-Sea is a pensioner who has spent years trying to navigate a system in which practices close, go private or stop taking NHS patients altogether. She is still trying to find care that she can afford. Those are not isolated cases. They show what happens when NHS dentistry becomes too difficult to access. People wait, put treatment off and make compromises that they should not have to make, and then routine problems become urgent ones. We too often talk about dental care as though it sits separately from the rest of the NHS. It does not. Poor oral health affects confidence, nutrition, wellbeing and wider health outcomes, including in respect of heart disease and septicaemia. One constituent who contacted me, Andrew from Bognor Regis, was undergoing treatment for two separate cancers. Through no fault of his own, regular dental appointments had—understandably—fallen by the wayside while he focused on fighting those illnesses. When he later tried to access NHS dental care again, he found himself in effect locked out of the system—abandoned at precisely the moment he needed support the most. What struck me was not simply his concern about finding dental care, but the wider impact that poor access can have on a patient’s healthcare journey. A patient battling cancer should not also be worrying about whether they can access a dentist. However, there has been some local progress and I would like to recognise it. In Bognor Regis, mydentist is now delivering additional NHS dental activity and offering about 56 urgent appointments each week. That matters. Urgent appointments help people to get treatment when they need it the most, and stop problems becoming even more serious. The local ICB has also confirmed that new NHS dental contracts have been awarded for both Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, with services expected to open next year. That is welcome. But let us be honest: we are not where we need to be. My constituents should not have to become dental detectives simply to find treatment. They should not have to wait until pain becomes an emergency before the system responds. Urgent care is important, but must not become a substitute for routine access. We also need to get much more serious about prevention. That starts with children. It starts in the early years with good habits, education and helping families to understand the importance of looking after their oral health. Prevention is better for patients, and it is also better for taxpayers. Finally, we need to make every appointment count. I recently met Katie Cook, the practice manager at the new mydentist in Bognor Regis, and she told me that around 5% of appointments each week are lost because patients simply do not attend. This is not about blaming people—life happens—but a cancelled appointment can often be reused; a missed appointment cannot. When so many residents are desperate to be seen, that lost time matters. The national dental contract still needs reform, access needs to improve and patients need clearer routes to care when they cannot find an NHS dentist. I will finish by asking the Minister three questions. First, what further steps will the Government take to improve access to routine NHS dentistry so that people are not forced to wait until a problem becomes an emergency before they can be seen? Secondly, what more can be done to support prevention, particularly among children and young people, so that we stop problems from developing in the first place? Thirdly, what assurances can the Minister give that areas such as West Sussex will receive the additional capacity needed to bring down waiting lists and improve access to NHS appointments? My constituents do not expect miracles—they understand the pressures facing the NHS—but they do expect to be able to see a dentist when they need one. They expect a system that prevents problems rather than simply responding to crises, and they expect access to NHS dentistry to be determined by need, not by whether they can afford to go private. That is the standard my constituents deserve, and it is the standard they expect this Government to deliver.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this incredibly important debate, and I thank the Petitions Committee for scheduling it today. I represent the communities of Rustington and East Preston, often described as the state pension capital of Britain. For them and for thousands of others across my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency, this debate is not about Treasury spreadsheets or tax theory, but about their day-to-day finances and whether they feel the system is treating them fairly. They have worked hard and paid in throughout their life and are now looking at a situation in which the state pension continues to rise while tax thresholds remain frozen. They are asking a simple question: why are more and more pensioners being drawn into paying tax? It is important to be clear about what sits behind that concern. The issue is not that pensioners have suddenly become wealthier; it is that frozen tax thresholds mean that the tax system reaches further into people’s incomes each year. That is why people feel so frustrated. They see their state pension increase on paper, only to find more of it being taken by the taxman. It affects more than pensioners—workers, families and businesses are feeling the effects of frozen thresholds, too, and across the country more people are paying more tax despite no change in the headline rates—but pensioners often feel it particularly acutely because many are living on fixed incomes and have less flexibility to absorb the additional costs. The Government regularly tell people that they have not increased income tax rates. However, pensioners, who are a savvy bunch, can see exactly what is happening. They do not need a Treasury briefing to understand where more of their income is being taxed each year. The Chancellor chose to extend the freeze in the personal allowance until 2031. That was a political choice. It means that more pensioners will continue to be drawn into the tax system year after year. Ministers cannot make that decision and then act surprised when pensioners ask questions about fairness. What concerns me most is the uncertainty. Last year’s Budget included an announcement that pensioners whose sole income is the state pension should not have to deal with small tax bills through the simple assessment process from 2027. Yet my constituents still do not know who will qualify, how the system will work, when the details will finally be published or how pensioners will be protected from unexpected tax demands. Those are reasonable questions, and people deserve answers. There is also a broader principle at stake. At the previous general election, the Conservatives set out a different approach: we argued that the tax-free allowance for pensioners should keep pace with the state pension, so that people could benefit from rises in the state pension without constantly worrying that frozen thresholds would erode those gains. Whether or not Members agree with that approach, at least it sought to address the underlying problem. The Government’s approach so far has been to extend the freeze, promise further details at some future point and ask pensioners to wait. My constituents deserve better. In Rustington, in East Preston and across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, pensioners want clarity, fairness and above all a Government who recognise the contribution that they have made throughout their working life. I am not here to write the Budget from Westminster Hall, but I am here to say very clearly that pensioners in my constituency should not find themselves paying more and more tax simply because thresholds remain frozen year after year. I hope that the Minister will provide some answers today.

• 15 Jun 2026 · State Pensioners: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to hear about the increase in pensions. The Minister can tell us what they increased by, but can he perhaps tell us what they were reduced by with the taxation that they were then dragged into?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Oil and Gas Sector: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  4. What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on levels of employment in the oil and gas sector in Scotland.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Oil and Gas Sector: Employment · Hansard source

  More

  Many businesses in my Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency depend on contracts linked to the North sea energy sector. With this Labour Government driving disinvestment and deindustrialisation, skilled workers are fleeing the industry. Every Member in this House will have constituents whose employment relies on this wider supply chain. Does the Secretary of State understand the chilling effect that his Government’s policies are having on business confidence and investment in this vital industry?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Thousands of people in West Sussex are unable to access an NHS dentist and many constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton tell me that they have been unable to secure an appointment for years. What specific steps is the Secretary of State taking to increase NHS dental capacity in coastal communities, and when does he expect patients to see a measurable improvement?

• 9 Jun 2026 · Health Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  West Sussex county council’s health and adult social care scrutiny committee has concluded that the closure of Zachary Merton hospital in Rustington “constituted a significant variation” in services. Given the statutory requirements for consultation—promised, but never delivered—when can residents expect a decision on my call-in request?

• 20 May 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q8. At 19, I was in a coma after contracting bacterial meningitis. I lost 70% of my hearing and needed open-heart surgery. The menB vaccine has saved lives since its introduction in 2015 for infants, but there remains a gap for the high-risk adolescents who were not vaccinated under the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation guidance. Following the devastating outbreaks within this cohort in Reading, Canterbury and Weymouth, the JCVI is finally reviewing the evidence base. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government’s next steps will be and when they will happen? Will he make tackling meningitis a priority for his new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and arrange a meeting with Meningitis Now and me?

• 19 May 2026 · Energy Security · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton need stable and affordable energy to grow and invest, so does my right hon. Friend agree that our “get Britain drilling” Bill is vital not just for energy security but for our future economic security?

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday, I opened the new Premier Inn in my constituency—a project that was passed under the last Conservative Government—but many businesses in my constituency are failing because of increased costs and regulation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an absolute travesty for our country?

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  Businesses in my constituency are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a Government who stop making it harder to employ people, harder to grow and harder to invest. Right now, too many feel that Labour is taking the country in the wrong direction. Through my business club and regular conversations with employers across Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I keep hearing the same thing: costs are rising, confidence is falling and businesses are becoming more cautious about taking people on. In a coastal constituency, that really matters. Our local economy depends on innovation powered by fantastic small and medium-sized enterprises and on the entrepreneurs who pour everything into growing them. These are not massive corporations with endless room to absorb new costs. They are businesses working hard to keep people employed, keep high streets going and keep our communities alive outside the summer season. James and Marcus Fenton, who run Meridian Medical in Littlehampton, employ around 130 people locally in skilled manufacturing jobs. It is a family-run business and a living wage employer. It should be exactly the kind of business the Government are backing. Meridian is a British success story, exporting highly specialised medical devices around the world, but it is now becoming one of the businesses that tells me the UK is becoming a harder place in which to invest and grow. I also heard recently from Mark and Liz Warom, the founders of TEMPLESPA, a science-led, Mediterranean-inspired premium skincare brand run by my constituents, whose products I highly recommend. Their clear view is that firms are becoming “more cautious on hiring and investment due to rising costs.” They are worried about rising employment costs, higher borrowing costs, growing compliance burdens and energy prices that remain far too high. That is the real-word impact of the Government’s decisions. When businesses stop hiring, young people pay the price first. The first job in a café, the apprenticeship, or the hospitality role in a pub or hotel all give young people the chance to get on the ladder and earn their own money. The Government talk constantly about growth, but businesses in constituencies such as mine are asking a very simple question: when will this Government stop making growth harder? If we really want to get Britain working again, we need to start backing the businesses that actually create the jobs.

• 14 May 2026 · Getting Britain Working Again · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Secretary of State give way?