Alison Griffiths MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is still not being clear with us about exactly why he objects to broadening the scope of the Bill to include the valuable jurisdictions that I mentioned. Instead, he is constraining the Bill to being about only the EU.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my right hon. Friend that this is a very serious moment. It might appear to be just a line in a Bill, but it could have far-reaching consequences that are far greater than Government Members are considering at the moment. Parliament must debate and decide such grave matters, not rubber-stamp them after the fact. Taken together, our amendments champion a pro-business climate. Effective regulation should not mean endless state interference. We can secure compliance in smarter, targeted ways by information sharing and using civil sanctions for minor breaches, rather than unleashing these unbridled powers. I urge Ministers to accept amendment 26 or, at least, to provide iron-clad assurances for the record.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talks about impact assessments and so on, but does not the framing of the Bill mean that the current Government and any future Government can ignore any impact assessments and carry on regardless? There is no parliamentary scrutiny and there are no meaningful safeguards.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 3 and Opposition amendments 23 to 25. Clause 3 deals with the enforcement of product regulations, but as it stands, it embodies a vast Executive overreach that undermines accountability and business confidence. The Opposition believe in clear and limited rules, not vague powers that spook entrepreneurs. Our amendments would inject much-needed clarity and proportionality into clause 3. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire set out, amendment 23 presses for a definition of the so-called “relevant authority”. The Bill hands out new regulatory powers without even specifying who will wield them. Is it to be the Secretary of State, local trading standards officers, a new quango or devolved Administrations? Nobody knows. Businesses deserve to know who might come knocking at their door to enforce these rules. We need clarity about which authority is in charge, so that there is accountability instead of a free-for-all. Secondly, amendment 24 highlights the Bill’s vague enforcement functions. Clause 3 would empower unnamed authorities to monitor, investigate and secure compliance with wide-ranging product regulations, but it sets no clear limits or guidance. That open-ended mandate could invite over-zealous enforcement. We all support product safety, but regulators must not have a blank cheque to harass businesses. The functions and scope of enforcement need to be defined with precision and targeted at genuinely dangerous non-compliance, not wielded arbitrarily. Trustworthy business owners should not lie awake at night worrying that some inspector will suddenly decide to make an example of them for a minor technical breach. Thirdly, amendment 25 addresses the sweeping powers of inspectors. As drafted, the Bill will even allow inspectors to enter homes and seize products on the say-so of a Minister’s regulation. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) warned in a previous debate that a future Minister, on a whim, could create legions of inspectors with the rights to barge into people’s homes or businesses and to confiscate property. We must ensure that enforcement powers are proportionate to actual risks, and that innocent consumers and traders are protected from unreasonable intrusion.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We share the hon. Member’s view that we should all be ambitious for the United Kingdom. There is no ideology on our side. We are simply seeking a global perspective rather than a constrained perspective.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I ask the Minister to speak slightly slower; I am partially deaf and am really struggling to hear him. I am grateful for his forbearance.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 26 relates to the alarming creation of new criminal offences in clause 3, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already set out. Clause 3(9) to (11) would let Ministers create or widen criminal offences and penalties by regulation, bypassing full parliamentary scrutiny. As my hon. Friend has set out, this is an absolute travesty, and it is extraordinary to believe that Government Members will support it. The clause is an affront to the principle that criminal law is made by the people’s elected representatives in primary legislation, not by Ministers slipping provisions through the regulatory back door. Even the House of Lords Constitution Committee has fiercely criticised the approach, reiterating that using delegated powers to create crimes is “constitutionally unacceptable”. It urges that these subsections should be removed from the Bill entirely. We simply cannot allow a situation where business owners wake up one morning and find that a new statutory instrument has turned some technical regulatory breach into a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. I urge Government Members to think about the provision.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Vaz. It has been fascinating to understand more about the science and history of measurement from the hon. Member for Erewash. I will speak on clause 5, and specifically in support of Opposition amendment 27, which implements a crucial safeguard to prevent regulatory overreach in the sensitive and highly impactful area of metrology. Clause 5 grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make regulations about units of measurement and the way that goods must be marketed, weighed or labelled. Let us be clear: we all agree that accuracy in measurement is important. However, we must also be clear-eyed about the extent of the powers being handed to Ministers under this clause—powers that go far beyond maintaining standards and veer dangerously into heavy-handed interference in markets and consumer choice. The Government want us to believe this is just housekeeping, but let us remember that these powers enable the Secretary of State to change what units are permitted, how goods are packaged and what must be printed on labels, without primary legislation and with minimal scrutiny. Amendment 27 offers a clear, reasonable boundary by seeking to ensure that any use of those powers is necessary, proportionate and accountable to Parliament. What is the threshold for intervention? Are we comfortable with the idea that, under the current drafting, a future Minister could outlaw certain traditional measurements or enforce rigid labelling regimes with sweeping economic consequences? What is more, businesses are already under pressure. Small producers, corner shops and importers are the people who will be forced to re-label products, change packaging and absorb costs if metrology regulations shift unpredictably. Without clear safeguards, clause 5 becomes a weapon against small business certainty and economic growth. Amendment 27 would ensure that changes made under the clause are transparent, justified and time-bound, where necessary. We are not anti-regulation; we are pro-accountability. We believe in making rules that support competition, protect consumers and foster innovation, not in granting sweeping authority without oversight.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I defer to the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge of metrology organisations around the world and recognise his expertise. However, from a legislative perspective, the Bill does not rely on metrology experts being the relevant authorities. If metrology experts had been defined as the relevant authorities, I think we would be significantly less concerned. The hon. Gentleman lays out the exact expertise that we would all love to hear. My issue is with the lack of clarity in the Bill.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am genuinely curious. The Minister says that new clause 4 would take away powers. Can he explain why he would possibly object to the introduction of a review panel within two years? Surely there cannot be any objection.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I assume that the code of conduct you mentioned will be voluntary. I would be interested to hear what parliamentary enforcement the code, or indeed the wider constraints referred to in new clause 4, will receive.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. The future of successful economic growth is dependent on not just new industries, but ensuring that traditional industries, and both large and small businesses, can thrive and prosper in a post-Brexit scenario. Amendment 17 would align the Bill with the pro-growth agenda and send a clear message to investors and innovators: Britain is open for business.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire made numerous important points—I reinforce the point that this group of amendments looks to a future with a less benign Secretary of State—and made the case that the current Secretary of State agrees with her. Amendments 14, 15, and 16 seek to remove the sweeping powers currently granted to the Secretary of State under clause 1(1). As drafted, the clause gives a single Minister an almost unrestricted mandate to define and regulate product standards, ostensibly to reduce risk and ensure efficient and effective operation. The terms are vague and the power to define them is left entirely to the Executive. This is not a technical tweak. It is a fundamental constitutional concern. Clause 1(1) effectively hands Ministers a blank cheque to legislate by decree, bypassing the scrutiny and consent of this House. The amendments would delete the subsection and make the necessary consequential changes, thereby restoring the proper balance between Executive action and parliamentary oversight. This is not about obstructing Government action. It is about ensuring that when Ministers act, they do so within clearly defined limits and with the approval of Parliament. Regulations that affect businesses, consumers and the public at large should not be made behind closed doors in Whitehall. They should be debated and decided in public, by elected representatives. By supporting amendments 14 to 16, we reaffirm a vital constitutional principle: that it is Parliament, not Ministers, who should define the scope of regulatory power. The changes would not weaken the Bill; they would strengthen it by embedding accountability and transparency at its core. I urge colleagues to support the amendments.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Amendment 17 speaks directly to our country’s values of enterprise, innovation and economic freedom. The proposal would insert new subsection (4A) into clause 1, placing a clear duty on Ministers that, whenever they exercise regulatory powers under the Bill, they must do so with the aim of promoting investment, fostering innovation and encouraging economic growth. In short, the amendment would ensure that regulation is about not just managing risk, but unlocking opportunity. It would put growth at the heart of our regulatory framework—an aspiration that I know the Government will want to support. Regulation and prosperity are not mutually exclusive. As a Conservative and, indeed, a former businessperson, I understand that wealth is not created by Government; it is created by the ingenuity of businesses, entrepreneurs and investors—but Government can either enable that ingenuity or suffocate it. This is a pro-growth Government, so they should be in favour of the amendment, which would ensure that every regulation made under the Bill is shaped with a constant awareness of its economic impact. The amendment would require Ministers to ask: does this rule support innovation? Could it be more flexible? Will it help British firms to compete globally? Too often, regulations—however well-meaning—have imposed hidden costs, stifled small businesses or driven innovation offshore. The amendment would guard against that by making growth a guiding principle, not an afterthought. It also reflects the unique opportunity we have post Brexit. No longer bound by one-size-fits-all EU frameworks, we can craft smarter, more agile rules that play to Britain’s strengths. Proposed new subsection (4A) would serve as a beacon in the Bill, signalling that when we regulate, we do so to empower, not to encumber. Take, for example, emerging technologies, which my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire has already mentioned. If we are setting safety standards for a new sector, the amendment would prompt Ministers to do so in a way that attracts investment, supports start-ups and keeps the UK at the forefront of innovation.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The amendments in this group serve a clear and vital purpose: to prevent the automatic alignment of UK product regulations with EU law and to reaffirm our sovereign right to set our own standards. As it stands, clause 1(2) would allow Ministers to make UK regulations that correspond “to a provision of relevant EU law” in the area of environmental product standards. In plain English, that opens the door to copying and pasting EU rules into UK law via statutory instrument without full parliamentary scrutiny. Amendment 3 would remove subsection (2) entirely, closing that back door. Amendments 4, 5, 7 and 21 target other provisions that risk tethering us to EU frameworks. For example, clause 2(7) would allow compliance with certain EU laws to automatically satisfy UK requirements. That is not sovereignty; it is outsourcing. This is not about rejecting co-operation with Europe. It is about ensuring that any alignment is a result of a deliberate and transparent decision made here in Westminster, not an automatic consequence of vague enabling powers. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire and for Chester South and Eddisbury have made clear, the British people voted to leave the European Union to take back control of our laws. That control must not be quietly handed back through ministerial shortcuts. New clause 4 is especially important. It would introduce a safeguard in the form of an independent review panel to assess any regulation made under the Bill that aligns with EU law. Where a Minister chooses to align, the panel would have to report back, within two years, on the impact on growth, trade and industry. Crucially, Parliament would then vote on whether those EU-aligned rules should remain in force. No regulation should persist by inertia. How can the Minister possibly object to a review after two years? The amendments would not isolate us; they would empower us. They would ensure that when we choose to align with international standards, we do so on our terms, with full accountability. That is the essence of post-Brexit governance. We assert that UK regulators answer first and foremost to the UK Parliament, not to Brussels and not to Whitehall alone.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps my hon. Friend was about to make this point, but does she agree that the amendment would give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate to the world their commitment to and understanding of innovation agility, and the necessity to ensure that not just at Government level, but right across Whitehall, all our legislation considers how we can improve growth, innovation and ingenuity at all times?

• 8 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister will agree that the economic landscape has changed dramatically since 26 March: we have had the trade deal with India, we have had today’s pact with the United States, the Employment Rights Bill will come into law later this year, and there is much more besides. In the interests of transparency to this House, and indeed to the country, will he request a summer forecast update from the Office for Budget Responsibility that incorporates all the latest updates and let us know what the public finance impacts will be?

• 8 May 2025 · Monitoring Sewage Overflows: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton have been subjected to an enormous increase in their water bills. Will the Secretary of State reassure the House that his water review will seek ways to prevent the costs of water companies’ mismanagement being passed on to their customers?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to be able to bring the House’s attention to my constituents’ concern about the continuing discharge of raw sewage into our local seas and other bodies of water. In my constituency, we saw 529 such discharges in 2024 from just 14 storm overflow points. These incidents continued for a combined duration of over 6,200 hours. That is simply not acceptable. It poses a serious threat not only to public health and the environment but to our local tourism and marine economy, on which so many of my constituents depend. We must act decisively to improve our ageing water infrastructure, enforce stricter regulations and demand transparency from our water companies, from Ofwat and from the Environment Agency.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Sewage · Hansard source

  More

  I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis, but I do agree that the fines need to be collected and distributed. The other issues that have been identified in my constituency—I imagine that they are wider issues, too—are illegal misconnections and cowboy builders, which we must crack down on. Without addressing those issues, we will not get the results that we need, and constituents need to know what is being done to stop them. Since being elected, I have had constructive engagement with Southern Water and the Environment Agency’s local team and head office. Having visited Ford wastewater treatment works and done a shift with the misconnections team in Bognor Regis, I know that work is being done to upgrade the network, but this issue requires a strategic, cross-agency approach—one that considers the serious impact of the Government’s continued pursuit of house building on our floodplains on flood resilience and sewage discharges. When schools in my constituency are taking children to the beach and being told that they cannot swim in the sea, it is not just disappointing; it is disgraceful. It is not the legacy that we want to leave for the next generation—we owe them better.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The Business Secretary delayed and dithered for five months before meeting his US counterparts, and working people and businesses in the UK are paying the price for that dereliction of duty. Does he regret his refusal to meet his US counterparts earlier?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I merely wish to set the scene for winter fuel payments.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?