Alison Griffiths MP: speeches

Speeches

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments made by the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), who acknowledged that it was indeed the covid pandemic and the war in Ukraine that caused such a problem with the UK finances.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  To be honest, I am absolutely delighted to hear the first Member on the Government Benches acknowledge that there is not a fictitious £22 billion black hole that they are trying to fill, and that they have understood, finally, that the effects of covid and the war in Ukraine are part of the issue they are trying to deal with.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some progress. Who is paying the price for the Government’s economic mismanagement? It is our pensioners. Of the 23,282 pensioners in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—at least 5% more pensioners than in the constituency of Makerfield—nearly 90% will lose their winter fuel payment this year. That is nearly 23,282 elderly individuals being forced into impossible choices because of this Government’s incompetence and poor choices. One constituent wrote to me that “this policy is especially unfair to older pensioners who receive significantly lower pensions than those born later. We have contributed since the age of 16, yet now we feel penalised” simply for being older. This is not just bad policy, but a deliberate choice by this Labour Government. Instead of protecting the vulnerable, this Government have prioritised inflation-busting pay rises for their union backers, waged class warfare on independent schools and forced a burden of at least £5 billion on to businesses through their disastrous Employment Rights Bill. Labour’s decision to strip away this crucial support will lead to more pensioners in A&E, more vulnerable people suffering in cold homes and more lives being put at risk. It is a betrayal. We will not stand by and let this injustice go unanswered.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Once again in this House we find ourselves discussing Labour’s failure to protect our pensioners. Time and again we have exposed its false narratives and asked how it intends to use technology to reduce costs, improve services and drive productivity. This Government capitulated to the archaic working practices of train drivers and their trade union paymasters. There has been no serious attempt to modernise, no recognition of the technological advancements of the past five years, and no meaningful reforms to improve efficiency. Worse still, their Employment Rights Bill drags Britain back to 1970s French-style labour laws, rolling back the vital protections of the Trade Union Act 2016. These outdated policies stifle economic growth, make job creation harder and hand excessive power to unions—

• 19 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  This morning, I received an email from Santander informing me that the Bognor Regis and Rustington branches in my constituency are both set to close. With four other bank branches having shut across the constituency in 2023 alone, the most vulnerable members of our society are being gradually cut off from essential banking services. Small cash-based businesses will also struggle to deposit their takings, faced with the added burden of travelling to Chichester or Worthing, making it even harder for them to operate. What decisive action is the Prime Minister taking to guarantee that people and businesses in my constituency and across the country are not left without access to cash and vital banking services?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As has been said many times yesterday and today, this Bill is deeply flawed. The Government have ignored the serious concerns raised by business leaders and independent economists. The Federation of Small Businesses has warned that these rushed changes will lead to job losses and deter employers from hiring. The Institute of Directors found that 57% of business leaders will be less likely to hire because of the additional red tape imposed by the Bill, and incredibly, the Government’s own impact assessments fail to account for the Bill’s real economic consequences, simply dismissing them as too hard to calculate. Our new clause 90 would ensure that any regulations made under part 4 of the Bill must consider economic growth and international competitiveness, yet Labour has refused to accept even that common-sense measure, proving that its approach is anti-growth at its core. Prioritising the interests of trade unions over economic stability makes it harder for businesses to hire, grow and compete. It is no surprise that trade unions have declared victory, as the Government have effectively handed them a blank cheque at the expense of businesses and workers alike. Our amendments seek to restore fairness and balance. Amendment 292 would require trade unions to notify their members annually of their right to opt out of political fund contributions, ensuring basic transparency and fairness. Labour has hypocritically opposed this measure, despite previously supporting similar provisions—during the passage of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, it called automatic renewals a “subscription trap”. It seems that Labour only cares about consumer choice when it does not impact on its own funding. The Government claim that removing this requirement is about cutting red tape for unions, while adding lots of other red tape. In reality, the change strips away individual choice and accountability. As several of my hon. Friends have said, trade unions donated over £31 million to the Labour party between 2019 and 2024. Workers should have the right to make an informed choice each year about whether they want to contribute to political causes, rather than being automatically signed up without clear consent. Labour Members’ refusal to support the amendment reveals their true priority: protecting their own financial interests, rather than standing up for transparency and workers’ rights.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a fascinating question, and we wait to hear the answers from Government Members.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady possibly misrepresents the intent of Opposition Members. We are not anti-trade union; we are anti the drafting of this Bill. I think it is important to make a clear distinction between the two.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed, perhaps the Minister will give us the answer.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I know that the hon. Lady has not been in the Chamber for most of the debate, so she will have missed many of the discussions where my hon. Friends have explained the nuance of our position on this, which relates to the law of unintended consequences where publicans and nightclub owners could be responsible for policing the words of their customers. That is clearly not a tenable situation, but I will repeat the words of all of my colleagues on this side of the House: sexual harassment is abhorrent. We do not condone it in any shape or form, and I ask her to withdraw the insinuation that anyone on this side of the House has any truck with such behaviour.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to declare her union interests from her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I believe there is a £10,000 donation—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In the last 30 years, I have worked in businesses of every size in numerous sectors, from consumer goods to cyber-security and insurance to cloud infrastructure. I may not be a lawyer, but I feel well qualified to comment on this Bill. The Government need not take it from me; if only they had listened to the businesses I have spoken to. I am vice-chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and my fellow Committee members and I have spent many hours listening to evidence on the Bill from employers, trade unions and industry groups. Our Select Committee toured the country at the end of last year, collating evidence and hearing from a wide range of sectors. In my coastal constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I have spoken to numerous businesses, many of which are impacted by the vagaries of seasonal trade and inclement British weather. A consistent message emerges, from businesses at least, if not from the trade unions: how can a Government who claim their primary focus is delivering growth be so tin-eared to the views and needs of the very businesses, entrepreneurs and employees who are fundamental to creating that growth? The Government have boasted of delivering this Bill, which is telephone directory-thick, within their first 100 days. This is not sensible governance—indeed, the telephone directory of amendments is testament to that. One of the most damaging provisions is the abolition of the two-year qualifying period for unfair dismissal under clause 21, allowing employees to question failing probation or a trial period in their contract. From day one, employees will be able to take their employers to court. Our Conservative amendment 287 seeks to remove this clause entirely because it will disincentivise businesses from hiring, as they will know they cannot let an employee go even if it is not working out. The Government expect entrepreneurs and businesses to take the risks necessary to drive growth. Indeed, that is what they expect and want to do, but clause 21 adds unnecessary risk and is likely to be to the detriment of jobseekers. It will further marginalise those who would already be considered risky candidates.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry; I think we have made enough progress. I urge the Government to reconsider, to withdraw the Bill and to work with businesses, unions and workers to create a fair and balanced approach that prioritises the political interests—

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the hon. Member first to my earlier comments about ensuring that we do not disincentivise employers, and secondly to the flexibility that is needed for both employers and employees. Amendment 288 seeks to exclude hospitality providers and sports venues from those provisions, recognising the impracticality of holding employers accountable for every interaction in those environments. It is simply not practical to think that every publican, landlord and bar owner—small business owners—would be liable for any harassment that happens towards their employees in a pub, bar, nightclub or festival. Amendment 285 would require an impact assessment to be carried out on clause 18. Of course businesses and business owners should embed good working practices and guidelines to combat this abhorrent behaviour, but it is impractical and undesirable for the Government to legislate nationally for every sector and business.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member knows that I will always support fair process, but the point I was making is that this clause will make it more difficult for employers to take on prison leavers, care leavers, candidates with a non-traditional CV, career changers, and young people who are just looking for that first rung on the jobs ladder. Those people will not be given a fair chance, as employers will see them as too risky, and I hope she will see the risks inherent in the clause.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Maybe I am pre-empting the answer the hon. Member was going to give, but what exactly are the measures in this Bill and the amendments—the magic potion—that will improve productivity?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Minister be kind enough to name one of those businesses on the press release? [ Interruption. ] He had better look at the press release just to check.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. Anyone who has ever looked for a job—Members in the Chamber will probably count themselves as being among the better qualified of the population looking for work—will know that most employers, of any kind, do not want to take a risk. If we make it even harder for them to employ people who are a risk at base point, it will not serve their purposes. The Government’s own impact assessments suggest that the direct effects of the Bill will cost UK businesses an additional £5 billion annually. That estimate most likely understates the true cost, as it accounts only for administrative burdens while ignoring the broader impact on hiring, business costs and strike action. Key factors such as reduced hiring due to zero-hours contract limits, increased strike activity, and greater liability from employment tribunal claims, as outlined in the Bill, are dismissed as “too hard to calculate”, making those assessments highly questionable. That is why I support new clause 86, which would require an impact assessment to be carried out for the measures in clause 21. We tabled new clause 83 and amendment 283 to ensure that the Bill’s provisions on zero-hours workers would not come into force until a comprehensive review of the Bill’s impact on employment tribunals had been assessed and approved by Parliament. Clause 18 places a new duty on employers to prevent third-party harassment. Protecting employees is unquestionably important, and no one should doubt the sincerity of Conservative Members about that.

• 6 Mar 2025 · International Women’s Day · Hansard source

  More

  As the 649th woman to be elected to this House, it is an honour to contribute to this important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for her contribution and for securing the debate. I am struck that, with 650 Members of this House, we are only now in this Parliament reaching the threshold where the number of female MPs matches that. I am particularly proud to be one of only eight newly elected Conservative female MPs, standing alongside 18 distinguished incumbent Conservative female colleagues who have set the bar high. Their dedication, resilience and leadership continues to inspire me and countless women across the country. My journey to this place has been a long one, and it began 15 years ago when I first joined the Conservative candidates list. However, like many, my journey actually started far earlier, as I spent far too many years thinking of running without ever putting my name forward or making it known that this was what I might want to do. As Conservatives, we champion equal opportunities for everyone across the United Kingdom, ensuring that individuals, regardless of their sex, race or background, can achieve their full potential. We are the only political party to have elected a female Prime Minister, not once, not twice, but three times. We made history with Margaret Thatcher’s election in 1979, and we continue to make history today under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), our fourth female leader. In government, we took action to support women at work, ensuring that over 2 million more women entered paid employment between 2010 and 2023, boosting our economy and securing financial independence for many. We launched the women’s health strategy, ensuring better healthcare outcomes for women, and we restored sex-specific language to the NHS, to protect female-only medical care. We introduced 30 hours of free childcare per week for working parents, easing the burden on families and supporting mothers who want to return to work. However, there is still more work to do, and there always will be. As Conservatives, we will always fight to ensure that every woman, no matter her background, can reach her full potential.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I will do my very best to reduce the comments I was going to make, Madam Deputy Speaker. I pay tribute to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), for his very thoughtful comments, which reflect the considerations of our Committee. Business is the lifeblood of our economy. It creates jobs, funds our public services and drives the success of our country, yet under this Government, businesses face an onslaught of damaging policies that threaten growth, confidence and livelihoods. The Government’s £25 billion national insurance jobs tax is making it more expensive to hire workers, their family business tax punishes those who drive local economies and their 1970s-style employment laws are stifling business growth. The result? The fastest rate of job losses since 2008. Instead of supporting enterprise, this Government are actively making it harder for businesses to thrive. The budget of the Department for Business and Trade is being slashed by 6%, which means less support at a time when firms need it most. The so-called Employment Rights Bill—or, perhaps, the unemployment rights Bill—will cost the Government £1 billion, while its fair work agency could add an astonishing £6.3 billion burden. Those costs will inevitably be passed on to businesses and workers alike. This is not just about numbers on a spreadsheet: these policies have real consequences—workers losing their jobs, families struggling with rising costs and businesses already being forced to shut their doors. The Government claim to support growth, yet their policies are driving firms into significant financial distress, with more than 632,000 businesses now at risk. That is a 32% increase in just one year. The irony is that Britain remains an attractive place to invest. The PwC chief executive officer survey ranked us second only to the United States, but, alas, that survey took place before the Budget. A strong economy depends on strong business confidence, yet confidence in this Government’s economic management has been shattered. Businesses no longer trust that the Government have a clear strategy for growth, which the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North has already mentioned. The numbers speak for themselves. More than 200 leading hospitality and retail firms have warned that Government policies will force them to cut jobs and scale back investment. Businesses face ever-changing regulations, increasing tax burdens and a Government who appear out of touch with their needs.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I want to follow up on my hon. Friend’s comment on international trade. Does he agree that the Government currently lack the capability to support businesses appropriately in international trade?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The time that we have next week to consider this number of amendments seems wholly inadequate. Businesses are facing ever-changing regulations and increasing tax burdens. Many have said that they were misled—duped—into believing that this Government were pro-business when their actions tell a very different story. Analysis by the Nuffield Trust has found that if the fair work agency were to increase social care workers’ wages to match the NHS Agenda for Change band 3, the cost could be as high as £6.3 billion, including an increase to the real living wage costing £2.2 billion. That is another measure in the out-of-touch Employment Rights Bill. It is as if the 32 members of the Cabinet have a very limited understanding of the private sector and of business as a whole. Business owners, entrepreneurs and workers do not need more red tape and tax hikes. They need a Government who understand that growth does not come from the state dictating terms, but from unleashing the potential of enterprise, and they need policies that encourage investment, not deter it. Businesses in my constituency of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton are already struggling with the global impacts on their business environment, let alone the challenges at home. The day one rights given by the Employment Rights Bill give the presumption of innocence to workers and the presumption of malevolent intent to employers. The reality is that neither is correct. The Government need to understand that when business thrives, Britain thrives. That is the only way in which we will restore confidence, protect jobs, and secure a growing economy.