Alison Griffiths MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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?

• 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.