Alison Griffiths
MP for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I used to work at RAC. Steve Gooding: As somebody who worked there, I think there are two key things: one is independence, and the other is capability. We are talking specifically about growing and making sure that the ORR has the requisite capability to undertake the tricky and, in a way, very public task of setting that.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q I want to come back to the question of hydrotreated vegetable oil. Mr Palmer, you suggested that there was parity/comparability in costs between white diesel and HVO.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q I want to go back to comments that both of you have made. Andrew, you said that you can count on one hand the number of projects that finish on time and on budget, and that is despite the extensive experience that you both have. Roger, you said that cost overruns come from uncertainty. I had a 30-year private sector career.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q This is predominantly for Mr Whelan, but Ben and Declan, if you wish to weigh in, please do. For the M6, have the economic and operational outcomes that have been delivered over the last 20 years been what was envisaged? On the role of the ORR, does the regulation outlined in the Bill provide sufficient certainty for private investors?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In addition to my comments around the stakeholder group, the ORR has been heavily weighted towards rail regulation and currently has a much smaller role in highways monitoring.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q Should we put in greater stipulations on how costs are incurred? This goes back to some of what the shadow Minister was talking about, that the Bill should stipulate that the road is not overspecified—although safety should remain absolutely paramount—while things such as the use of sustainable diesel are not a necessary part of the Bil…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
424 held · 414 searchable for Alison Griffiths. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 9.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 11, page 11, line 12, leave out “other than excluded regulations,”. This amendment would ensure that all regulations made under new section 34A of the Airports Act 1986, including temporary regulations modifying or disapplying slot usage requirements, are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was disappointing that when similar amendments were debated in the other place, the Government declined to accept that basic principle. I hope that the Government can recognise today the importance of affording this House that ability to scrutinise and do its job. Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State broad powers to amend or restate the airport slot allocation regime. We recognise that the system may need to respond quickly in genuine emergencies, but these powers must be exercised carefully and must not undermine the independence of the slot allocation process. That is precisely why the parliamentary scrutiny provided by amendments 12 and 13 is so important.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“These amendments concern a very straightforward principle: that Parliament ought to have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the regulations made under this legislation. The amendments would ensure that the relevant regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure, requiring the approval of both Houses of Parliament and thus preserving scrutiny, accountability and fair process for all concerned. Given the breadth of powers in this Bill, that is an entirely reasonable safeguard. Who knows who the next Secretary of State might be? Regulations under the clause will have important and wide-reaching consequences for airlines, airports, passengers and the sector as a whole. Surely the Minister agrees that it is right for Parliament to have a meaningful opportunity to examine those decisions before they take effect.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hear the Minister’s remarks. I fear that we will not agree on the important need for affirmative parliamentary scrutiny. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 12, page 12, line 7, leave out “CAA may by rules (to be known as ‘CAA rules’)” and insert “Secretary of State may by regulations”. This amendment would provide for CAA rules to be made by regulations by the Secretary of State.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We recognise the need for aviation rules to be updated efficiently, and to keep pace with changing international standards. However, clause 12 transfers substantial rule-making powers to the CAA, and those powers must be accompanied by proper ministerial accountability and parliamentary oversight. That is why the safeguards contained in our amendments are so important.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government are giving the CAA substantial new rule-making powers, while also giving Ministers the ability to amend or repeal primary legislation through secondary legislation to facilitate those rules. I appreciate that the Minister in the other place argued that that was necessary to avoid gaps in legislation and to ensure a smooth transition. However, surely a little admin inconvenience cannot be an excuse for hollowing out parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. Acts of Parliament should be amended through parliamentary process, and we should be extremely cautious about granting Ministers powers to bypass those processes. For those reasons, the Opposition have tabled amendment 17 and will press it to a vote. I will conclude by speaking briefly to clause 12 itself.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Providing greater clarity on how the CAA’s rules interact with existing legislation will be particularly helpful for airlines, airports and the wider aviation sector. Businesses need to understand the regulatory framework in which they operate, and anything that makes that framework clearer and easier to navigate should be welcomed. It appears to be a straightforward, practical measure that will help aviation businesses to comply with their obligations, and we are therefore happy to support it. Finally, I turn to amendment 17, which stands in my name. It seeks to delete a Henry VIII provision from clause 12. We have consistently raised concerns throughout the Bill’s passage about the extent to which powers are being transferred away from Parliament, and this provision is another such example.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One of our key concerns throughout consideration of the Bill has been the extent to which the CAA is being given increasingly unfettered powers, with insufficient accountability to Ministers and to Parliament. It should always be the case that Government set the direction of aviation policy, with the CAA responsible for delivering within that framework. I struggle to understand why the regulator should have the final say over the priorities and objectives set by the Secretary of State. The amendment therefore seeks to tighten that relationship considerably, ensuring that Ministers retain the authority to set the direction and can be held accountable to Parliament for the decisions they make. Amendment 23 is also very sensible.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I know that the shadow Secretary of State has received representations from those involved in gliding and general aviation, and it is important that we consider the needs of those smaller operators alongside the major airlines and airports. Anything that makes the regulatory framework easier to understand and navigate is surely a good thing. This amendment would help to ensure that the guidance accompanying the CAA’s new rulebook properly signposts related requirements elsewhere in aviation legislation. Ease, clarity and transparency are principles that we are always inclined to support, and for those reasons we will press the amendment to a vote. I turn to amendment 16, which stands in my name.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Importantly, this amendment does not undermine the ambition of the clause to provide a faster, more responsive rule-making process. The fast track procedure would remain available. The amendment would simply require Ministers and the CAA to agree that a proposed change is sufficiently minor to justify using that procedure. That is hardly an onerous requirement. It simply provides an additional safeguard, ensures proper ministerial oversight and helps prevent the CAA from becoming a law unto itself. Amendment 22 is also perfectly sensible. Signposting provides clarity and I suspect it would be particularly useful for smaller aviation businesses, which may not have the resources to navigate multiple pieces of legislation and regulatory guidance.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Didcot and Wantage is rather hedging his bets, having tabled two amendments seeking to address the same issue in slightly different ways. We certainly agree with the principle that the CAA should not be able to determine entirely for itself when consultation is unnecessary. However, we think amendment 21 provides a more sensible approach by ensuring that the Secretary of State also has a say in that decision. We support amendment 21, which is a very reasonable measure. The CAA should not be able to operate entirely off its own steam, deciding for itself when proposed rule changes are sufficiently minor to dispense with the normal consultation process. Surely it is right that the Secretary of State should have a role in that decision?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is entirely sensible those that affected by changes to aviation rules should have a proper opportunity to contribute to the process. That includes our airports, airlines and the wider aviation industry, which need clarity and certainty about the regulatory framework in which they operate. Giving businesses greater access to the process, and the opportunity to comment on draft rules before they are introduced, can only help them to plan ahead, make investment decisions, and ultimately grow and succeed. We want a regulatory framework that supports a thriving aviation sector, and proper consultation with those who actually have to operate under those rules is an important part of achieving that. On amendment 20, I think the hon.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It follows directly from the recommendation of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which raised concerns about the extent of the rule-making powers being handed to the CAA. We are simply asking the Government to explain the principles governing which powers should remain with Ministers and which should be exercised by the regulator. I do not think that is an unreasonable request. Indeed, when this was debated in the other place, the Minister acknowledged the concerns and promised to consider them carefully. What became of those assurances? Why has the Government not seen fit to include this perfectly sensible safeguard in the Bill? I turn next to amendment 19, which I am inclined to support.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State should remain at the heart of aviation regulation, providing clear direction and ensuring that the CAA’s regulatory framework supports growth, competitiveness and investment. Ministers should be setting that direction and driving the CAA towards those objectives rather than handing them over extensive rule-making powers with insufficient democratic accountability. That is why we have tabled amendment 14, to ensure that the Government retain the ability to set that direction rather than sitting on the sidelines as a passive bystander. Amendment 15 is designed to provide clarity, explanation and to ensure that a smooth and transparent process is followed as a matter of course.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have reached the conclusion that the Minister and I are probably not going to agree on the need for parliamentary scrutiny or for the holding back of Henry VIII powers in the Bill, so I will press the amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government’s own memorandum says: “We have identified all the changes to primary legislation that we believe are necessary…and have included them in the Bill.” They also say that the power is being retained in case something important has been missed. I would therefore be interested to hear in what circumstances the Minister expects that power to be used?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will briefly address clauses 13 and 14. Clauses 15 and 16 are technical, and even by the exacting standards of Opposition scrutiny it would be a little harsh to take issue with clause 17, which simply gives the Bill its name. I shall leave those clauses alone. Clause 13 widens the circumstances in which air navigation orders may create, amend or appeal criminal offences connected with aviation safety requirements. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how those powers are expected to be used and what parliamentary scrutiny will apply. Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State the power to make consequential provision arising from the Bill, including the power to amend or appeal primary legislation.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak briefly to new clause 1. I appreciate what the hon. Member for Horsham is seeking to achieve with this new clause, but much of what he is calling for is already addressed through the wider provisions of this Bill, particularly the new powers being given to the CAA to protect consumers and enforce passenger rights. I am therefore concerned that introducing another layer of regulation through a separate aviation ombudsman would be unnecessarily cumbersome and potentially duplicative. We should allow the measurements in this Bill to take effect before creating further regulatory structures. For those reasons, the Opposition will abstain on the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We must be careful not to impose additional costs and administrative burdens on airlines without being satisfied that those requirements are proportionate and deliver a genuine benefit to passengers. While the Conservatives strongly support its direction of travel, we have some reservations about the precise requirements in this new clause and will therefore abstain.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will speak to new clause 9. I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage is seeking to achieve, and the principle behind this new clause is very sensible. Passengers deserve timely, accurate information when their flights are delayed and the industry should absolutely be doing everything possible to improve communication. However, I do have some concerns about the practical implications of requiring airlines to provide updated departure estimates every 30 minutes, particularly when delays are caused by circumstances outside their control, as we have seen with the recent National Air Traffic Services incidents.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to hear the Minister’s comments. This is such an important topic. It is quite extraordinary; anyone who flies regularly will know how disruptive such behaviour is, and this has become an increasingly concerning issue in recent years. It is a serious matter for passengers, cabin crew and airlines, and I am delighted to hear from the Minister that the Government are now giving this proper attention. I look forward to a timeline from him on when he will bring forward this system. The Liberal Democrats have suggested a timeline in their new clause, which has been rejected, so I look forward to hearing an alternative proposal from the Minister.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his response. To conclude, although we welcome the debate that the new clause has prompted, and we recognise the importance of the issue that it raises, we will be abstaining, pending more information from the Minister.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 10 is a very sensible amendment and one that is clearly in the interests of passengers. Given the significant changes being introduced through the Bill, it seems entirely reasonable to review their impacts after two years, particularly on passenger protections and accessibility. It is a fair point; providing greater clarity and accountability over whether the measures are working can only be a good thing. We are therefore happy to support the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I find new clause 12 quite extraordinary. We have been clear throughout these proceedings that we want to see economic growth, greater investment and a thriving, internationally competitive aviation sector. Airport expansion has an important role to play in achieving these ambitions, subject to sensible, local, proportionate mitigations. I simply cannot understand why we would want to insert a provision into the Bill that deliberately seeks to restrict our ability to deliver that growth. We want Britain to succeed and we will not be signing up to measures that deliberately seek to curtail the economic growth our country so desperately needs. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They could not even be bothered to come to the House to make a statement, and had to be dragged to the Chamber to answer the urgent question asked by the shadow Transport Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). We must do everything possible to safeguard passengers and airlines from further disruption and ensure that the regulatory framework properly incentivises NATS to prevent these failures in the first place. I therefore welcome the new clause, and the Opposition will support it. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am delighted to hear from the Minister that work is ongoing on this important subject. New clause 15 makes a valuable contribution and we are happy to support it. Given the multiple serious failures at NATS in recent years, including two in September alone, it is absolutely right that the regulatory framework places greater emphasis on operational resilience and reliability, and preventing major disruption. We have seen the enormous consequences of these failures for airlines, passengers and the wider aviation industry, with thousands of flights disrupted through absolutely no fault of their own. What message does that send to potential investors—those wishing to expand and grow? Frankly, I question whether the Government have taken their eye off the ball when it comes to ensuring that our air traffic control system is fit for purpose.”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In West Sussex, we are still waiting to hear what the shape of a future unitary council might look like, yet Members from across the Chamber may be aware of a WhatsApp message that suggests that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already confirmed a timetable but has yet to bring it to the House. Will the Leader of the House please encourage the Secretary of State to come to the House and update us as soon as possible?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons14 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons8 July 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons29 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons22 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons18 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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?”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“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.”
House of Commons16 June 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗