Whilst we expect members of opposition parties to scrutinise and challenge the Labour government, we  would not expect this to be done in a way that is blatantly misleading and which makes little reference to the facts.  This seems, however, to have become the approach of Andrew Griffith MP;   an approach that does no credit to himself as a senior opposition MP  and which poorly serves the constituents he has been elected to represent.

In his article in the West Sussex County Times on March 13^th,  Andrew Griffith describes the Government’s Employment Rights Bill  as a ‘horror show.’ which, he claims, favours trade unions and employment lawyers over employees.  He provides only one example of why he believes employees will be disadvantaged, this  example is the right of employees, from day one of employment, to protection from unfair dismissal. This is protection that it appears Andrew Griffith would rather employees did not have.

In addition to his criticism of this vital protection, Andrew Griffith dismisses the wider  contents of the bill as, ‘ new red tape.’  If he has done his job properly and has read the bill, he would be aware that the measures that are due to be introduced will tackle low pay, poor working conditions and poor job security. They will tackle the worst impact of zero hours contracts, so offering increased security for working people.  They will strengthen Statutory Sick pay by, amongst other measures, allowing  employees to have a right to Statutory Sick Pay from the first day of sickness absence. This will enable workers who only have recourse to statutory sick pay to take the time off they need to recover when they fall ill, without worrying about whether they can afford to do so; measures that will deliver far more for working people than ‘red tape.’

Thousands of  Andrew Griffith’s constituents, who under the Conservative government were   forced to face insecure, low paid and irregular work, will benefit from the measures proposed in this bill.  We would like to think that he might, therefore, take a responsible approach as their representative, by supporting the bill. In view of his  sense of horror in the face of the proposal to introduce these benefits, however, this would seem unlikely,  perhaps Mr Griffith is more inclined towards the mindset of those who looked back nostalgically to the days when small boys were forced up chimneys and were horrified by the legislation that ended this appalling practice. But we would at least hope that, when the bill passes into law, he will ensure that his constituents are made aware of the benefits the legislation will deliver for them.