Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Richard Fuller

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

We have had a fractious debate today. The responsibility for that can be placed firmly at the door of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who has treated the House in a very shabby way. He has brought forward last-minute amendments and asked this House to take on trust that he can singly make massive and sweeping changes to this industry and that we should just trust him that his word is sound. He is proposing to affect an industry that has long been a mainstay of economies up and down this country.

I have very little confidence that the Secretary of State understands the industry on which he singly wishes to intervene. It is rather a poor show that he has not come to this House, but has instead left a very capable, but nevertheless junior, Minister to outline why the Government are retreating on one set of amendments, and looking to make changes in another set of amendments. That is no way for the proposed changes to be put to this House.

I speak on behalf of family brewers when I say that it is incredibly important that the Government keep the promise that they gave at the start of the consultation that those brewers would not be included in respect of the pubs code adjudicator. I was very pleased that my Conservative colleagues, along with the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats, voted to oppose the Government’s attempts to impose those regulations on small family-owned breweries. Today, the Minister has offered half a loaf back. She has said, “Well, we won’t do it for those who own 500 or fewer. We will do it for those with 350 or fewer. Just trust me, we will make it happen in another House.” I am happy that she is not pressing amendments 41, 43 and 44 today, but I am still at a loss to understand why there is an in-principle difference between 500 and 350. If it is a fact that just three family brewers are impacted by that change, there is a very serious issue about whether this is ultra vires legislation that is being felt by certain family businesses but not by others. I think the Minister will find that she will also have severe problems in the other House.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend’s analysis about plucking the figure of 350 out of the air. Does he share my concerns that this is a recipe for disaster, as we are bound to have legal challenge after legal challenge about what is a competition matter?

[Richard Fuller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is one of the problems of trying to make policy on the hoof. Small businesses in this industry up and down the country will be looking aghast at the actions of the Secretary of State. Serious business people run these breweries. They have to make long-term investment decisions that affect themselves, their employees and their customers. To have a Secretary of State who makes his position clear on a Friday, but changes it by Tuesday and again when it goes to the upper House sends an incredibly poor set of signals to an industry that has to make those long-terms decision. To be quite honest, a Secretary of State for business should understand that and should have the decency to be here—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I should not say that. It would have been preferable if he had been here today so that he could explain his rather unforced flip-flop at the last minute, because these are unprecedented changes that he is putting forward.

Palestine and Israel

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Richard Fuller

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this important debate. I have learned a great deal from listening to it. Time is short, and I do not want to take up too much of it, or repeat what others have said. It is remarkable that there has been a shift in tone, and in the concerns of the House, during the debate. That shift should worry the Government of Israel, because it is clearly losing the moral high ground when it comes to the people in Gaza and the Palestinian issue. I have become increasingly concerned about the way Israel is operating since seeing on my television screen pictures of the recent crisis. It is impossible not to feel the suffering and hopelessness of the people of Gaza. It is only right that we should have this debate and discuss the issue. I would not be a friend of Israel if I did not speak out when I saw it doing the wrong thing, heading in the wrong direction and causing the unnecessary deaths of too many Palestinians. It is for that reason that I take part in today’s debate.

I recognise that Israel has a right to defend itself. I recognise that it is completely unacceptable for Hamas missiles to rain down in their thousands over Israel, and it is absolutely right that the British Government support Israel’s right to defend itself. But it cannot be right that in response to the Hamas rockets, Israel can unilaterally cause death and destruction in Palestine that is not proportionate to the threat. That is the important word here. The response must be proportionate.

According to the UN, during this summer’s conflict, a total of 2,131 Palestinians were killed. Of those, at least 1,473 were civilians—young, innocent civilians, in many cases. On the Israel side, 66 Israeli defence force soldiers were killed, and five Israeli civilians. I do not believe that that response is proportionate. Israel has lost the moral high ground in the way it acted.

We should demand the same standards of Israel as we do of any democratic state. Just this weekend, we saw the Australian Super Hornet pilots pull away when they were hunting down ISIL fighters because they were concerned about the loss of life of innocent civilians. It is only right that a sophisticated, well-funded army, such as that of Israel—

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that in an open, democratic society such as ours, with modern technology, the visibility of actions requires politicians to change our view too? People in societies around the world see such disproportionality, and they want their leaders to take action to make change.

[Andrew Griffiths]

That is exactly right, and that is why we have this debate today. It is impossible not to want to speak out and act when we see such suffering .

Some of the acts committed by Israel were clearly unacceptable. Why was it necessary to blow up Gaza’s only power station, leaving already stretched hospitals to rely on generators? Why was it necessary to bomb hospitals and schools, when, as we saw, the threat of loss of life to Israeli civilians was small in comparison? By adding to the suffering of the Gazan people, the Israeli Government have lost the support of the House, and it should cause them great concern.

It is important that moderates in the debate such as me should speak out if we are turning against support for Israel. It is right that we should express our concerns. I recognise the concerns that have been raised by some in the House about Palestine’s ability to govern as a state, and its ability to have the mechanisms and the government in place to accept statehood, but it is a challenge to us to help them achieve it. We must redouble our efforts to help the moderate, peaceful Palestinian people in their desire and efforts to achieve statehood. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to take part in this debate.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Andrew Griffiths and Richard Fuller

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffiths]

Does my hon. Friend share the joy of many first-time buyers in my constituency at the fact that this will give them a real chance to get on the housing ladder?

[Richard Fuller]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am not sure that I can share his joy. The impetus behind this Treasury document is the notion that enhancing loan-to-value ratios of 95% is somehow a good policy, and I need some more reassurance about that.

Let us compare the average house bought in 1997 at the average loan-to-value ratio of 80% with the average house bought in 2007—after all that price inflation—at a 95% loan-to-value ratio. Over the 20 or 25 years of their mortgage, the people who bought the average house in 2007 will have to spend £234,000 more than those who bought the average house in 1997. Increasing loan-to-value ratios depresses people’s ability to spend money on other things, because they are spending more on their mortgages. I want some more reassurance from the Treasury that this scheme will not have unintended consequences for their ability to spend money appropriately in relation to their incomes.