Covid-19 Vaccine Update

Debate between Angela Eagle and Nadhim Zahawi

Thursday 4th February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My right hon. Friend will appreciate the importance of maximising the vaccine available to GPs by using both the Pfizer vaccine and the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, but in recent weeks the volume of Oxford-AstraZeneca going to GP sites has been higher than that of Pfizer, allowing the flex to visit the housebound and care homes and to deploy at individual practices in rural areas, as he rightly points out. Any site that wishes to discuss its vaccine allocations should do so with its local system in the first instance, and thereafter with the NHS regional team, but I am very happy to look at any specific examples.

[Dame Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab) [V]]

The Minister was uncharacteristically coy in answer to the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) about how we will kick on after the top four priority groups have been vaccinated. Will he give us a bit more detail about when he believes all adults over 50 will have received their vaccination? Clearly there are members of his own party who wish to open up faster than that, and with more than 1,000 people a day still dying, we have to ensure that we make the right decisions.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I will keep it short, Madam Deputy Speaker. My target is mid-February for the top four cohorts. Either I or the Secretary of State will then come to the Dispatch Box to share with the House the plan beyond category 4, into categories 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

Murders in Northamptonshire: Serious Case Reviews

Debate between Angela Eagle and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 10th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I hope he heard me say earlier that we have Malcolm Newsam. In conjunction with Malcom we have Lincolnshire County Council, which is one of our exemplars in delivering the best services and safeguarding children. The important thing to remember in this case is that we must always ensure that the safety of children comes first. We know that poor practice can cost more money, not less, in the longer term. The director of children’s services has been clear in her statements that funding was not the cause of these tragic incidents, and that system, practice and partnership was where it needs to be. The important thing is that we get on.

In Doncaster, I saw at first hand how children’s services can be transformed. They went from failing with very poor outcomes, to good outcomes for children when we put it into trust. I met the social workers on the frontline, and 70% of them are the same people who were there when the local authority was failing. I said, “I want all the directors out of the room. I want to talk to just the frontline.” I said to them, “What is the difference here? What have you done here that has transformed the service? You are the same people who were here when it was failing.” They said it was all about leadership: leadership that supported, trusted and nurtured them, and delivered that support for them. Those are the sorts of lessons we need to learn in order to be able to deliver the same level of success as Doncaster.

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Funding may not have had a direct effect, but surely the Minister needs to recognise that, with the huge cuts to local authorities and a national shortage of well-qualified social workers putting enormous pressure on social services systems around the country, we are seeing a crisis in one area responded to by putting in extra money and bidding up social workers’ wages, allowing them to move to solve one problem but creating gaps in other areas. Surely the Minister needs to take a much more systemic view of what is going on in social services up and down the country, and recognise that funding is an issue.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I think—I hope—I have been clear in saying that I recognise there are funding pressures on children’s services. I am working with the director of children’s services and the sector as a whole in preparation for the spending review. However, to simply characterise this as a funding issue would be misleading. We have to do both things. We have to have a whole-system approach. We are learning from the best—Leeds, North Yorkshire and Hertfordshire—and scaling those models from those three local authorities to 20. We also have to look at the workforce, and by introducing the national accreditation assessment process and Social Work England we begin to deliver a system that really does work to protect the most vulnerable children and families in our society.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Angela Eagle and Nadhim Zahawi

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I compliment the Business Secretary on one thing at least, and that is the title of this Bill. Just listen to how it sounds when you say it aloud, Madam Deputy Speaker: the Enterprise Bill. It sounds important, dynamic, even exciting. To me, that is the title of a Bill that should be heralding a huge change in how we do business in this country. In time, it ought to be one of those Acts of Parliament that historians will look back on and describe as the most important of the age. After all, it is clear that the world is now on the cusp of the fourth industrial revolution, and if we are not ready for the wave coming toward us, we will miss it. I want us to take advantage of what will be an age of rapidly advancing digitalisation, and an age of robotics and big data that is expected to transform our lives out of all recognition—and to do so much more quickly than we might expect. It will be an age that confronts us with profound questions about how to generate and share prosperity and fight for a fairer outcome for everyone in our society.

As the first industrial nation, we need to react to that challenge if we are to mould it to our advantage. To guarantee our future prosperity and to earn our way in this rapidly changing and competitive world, we must be ready to seize the opportunities. So, do we have a Government who realise the importance of change and transformation at this particular time and who are willing to legislate accordingly for a more active, enabling and agile state? Do we have a Government who will rise to the challenge? On the basis of the contents of the Bill, we do not. We cannot fault their high-flying rhetoric, however. According to the Government, the Bill is meant to be about creating an open, enterprising economy, transforming Britain’s business culture. It is supposed to

“reward entrepreneurship, generate jobs and higher wages for all, and offer people opportunity at every stage of their lives”.

In the other place, Baroness Brady even claimed it was “an exciting attempt” to improve the business ecosystem. All I can say is that she gets excited pretty easily. We have before us a Bill that has been variously described in the other place as a curate’s egg, a hotch-potch of minor measures, a legislative herbaceous border, a dog’s breakfast and even

“a big legal pudding made up of all sorts of ingredients”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 12 October 2015; Vol. 765, c. 43.]

The last was from someone who supported the Bill.

We have a hugely ambitious title hiding a collection of worthy but minor and underwhelming measures that it is hard for anyone to oppose in principle—that is, in the Bill as written, although we have heard about new things that might change our minds. What we do not have is a piece of legislation that remotely meets the challenges that we know are ahead. We do not even have a Bill that matches the ambition of the Government’s own rhetoric.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Despite all the hon. Lady’s flowery words, I must tell her that small businesses being paid on time will make a huge difference, that 3 million apprenticeships that give people a real opportunity in life and that are good for business will make a real difference, and that curtailing the big payments to fat cats which were the norm under Labour will make a huge difference. She should be embarrassed by her speech and I advise her to rethink her opening remarks.

[Ms Eagle]

I am now rather embarrassed that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members should make no mistake: our economy faces huge challenges. We have a current account deficit made up primarily of the country’s deficit of imports in relation to exports. That now stands at 5.1% of GDP, which is higher than at any point in peacetime since 1830. We also have an export target that the Government are set to miss by a third. Rather than taking action in the Bill, the Government are moving to get their excuses in early, with the Trade Minister recently describing that target as a “big stretch”.

We see no sign of the rebalancing the Chancellor promised six years ago, let alone of the march of the makers that he promised would be carrying us all aloft by now. British manufacturing has been in recession since last year, and output is still falling short of where it was in 2008. A complacent attitude to the UK steel industry is just one symptom of the Government’s neglect of manufacturing and our industrial base.

Just six weeks after presenting an optimistic comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor abruptly changed his mind. He turned up in Cardiff, warning ominously that our economy was suddenly facing a “cocktail” of threats in January that he had apparently failed to perceive in November. Instead of presenting radical action to deal with those threats, the Bill bears all the hallmarks of a frantic search by officials around the far-flung recesses of Whitehall for things to put in it. As a result, it has nine parts—mostly unrelated—dealing with issues ranging from the creation of a small business commissioner with little statutory power to the requirement that insurance pay-outs are made in a timely fashion and that regulators should be mindful of their effect on small business.

There is a welcome extension of the primary authority scheme, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, and which has been a great success. The Bill allows Ministers to set targets for apprenticeship numbers in the public sector, but without explaining where the money to pay for that will come from. It also puts a cap on exit payments, which may have unintended consequences for public sector reform.

Business of the House

Debate between Angela Eagle and Nadhim Zahawi

Thursday 23rd February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for his statement.

Every time that I have raised the question of the Health and Social Care Bill, the right hon. Gentleman has claimed that he supports it, and I was beginning to worry that he might actually be a true believer in it. So I was delighted to read that Downing street sources had fingered him as one of the Cabinet’s heroic three who had briefed Conservative Home about their opposition to the Bill. May I welcome him to a just cause? He joins the company of patients, doctors, nurses, midwives, royal colleges and health managers—in fact, he joins just about anyone who has anything to do with the NHS. These are all the people who were locked out of No. 10 when the Prime Minister held his self-styled “summit” on Monday, which was just another public relations stunt from a Prime Minister who thinks that that is what his job is about. A year ago, the Prime Minister said he had to listen to those in the NHS, but now he shuts the door on them if they dare to disagree with him.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), explaining all this away, said that we should ignore the views of the royal college because general practitioners had been opposed to Labour’s 1948 Bill founding the NHS. That was not the best argument for a Conservative MP to advance, because if Labour had listened to the Conservatives then, there would be no NHS today. The Conservative party was wrong then and it is wrong now, so will the Government see sense, listen to even the Leader of the House and drop the Health and Social Care Bill.

Fifteen Liberal Democrats signed early-day motion 2659, which states:

[That this House expects the Government to respect the ruling by the Information Commissioner and to publish the risk register associated with the Health and Social Care Bill reforms in advance of Report Stage in the House of Lords in order to ensure that it informs that debate.]

Yesterday, there was an almost identically worded motion on the Order Paper, but astonishingly only four Liberal Democrats joined us to vote for it—the rest abandoned their principles and shamefully scurried through the Government Lobby or sat on their hands. This week, Russian scientists announced they had grown an extinct plant from seeds frozen in the permafrost for the past 30,000 years. Liberal Democrats have clearly decided to put their principles into a similar deep freeze. Let me tell them that they are kidding themselves if they think they can store them away until the next election.

There are rumours going around that the Deputy Prime Minister, who astonishingly did not turn up to vote last night, is encouraging Liberal Democrats in the Lords to wreck the Health and Social Care Bill. So will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on coalition unity, to give Liberal Democrats a chance to make up their minds on whether they are in the Government or not? They cannot be a bit of both.

The House was grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the forthcoming parliamentary calendar. The Government are planning for the House to rise on Tuesday 27 March, Tuesday 17 July, Tuesday 18 September and Tuesday 13 November. In total, two thirds of the days on which the House has risen since the election have been Tuesdays. Will the Leader of the House now find time for a debate on why the Government are so keen for the House to rise on Tuesdays? The Prime Minister operates a lock-out policy at No. 10 for his health critics, he cannot stand criticism, he gets rattled at the Dispatch Box and now it looks very much like he is running away from Prime Minister’s questions at every opportunity.

Today, Royal Bank of Scotland has announced that its losses doubled last year. There have been 3,500 job cuts and front-line bank staff have been offered a 1% pay rise. With ordinary families struggling, can it be acceptable that RBS is planning to pay £400 million in bonuses to top bankers—from a state-owned bank? Is that the Government’s definition of “We’re all in this together”?

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

Anti-business, that’s what you are.

[Ms Eagle]

I am pro-fairness, not anti-business.

The House was conveniently in recess when last week’s appalling unemployment figures came out, and when the next figures are due the Prime Minister is out of the country. The Prime Minister runs away from engaging with health critics, he cannot face talking about the economy and he has no solution to the unemployment crisis. So will the Leader of the House now find time for a debate on the economy so the Government can explain their failing economic policies?

This is a Government led by a Prime Minister who dodges Prime Minister’s questions and a Deputy Prime Minister who spends most of his time attacking the Government of which he is a member. Their disastrous economic policy has resulted in unemployment at its highest level for a generation and their health policy is opposed by just about everyone who works in or cares about the NHS. No wonder recesses cannot come fast enough for the Government.

The Economy

Debate between Angela Eagle and Nadhim Zahawi

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

We have had an interesting debate. On this very day a year ago, the Chancellor came to the House to announce what he and his spin doctors from Tory central office characterised for reasons of base propaganda as his unavoidable Budget. In reality, they and he knew that it was nothing of the kind. He used such misleading language because he wanted to disguise the central feature of his purpose that day. His aim was to create the image of a Chancellor with little option, as he fought to defend the country from the attentions of the bond vigilantes, stalking the world’s treasuries, looking for countries to kill.

In fact, the reality was very different. The Chancellor deliberately talked up the dangers in the bond markets by irresponsibly claiming that Britain had been on the brink of bankruptcy. He knew then, and he knows now, that it was all overblown rhetoric designed to disguise the fact that his Budget was actually a political choice made by the Conservative-led Government and their Liberal Democrat human shield, and it was an extreme choice. At a time when the economic recovery had not been locked in, he made a political choice to embark on a programme of tax increases and spending cuts greater than any which had ever been tried in Britain’s peacetime history.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Eagle]

No, I will not give way.

The Chancellor’s choice to cut further and faster than was economically necessary ensured that the UK plan to deal with the deficit went from one that was in line with the plans of other G20 countries to one that was far more extreme than anything undertaken in any other advanced economy. In other words, it was a reckless and risky experiment with our economic future.

Loans to Ireland Bill

Debate between Angela Eagle and Nadhim Zahawi

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

What the Chancellor is saying is particularly pertinent, given that the Post Office cash machine in Portcullis House was provided by the Irish banks.

May I ask a quick question?

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Give him a job; it would be easier.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

A quick question to the Chancellor, that is.

Finance Bill

Debate between Angela Eagle and Nadhim Zahawi

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

We have had an interesting debate on the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, although it has gone over a lot of old ground, with no surprising new positions taken on either side. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury claimed again that the Budget is progressive—a claim that I shall dispute soon. The hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is not in his place, set up a straw man to knock down and will come to realise that literature reviews do not translate into effective speeches. The hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) paraded his conscience around the Chamber again but told us, unsurprisingly, that he would be supporting the Budget after all, even though he admitted that it was regressive. People will note his crocodile tears. In the usual way, the speeches made by the hon. Members for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) and for Stourbridge (Margot James) supported their side of the House.

I commend the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), who put before the House the real cost increases for women—especially those with young children—under the Finance Bill. That seemed to prompt much hilarity among Government Members, which I thought revealed more about their attitudes than about her concerns. She also mentioned the housing benefit and disability benefit changes outlined in the Red Book, and many millions of vulnerable people will be worried about those as the spending review approaches.

My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) made an extremely good speech and put some facts about recent economic history on the record and my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) pointed out the fallacy of private sector see-saws suddenly moving in to take over the spaces that the public sector has vacated. Such things are such an important part of the ideology of the Government. The hon. Member for Stourbridge at least did the decent thing by recognising that there had been a global recession, but she said that we were not prepared for it, although she knows that net Government debt before the credit crunch was the second lowest in the G7.

The Finance Bill puts into place a Budget strategy that is a huge gamble with the future prosperity of Britain. The Chancellor began by telling us that it was an emergency—that it was the “unavoidable Budget”. He has tried throughout this process to persuade the country of two things: first, that Labour somehow created the deficit all on its own; and secondly, that the only solution is to cut it further and faster than our plan to halve it over the lifetime of this Parliament would have done.

Neither of those assertions is true, and here is why. Extraordinarily, Ministers and Government Members, from the Chancellor on down, have failed to let the words “credit crunch” so much as pass their lips during the entire proceedings on the Bill. The attempt to rewrite recent economic history is one that George Orwell’s Big Brother would have recognised and admired. The fact is that the banking crisis, which started in the American sub-prime mortgage market, caused the biggest global contraction that we have experienced in the real economy since the Wall street crash in 1929 turned into the great depression and led directly to the outbreak of the second world war. Since they will never say it, let me reiterate that this crisis was not caused by the irresponsible public spending of Governments but by the greed and criminal recklessness of the banking and financial sector. Any analysis of current conditions that ignores that basic and obvious fact, even if only for the purpose of generating convenient political propaganda, risks a dangerous miscalculation of the appropriate remedy.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

rose—

[Ms Eagle]

I will not give way because the hon. Gentleman has not been here for the entire debate; if he had been, I would have done.

We see in this Finance Bill that the Tory-led Government have made precisely that error with their deliberate, ideologically driven choice to go for a much more aggressive and reckless slash-and-burn strategy for public spending than the objective economic conditions, or even the bond markets themselves, required. The decision to opt for a balanced budget in four years is driven not by the objective economic conditions but by an ideologically driven political belief in a small state, a belief which is now apparently shared by the Liberal Democrats. Similarly, the decision to cut the deficit by imposing a 77% to 23% ratio of public spending cuts to tax rises is a choice driven not by the objective economic conditions but by the same belief in a small state apparently shared by the Liberal Democrats. It is a ratio of pain never before achieved in the UK, and it was not shared with the voters before the election. No mandate for this was established in the general election. Ministers have admitted that the cuts will be painful, but they have failed to acknowledge the scale of the pain that they have chosen to inflict. The apparent relish with which they choose to announce huge and ongoing cuts does them no credit whatsoever, and it will be seared into the memories of the millions of victims of their sadistic fiscal policy for years to come.

The propaganda techniques are chilling. Carefully chosen, extreme examples of excess in public expenditure are leaked by the Government to sympathetic tabloids to be highlighted in screaming headlines and make the case for more cuts. Government websites coarsen the debate still further by parading a stream of ignorant vitriol whipped up by sensationalist reporting, so it is suggested that workhouses are to be reopened, benefit claimants sterilised, and immigrants deported. If this is the nice face of the Tory party, then God help us, and shame on the Liberal Democrats for going along with it. The apocalyptic and absurd scares that they have issued about the UK economy resembling that of Greece—we heard it again today—have been not only fundamentally wrong but deeply irresponsible, and they have risked precipitating the very loss of confidence they purport to avoid.

This Finance Bill signals the biggest and most sustained public spending cuts in UK peacetime history, coupled with increases in taxes such as VAT that will directly take demand out of the economy just when recovery is fragile and still needs nurturing. That is why it is such a gamble. Labour Members are not the only ones who are deeply worried about the choices that have been made in the Bill. Following the Chancellor’s “austerity Budget”, the International Monetary Fund has just cut its growth forecast for the UK for both this year and the next. The OECD has criticised the decision to abolish the future fobs fund and other employment support packages as short-sighted and warned that the scale of job cuts in the public sector will slow down the recovery.

As a direct result of the June Budget and this Finance Bill, the now notoriously named Office for Budget Responsibility has had to revise upwards its estimates of job losses in the public sector. At the same time, it has revised downwards its growth forecasts and hoped that no one would notice that it excluded 550,000 people who work in state-owned enterprises from being in public sector employment, even though the Office for National Statistics classifies them as such: thus public sector job losses are likely to be even higher. The OBR’s prediction that the anticipated “recovery” will generate 2 million extra jobs in the private sector in just five years has caused widespread incredulity, because that target has never been achieved in the modern era. It has certainly never been achieved at a time when huge public spending cuts are likely to dampen employment prospects in the private sector and austerity measures are being imposed simultaneously in almost every developed economy in the world.