Schools White Paper

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

It is through the multi-academy trust—that family of schools that is tightly managed and high performing—that we think we can deliver the greatest outcomes for children. I will happily look at what my hon. Friend’s schools are doing, but outcomes are delivered through schools being strongly held together and really well managed, as well as through the sharing of evidence.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The White Paper says that it

“marks the start of a journey”.

Quite why it has taken 12 years to start a journey to raise standards will be beyond the understanding of most parents, staff and children. If the Secretary of State wants to learn from the evidence of successful and sustained improvement in schools, will he apply the lessons of collaboration and support from the London challenge, which transformed education standards in the capital and did not involve a name change on the badge above the door?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I will look at any evidence and learn from it. The hon. Member speaks about what we have done. I remind him that in 2019, 65% of key stage 2 pupils reached the expected standard in all of reading, writing and maths, and we want to go much further—to 90%—but the 2019 figure was a seven percentage points increase in reading and a nine percentage points increase in maths since 2016. That is what we have done.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is a passionate advocate for ensuring that any mitigation is proportionate. The most important thing is that we prioritise face-to-face education. Keeping children in school is my absolute priority, and I have said from the Dispatch Box today that I will do everything in my power to maintain that situation. Of course, directors of public health can advise temporary additional measures, but they should always be proportionate. As long as schools continue to be open, they should be holding nativities, and delivering every other one of their important functions.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Earlier I made the case to the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), for a new school at Lydiate Primary School. His answer was to talk about maintenance, but that is just a make-do-and-mend approach that really is not going to cut it for the children of Lydiate Primary School; it is very short-sighted and would be poor value for money. Since 2010, the school capital programme has been cut from £9.1 billion to £4.3 billion. If the Government are serious about levelling up, will they put the money back in and rebuild schools such as Lydiate Primary School?

Covid-19 Update

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point that he has made to me many times. It is important clinical guidance to people. It is important that people take personal and corporate responsibility, as we are seeing with some great companies, such as Lidl, which are coming under pressure at the moment because staff are having to self-isolate. As I said earlier, there are no easy decisions on this, but to be able to transition the virus from pandemic to endemic, we just need that careful, little bit more time until 16 August—it is not long to go—when everyone who is double-dosed will not have to self-isolate for 10 days.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]]

We all know that a negative test is a crucial risk indicator. NHS staff are off work, restaurants and pubs are being forced to close, and there are empty supermarket shelves. This is a time-critical problem in essential parts of society, so when are the Government going to publish a list of sectors where staff can use a negative test result so that they can go to work now? Making employers apply for an exemption is simply not going to be enough, and the economy and society simply cannot wait until 16 August.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

What recent assessment he has made of which business sectors have been most affected by the covid-19 outbreak.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)]

We know that many areas of the economy face challenges, as we have just heard, especially in sectors that have closed under new national restrictions, such as hospitality. That is why we have extended the coronavirus job retention scheme to March and provided an unprecedented support package to businesses and to workers.

[Bill Esterson]

Many working people have been excluded since March. They do not qualify for furlough; they do not qualify for the self-employed scheme; and their businesses do not qualify for the grants. It is no good the Government giving the mantra about universal credit. It will not wash, because most people who have been excluded do not qualify for universal credit. The Government were right to U-turn over the injustice facing hungry children, so when will they fix the growing injustice faced by millions of excluded people in this country who just want to put food on the table for their children?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The Government have put forward a comprehensive package of support, as we heard from the Secretary of State, for both individuals and businesses. The self-employed income support scheme has also been extended. The support package is not only about the welfare system, which has had an additional £9 billion put into it to help people, but about the bounce back loans, the tax deferrals and the rental support, which are all important parts of it, as well as mortgage holidays and other business support grants through local government.

Construction Industry: Cash Retentions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Thursday 27th February 2020 Westminster Hall

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I opened by saying that the Government are committed to tackling the problem of late and unfair payments, so I hope that answers the question whether we are going to do something about the issue.

To respond to other points that were raised, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun and my brilliant hon. Friend the Member for Waveney both mentioned their private Members’ Bills. It is important that any action we take is robust, proportionate and evidence based, which is where we are at the moment. Several policy options are under consideration, including the retention deposit scheme. It would be premature to commit to anything at this stage while several policy options are under consideration.

[Bill Esterson]

The Minister is right to look for evidence. We have a tenancy deposit scheme that works. We have evidence from New Zealand, Canada, Australia, France and New Mexico that such a scheme is possible in construction. The evidence of best practice from around the world is in front of him. The evidence is also there from the construction industry in this country that it is desirable and needed. This has gone on for far too long; can the Government just get on with it?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his encouragement. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun talked about a clear majority supporting the retention deposit scheme. I take issue with that, and not as a party political matter. There is no clear majority supporting any solution at the moment. It is right for the Government to begin to distil opinions and come to a view.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun also mentioned that significant parts of the industry have called for the scheme and asked why the Government will not legislate for it. Given the evident complexity of the policy issues, as we have discussed, it would be premature to commit to introduce a retention deposit scheme. In addition, costs are driven by what the industry wants to adopt and what it wants to resist. Unfortunately, the lack of consensus to date means that a preferred solution has not yet emerged. We will continue to work with stakeholders and I would like to think that we can get to a place where we have that consensus.

Draft Freedom of Establishment and Free Movement of Services (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I have a lot to cover, but I will happily take the hon. Lady’s intervention later. The Government’s plan on citizens’ rights confirms that EEA and Swiss citizens resident in the UK by exit day would be able to apply to the EU settlement scheme until at least 31 December 2020 to secure their status in a no-deal scenario. The EU settlement scheme is live and performing well. More than 2 million applications have now been received, and the scheme will continue to run in a deal or no-deal scenario. EU citizens resident in the UK by exit day will continue to be able to access benefits and services on exactly the same basis after the UK exits the EU as they do now. I sincerely hope that colleagues will refrain from scaremongering. It is deeply irresponsible for hon. and right hon. Members to do so.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central asked important questions, which I will attempt to address. He asked about the impact assessment for the regulations. An impact assessment has not been prepared because the impact has been approved de minimis in line with the better regulation framework.

[Bill Esterson]

How will you know if you don’t do one?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Let me make some headway.

The only area in which the directly effective rights of establishment or free movement of services have been identified to have a direct impact on UK businesses is in the case of satellite decoders, where we expect the impact to be minimal. The directly effective rights of establishment and free movement of services impact the immigration regime applied to Swiss and Turkish nationals. Changes to the regimes will be delivered by primary immigration legislation, so let us not conflate those two things.

The hon. Gentleman also asked how we know that the EU will not reciprocate. Why are we doing this now? These rights are no longer reciprocated once we leave the EU. They are directly effective rights that are applicable only to member states. However, this does not preclude us from agreeing an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU.

The hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth said that the regulations are necessary to protect the Government’s freedom to regulate in a no-deal scenario and asked what regulations the Government are planning that would contravene or depart from those rights. We anticipate that the immediate practical impact of the regulations on the ability of EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish nationals to establish or carry on business or provide services in the UK will be limited, because UK law is currently expected to be compliant with these rights. Were there to be any legislative changes that depart from these rights—which I think is his point— after we have left the EU, they would be subject to the scrutiny of Parliament in the normal way and so would be considered at the appropriate time.

I want to return to the hon. Member for Sefton Central, who asked how the Government can be sure that there are no other direct impacts. The Government have prepared as thoroughly as possible. I hope he would agree that we have consulted as thoroughly as we can, and that the only exception is the satellite decoders.

Several hon. Members spoke about the submission from the Public Law Project. Allow me to address it. It is important that we get this on the record, because emotions are running high and the atmosphere is febrile in this place. I think I have addressed the issue of the impact assessment. The hon. Member for Sefton Central said that these go beyond the powers conferred on Ministers by the Henry VIII powers in section 8 of the withdrawal Act, a point that pretty much comes from the Public Law Project notes that were circulated today. I will share with the hon. Gentleman the correct position. The powers delegated to Ministers by Parliament via the EU withdrawal Act specifically allow changes to be made to existing Acts of Parliament by secondary legislation, through so-called Henry VIII powers. In its report on Henry VIII and delegated powers, the House of Lords Constitution Committee noted that

“the distinction between Henry VIII and other delegated powers is not in this exceptional context a reliable guide to the constitutional significance of such powers, and should not be taken by Parliament to be such.”

Section 8 powers to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in the EU law retained under the Act that arise from the UK’s withdrawal from the EU are used here to address deficiencies in retained EU law relating to certain provisions on freedom of establishment and free movement of services in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. Section 8 is used to address any inoperability of such rights and to ensure that UK law continues to function effectively and with legal clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson]

I made the point that section 8 of the withdrawal Act is designed to address deficiencies in retained EU law—that is not in question. The problem is that it is not being used for that; it is being used for changes in policy and to affect people’s rights. That goes way beyond the scope, as does addressing WTO deficiencies. That is not what was ever envisaged or stated by the Government when they passed the withdrawal Act.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The deficiencies in retained directly effective rights concerning freedom of establishment and the free movement of services, including a lack of reciprocity, which there cannot be in this case, arise as a result of the withdrawal of the UK from the EU. That is the whole point. The provisions in the regulations are being made as a direct consequence of the UK’s exit from the EU.

Finally, the hon. Member for Sefton Central mentioned the3million’s campaign on our doing this here through secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation. The regulations do not represent a significant policy change, as he suggests. They simply do not. If colleagues prefer to scaremonger, that is their prerogative, but I do not agree with them. I think it is a mistake to do that. It is a time to behave responsibly. The regulations do not impose any new restrictions on EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish nationals or on EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish-based businesses at the point at which we exit the EU, and we do not expect disapplying these rights to have a direct impact on the ability of EU, EEA, EFTA, Swiss or Turkish nationals to establish or provide services. The hon. Gentleman will know better than I do that successive Governments have implemented EU obligations via both secondary and primary legislation, so I hope he will reconsider his position.

I will end, Mr Hanson, because I want to get you over the road to the hospital to see your granddaughter. I thank Members for their valuable contributions to this debate. I compel them to think twice before they scaremonger. The hon. Member for Glasgow Central should talk to her colleagues in the Scottish Parliament on this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 25th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

4. If he will make an assessment of the potential merits of the recommendations for his Department in the Family Rights Group report, “Care Crisis Review: Options for Change”, published in June 2018; and what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on that report.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)]

The sector-led review is an important contribution to the family justice system. Across government we will consider its findings and recommendations carefully. My counterpart in the Ministry of Justice and I are due to meet the Family Rights Group to discuss the report in more detail.

[Bill Esterson]

Now that the Government have admitted that cuts to the national health service were a political choice, not an economic necessity, will they admit the same when it comes to local government, especially children’s social care? Will the Minister read the report from the directors of children’s services, take the action that is needed to end the crisis in children’s social care, and make the priority looking after our most vulnerable children, not tax cuts for the very wealthy?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

There is some great work taking place in children’s social care across the country. Money, of course, is a consideration, but good leadership, and strong and confident teams are making a huge difference. Across government, as has been mentioned, we are spending £1.4 billion on the troubled families programme.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bill Esterson and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 19th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend has been a champion of children in need. The review is absolutely intended to establish best practice. It builds on work that we already do with our partners in practice local authorities, the expansion of which I announced last week.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Since 2010, the number of children on the child protection register is up 83%, while the number of children in care is at its highest since 1985. Does the Minister think that the cuts in children’s services since 2010 are the reason for that? If not, to what does he ascribe those terrible outcomes for the most vulnerable children in our society?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Local authorities have been increasing their investment in children’s services. I visited Hackney, Wigan and Doncaster, and my impression is that the real differentiator is leadership, which is why we are investing £2 million in the Local Government Association to look at leadership and the partners in practice programme.