Schools White Paper

Debate between Richard Fuller and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

We are investing £7 billion, with £4 billion front-loaded this year and next year, and there is £5 billion for recovery. That is the investment. That is the commitment that we make when we speak, as I did this morning, to great school leaders like the great head at Monega. She will tell the hon. Gentleman that this is doable. The team at Monega has turned the school around in five years and it is now an outstanding school. We want to spread that good practice and quality leadership across the system.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his ambition and for making Bedfordshire an education investment area, but I draw his attention to a particular point in his White Paper, which refers to work

“to scrutinise and challenge off-rolling”

from schools. He will know that, unchecked, off-rolling can undermine trust, even in the best systems, so will he pay particular attention to that?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and in knitting together a system between our White Paper and the SEND and AP Green Paper, I have the opportunity to make sure that such behaviour no longer happens and that alternative provision is not seen as a sort of warehousing for forgotten children, because high-quality alternative provision has a place and a role to play in our education system.

Covid-19 Vaccinations: 12 to 15-year-olds

Debate between Richard Fuller and Nadhim Zahawi

Monday 13th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I remind the hon. Gentleman of the answers I gave earlier on consent. Parental consent will be sought, and the school-age vaccination programme is very well equipped to do that. The consent process is being handled by each school in its usual way and will provide sufficient time for parents to provide their consent. Children aged 12 to 15 will also be provided with information, usually in the form of a leaflet, for their own use and to share and discuss with their parents. The consent of the parent, guardian or carer will be sought by the school. In the rare circumstances in which a parent withholds consent but the child wants to be vaccinated, the child has to be deemed competent by the clinicians after consultation between the child and the parent. If that consultation is unsuccessful, the child has to be deemed to be Gillick competent. That has been the law of the land for other vaccination programmes, and in those circumstances the vaccination would proceed.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has again cited Gillick competence as a reason why parental consent can be overridden, but many people will think that this situation is very different from the fundamental basis of the Gillick competence. This is a widespread programme with all the issues of pressure and peer pressure that may arise from it, and we have had only a few months to understand the implications of this vaccine for people’s health. Also, the Minister himself has said that there is not much evidence on the long-term implications. Can he advise the House what legal assessment he has undertaken to support the Gillick competence in this case?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The Government have taken copious legal advice on this issue. I remind the House that on the rare occasions when there is a difference of opinion and a parent withholds consent when their child wants to be vaccinated, the clinician will bring together in consultation the child and the parents to try to reach consensus before they move on to the question of Gillick competence.

Covid Vaccine Passports

Debate between Richard Fuller and Nadhim Zahawi

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I said this at the Dispatch Box before recess. Actually, the Secretary of State took to the World Health Organisation a plea to the rest of the world that people in trials should be considered fully vaccinated, whether they have had the placebo or otherwise, in order to encourage them to come forward for vaccine trials. I repeated that today. It will not be an issue for nightclub bouncers.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The measures presented by the Minister today are unsupportable because they are bereft of any rationale. I ask him to think carefully about whether this Government wish to take powers that were deemed to be emergency powers and make them the normal powers of a Government in a free society. I, for one, think that that is extremely unwise and that there is no case for this.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

I agree with my hon. Friend that the times that we are enduring are not normal. This is a measure that we are having to take. As he will hear from our chief medical officers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, this is a mitigation to allow us to continue to transition this pandemic over the winter months and not have to reverse our policies. I say, with a heavy heart, that I would much rather stand here and take from colleagues arrows in the back—or in the front—than come back to this House and have to close down nightclubs because the virus has caused a super-spreader event. I do not want to have to explain that to the whole industry, because it would be much more detrimental to businesses to have to open and shut them, and open and shut them again.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Debate between Richard Fuller and Nadhim Zahawi

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) made an impassioned and moral argument for amendment 1, to which I shall return later.

I have taken a very keen interest in this issue. It has affected a significant number of people in Stratford-on-Avon, to the extent that I have had hundreds of letters and e-mails about it. Like many other Members, I signed the EMAG pledge before the election, and I believe that backing the Government to get the Bill through is delivering on that pledge.

It is probably worth our spending just a few moments thinking about the economic landscape in which we are operating. We are borrowing about £500 million a day. Every time we go to sleep and wake up in the morning, we notch up another £500 million. To service the debt costs about £120 million a day—that is not to pay it down, but just to stand still. It is against that background that we must try to resolve the tragedy of Equitable Life.

Let me spend a couple of minutes on the timelines of the events. In 1988, Equitable Life stopped selling its guaranteed annuity rate policies and, in 1990, those policies became too expensive to honour because of the falls in interest rates and in inflation. In 1999, after the 1997 election, Equitable cut its bonus paid to 90,000 GAR policyholders. In July 2000, the House of Lords ruled that Equitable Life must meet its obligations to its GAR policyholders, thus leaving it with a £1.5 billion liability.

In February 2001, the Halifax agreed to pay £1 billion for the assets. In July, with-profits policyholders saw the value of their savings slashed by 16%—by almost one fifth. In August, Lord Penrose announced his investigation. In October, the then Economic Secretary to the Treasury told the Treasury Committee that the previous Labour Government might consider compensation for some victims if a grave injustice had occurred.

In January 2002, policyholders backed a compromise package. In March 2004, the Penrose report blamed Equitable Life’s management for the whole affair. Following the report’s publication, the Government ruled out compensation and were accused in this House of abandoning policyholders. In April, the parliamentary ombudsman announced that she would reopen her investigation.

In 2007, the European Parliament called on the UK Government to compensate policyholders. In January 2008, Equitable agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to 407 with-profits annuitants who launched proceedings in 2004. The ombudsman’s report was published in 2008. The previous Government said that they would respond by the autumn. When the deadline was missed, the then Prime Minister said that they would respond before Christmas. However, they did not respond until the new year.

In August 2009, Sir John Chadwick published his first interim report, and in March 2010—more than a year after his appointment—he published his third and final interim report with a promise of a final report in May 2010. That date was subsequently extended to July.

I go through these events in chronological order to demonstrate the pain that the victims of Equitable Life have had to go through. This is a true human tragedy. The hon. Member for Leeds North East talked about the e-mails and letters that he has received from his constituents, and the same is happening in all our constituencies.

The Government’s offer is a very good one. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans) said that, at best, he expected them to offer up to £1 billion. Many colleagues and I voiced our concerns the last time we debated this matter in the Chamber. When one makes a pledge, one must try to honour it.

[Richard Fuller]

Like many of us, my hon. Friend is wrestling with this question of fairness and with the political obligation to find a fair payment scheme that was mentioned in the Public Administration Committee and that many of us have signed up to. Hon. Members from both sides of the Committee are caught between wanting to praise the Minister for the swiftness of his recommendations—we praise him for that—and finding, in these difficult times, £1.5 billion. We often talk about that figure in comparison with the Chadwick number. However, does my hon. Friend not accept that we should view the figure with respect to what the Government themselves have said about policyholders’ relative loss, which Towers Watson estimated at, I think, £4.3 billion? Does £1.5 billion represent meeting our obligation of fairness if it is set against the relative figure of £4.3 billion that the Government themselves have accepted?