Oral Answers to Questions

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I want to see people’s energy bills come down. That is why we are legislating to put people on the lowest tariff; that is why we will go through to see what regulations and rules, put in place by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Energy Secretary, we can change to keep bills down; and that is why we need a competitive market. But simply making promises that you admit the next day you cannot meet is not proper politics.

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

Does the Prime Minister agree with the director general of the CBI that whether a business is small, medium or large it must grow as a business and invest and that high taxes do not allow that?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. What we heard at Labour’s conference is that Labour will put up taxes on some of Britain’s biggest and most successful businesses. Labour’s message to business is, “Don’t invest here, don’t bring the jobs here, don’t expand here—go somewhere else. We want to fight some petty socialist campaign against successful big business.” That is absolutely wrong for our economy.

G20

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

In the Syria debate I and many colleagues attempted to remind the House and the Leader of the Opposition of the importance of unity in this place and the damage done to our national interest by playing party politics. Did my right hon. Friend receive any questions from our allies about the curious position of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

I did have a few questions about what happened in the House of Commons, but some manoeuvres are very difficult and get lost in translation.

Syria and the Use of Chemical Weapons

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Thursday 29th August 2013 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

I am saying to the hon. Gentleman and the House that over the coming period, we have to assess in a calm and measured way—not in a knee-jerk way, and not on a political timetable—the advantages of potential action, whether such action can be taken on the basis of legitimacy and international law, and what the consequences would be.

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

Listening to the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, any reasonable human being would assume that he is looking to divide the House for political advantage. What has happened to the national interest?

[Edward Miliband]

That intervention is not worthy of the hon. Gentleman. I am merely trying to set out a framework for decision for the House. My interest all along has been to ensure that the House of the Commons can make the decision, and do so when the evidence is available. Some in the House believe that the decision is simple—clearly there are such Members on the Government Benches. Some think we can make the decision now to engage in military conflict. Equally, others believe we can rule out military conflict now. I happen to think that we must assess the evidence over the coming period. That is the right thing to do, and our road map sets out how we would do it.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The choice between head in the sand and boots on the ground has always, to my mind, been a false one. In recent days we have heard much about the limits to our influence on events in Syria, but we must not allow ourselves to believe that we can do nothing for the Syrian people. I recently visited a refugee camp near the Syrian border in the Kurdish region of Iraq. It was a harrowing reminder of the brutality of this war and its complexity.

In demographic terms Syria is like a photographic negative of Iraq. Both have large minority populations of Christians and Kurds, but in Syria it is the Sunnis who form the historically oppressed majority. In Iraq, we have seen what happens when a ruling minority is violently deposed. Today, large swathes of Sunni Iraq have all the characteristics of a failed state. My fear is that the envisioned post-Assad Syria would be equally unsustainable. A Sunni-dominated Syria would show no mercy to the defeated Alawites, and would therefore be completely unacceptable to the minorities, whether Alawite, Christian or Kurd, who would undoubtedly rebel with the support of regional powers.

The ever-shifting maze of internal politics and external agendas, and the sheer complexity of the situation, demand that we should be modest about what we hope to achieve. My constituents are deeply concerned about the prospect of another open-ended war in the middle east, and I will not vote for any action that would entangle us in regime change. There can be no more nation-building. We simply do not have the capability to do that; indeed, the most powerful country in the world does not have that capability.

[Bob Stewart]

Whatever we do, we must be quite precise about it. People talk about an exit strategy, but I have never seen an exit strategy in any other military conflict. I went into Bosnia with no mission whatever, but with just one idea: to save people’s lives. That is what we should be doing: saving the lives of people in Syria if we can.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

That is right. Any intervention by Britain must have a clear objective and defined limits, and our objective must be to protect civilians, as my hon. Friend has just said.

[Michael Ellis]

Is my hon. Friend also concerned about those who focus on the United Nations Security Council having absolutely the final say on interventions in humanitarian crises? If a country such as Russia were to oppose intervention in some new holocaust or similar disaster because it was taking place in a satellite country in which it had an interest, would we not be hamstrung and unable to take action?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

That is right; my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) has also made that point very powerfully.

Our objective is to protect civilians and to preserve the international taboo on the use of terror weapons. In the age of total war, there are virtually no moral limits on what a state might do in pursuit of its military objectives. Where such limits do exist, they must be upheld by responsible members of the international community. The Kurds of Iraq know that only too well. When Saddam bombed Halabja with mustard gas in 1988, the world looked on in horror but did nothing. Our inertia did not prevent further conflict; it made it more likely. With Saddam emboldened, the gassing of Halabja was followed by the invasion of Kuwait. From Munich to Srebrenica, the lesson of history is that one violation of international law leads to another.

On the question of limits, our model for intervention should be not Iraq in 2003 but the no-fly zone established over northern Iraq by the Major Government after the first Gulf war. In 1991, our objective was clear. It was to prevent Saddam’s final attempt to massacre the Kurds and the Shi’a. Crucially, however, the terms of the mission strictly limited our involvement. We were not trying to fix Iraq’s fractured politics; nor did we manage to do so. Let us remember that, with Saddam at bay, the Kurdish factions turned on each other and fought a bloody civil war. The Syrian people have to find their own vision of self-government, as the Kurds eventually did in Iraq.

Political consensus on this vital issue is incredibly important. It will serve only to weaken the United Kingdom if we are divided on foreign policy, which is why I am so disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition has flip-flopped on this issue. We might not be able to stop the killing in Syria, but we might be able to render the situation a little less terrible. If we want to live in a civilised world, some things must be beyond the pale. I will be supporting the motion tonight.

G8

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 19th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that no sooner do we make one change to the tax system than another loophole opens up that we have to attack. Prime Minister Harper in Canada said that he had taken about 72 tax avoidance measures in recent years. This is continuing work; it never ends. As for the second half of his question, I think I will leave that.

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

I commend my right hon. Friend for his position vis-à-vis Syria. One of the lessons from Iraq, Libya and Lebanon is that some of these extremist groups thrive not only with the bomb and the bullet, but by distributing food aid and using other ways to aid the communities that they invade. What are we doing to help the official Syrian opposition do that sort of work with the communities in the areas they control?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It was a huge issue in Somalia, where we have seen real progress in recent years. What matters is funding humanitarian relief through the best mechanisms we have. At the moment, that means working a lot with non-governmental organisations and the UN to ensure that they deliver what they can. He is absolutely right, however, about ensuring that it gets to parts of the country held by the Syrian opposition.

Tributes to Baroness Thatcher

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2013 Commons Chamber

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

Not only Britain but the whole world has lost a fierce champion of human liberty. A son and daughter have lost a mother. Our thoughts are with her family and the people who cared for her. The great lady has gone to a better place, and we know who will be there waiting for her, whisky in hand.

I was not close to Lady Thatcher personally, yet she had an enormous influence on me and on my family’s life. We arrived in the UK in 1978. I grew up with my father and mother admiring the new Conservative woman PM, as they referred to her. Beneath that admiration was the recognition of her background, which led us to the belief that, if we, as a new Kurdish family, worked hard and did our bit for our community, as her grocer father had done, we could do well in our new country.

When I was selected as a parliamentary candidate in February 2010, Margaret Thatcher was one of the first to send a handwritten letter of congratulations, with an invitation to join her for drinks. I turned up in London—she had invited a handful of new candidates—and she wanted to know how things were in Stratford-on-Avon. I explained that the people were worried about the state of the country’s finances. Her sound advice was this: “We need to win, Nadhim, to ensure that we can fix things again, and make the tough decisions the country needs.”

Lady Thatcher’s gift to this country was to make it great again. Her gift to the world was to confront aggressive communism and the cold war. Many colleagues have spoken eloquently about what Margaret Thatcher meant to them. I want to end by quoting two short notes I have received that show what she meant to those whom she cared most about: the people of her country. The first is from a serving soldier in the Household Cavalry, who writes:

“She was a real legend who walked her own path, stirred passions on both sides of the fence and made a sick Britain great again.”

The second note is from Dr Naeem Ahmed, who works in the NHS. He writes:

“My dad is a 1st generation Bangladeshi who arrived here at 13.”

Dr Ahmed’s dad was upset at Margaret Thatcher’s passing, and said:

“She was a leader on the side of the small businessman”.

The testimonies of those young men prove that the great lady will live on.

Margaret Thatcher made this country understand the importance of living within its means. She knew that only when we achieve that can we be ambitious for, and positive about, our position in the world. Next week, the country she loved will mark her passing. It is right that we do so with the full ceremony of Church and state, because 30 years ago, in a storm-lashed corner of the south Atlantic, she stood up for the inalienable rights of British citizens, despite coming under great pressure to look the other way. In doing so, she showed the world that we are not yet finished, and that Britain’s name and Britain’s word still matters. She gave us hope that our finest hour lies not in the past, but in our future. For that, the nation owes her its thanks.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Monday 3rd September 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Of course I am satisfied that the Prime Minister did all he could. This happens in politics, but thankfully our political parties are not North Korean political parties that jump when their leaders say jump. I should know that as well as anybody after this weekend’s press coverage.

This debate divides opinion and provokes strong reactions in people. In this instance, as the Prime Minister has said, he sought to persuade Members of his own party, but the commitment that he and I made to having the first elections take place in 2015 proved not to be possible. What we have done is perfectly sensible, and it happens from time to time in politics. We have drawn a line under that issue and the boundaries issue, and we will move on with the many important matters, particularly economic ones, that we must now tackle.

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

The Deputy Prime Minister talks about the shortcomings of the Steel Bill, but he also speaks passionately about the unwieldy number of Lords, about patronage and about all the other things that we can get on and reform now. I implore him to produce a short Bill to get on with those reforms, building on Lord Steel’s Bill. Or is he just an all-or-nothing man?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I have said, I suspect that if the situation was quite as straightforward as the hon. Gentleman feels, reformers in the past and over the past couple of years would have reached the eureka moment. As I explained, the Steel Bill would make only a tiny difference to the size of the House of Lords. As the debates over the past several months have proved, anything more substantial appears to be too controversial right now. That is why we have rightly said that the Government are now going to focus on the things that people want us to focus on, as I believe he has urged me to do in the past. We want to ensure that we create circumstances in which growth and an increase in jobs take root in our economy.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

By all means, let us get rid of the hereditaries. That can be done extremely easily, by a very small Bill that would hardly be opposed by anyone.

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

Is not the reason the Bill fails so miserably that it reflects an obsession with the form rather than the function of the other place?

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind]

My hon. Friend is right and he brings me to my next point, which is that if the Deputy Prime Minister really believes in a democratic upper House, why is he not providing for one in the Bill? What he is providing is form, not substance. The very name of the revised Chamber will continue to be “the House of Lords”. Not a senate, it will be the House of Lords, even though every Lord will have been expelled from it over a period of years.

When it comes to the proposed powers, the Deputy Prime Minister spends his time trying to reassure this House that the powers of the new elected, democratic Chamber will be—will have to be—exactly the same as those the appointed House has now. What possible justification is there for that, if he believes in an elected, democratic upper House? He is a Liberal Democrat; does he not remember the history of his own party? Does he not remember that the Parliament Act 1911 was passed because, until then, apart from on taxation matters, there was an equal right of veto in both Houses, and Asquith and his colleagues argued correctly that an unelected House could not have a veto on the business of Parliament? If the second Chamber is now to be elected, on what ground does he seek to justify his proposals—other than a desire to be all things to all people?

That is the sad problem with the Liberal Democrats: they always wish to be all things to all people—to go for the middle way. I am reminded of a remark I once heard, which I thought was rather good: if Christopher Columbus had been a Liberal Democrat, he probably would have been content with discovering the mid-Atlantic. [Laughter.]

What public interest will be served by the Bill in its current form? Does my right hon. Friend really believe that, compared with all these distinguished men and women from all over the country who serve in the House of Lords now, most of whom will not be able to continue to serve, a party list of candidates will result in more cerebral debate, more enlightened debate and more able contributions to the revision of legislation? Does he actually believe that and does he seriously want us to accept that, or does he recognise that that cannot, in fact, be the case?

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience and generosity. I had to sprint across to St Thomas’s, where my wife is having a scan. We are expecting our third child.

The supporters of the Bill would have the country believe that those who are opposed to it are opponents of democracy itself. Today I stand to refute that ugly caricature. No one in the House is more committed to British democracy than I. My family emigrated to Britain from an Iraq where democracy was spoken of only behind closed doors, late at night, among trusted friends. Compared to the brutal realities of Saddam’s rule, democracy was an abstract dream. Yet here in Britain there was a constitutional order which made democracy real, concrete, embedded in the very fabric of our national life.

Here was a judiciary—unelected, I grant you—which interpreted the law in the interests of the public, not of the ruling party. Here was a Queen—again, unelected—whose impregnable position as Head of State made sure that no politician could ever wield supreme power. And here also was the oldest and greatest of Parliaments, an elected House of Commons to embody the will of the people, and an appointed House of Lords to stand as a check against the tyranny of the majority.

[Jesse Norman]

Does my hon. Friend share my view that it is in the balance of these extraordinary institutions and in their distinctive history that so much of the genius of our history has been located?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

That is exactly right. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. This is exactly the constitution that I believe in and this is the constitution that I will defend. This is not, as my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for political and constitutional reform has said, some “silly game”.

If recent events in the Arab world have shown us anything, it is that democracy is not just about holding elections. It is also about building institutions which ensure that the whole of society is represented, regardless of who is in power. The question that we should ask ourselves today is whether British society will be better represented by 360 more career politicians accountable to no one but their party.

I am not complacent about the state of our democracy. I know that Parliament currently faces a crisis of legitimacy in the eyes of the country, but the cause of that crisis is not the other place. No. It is that deeply damaging sense that politicians here, in this House, are out of touch.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that reforming the other place will not solve the problems of reforming this place? This House needs to be more effective in holding the Executive to account. Making changes down the road, with who knows what outcome, is not the answer. We must reform this House and ensure that the other House serves by revising our legislation, rather than undermining the democratic supremacy of this House.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the reasons why we in this place are perceived to be out of touch is that people feel that we put the interests of party before those of our country, that we care more about securing a party political legacy than about growth capital for our businesses or good local schools for our children. The public want a Parliament that legislates well and in the national interest, and they want MPs who are on their side and up to the job. They do not want to see, and certainly do not want to pay for, more politicians and more party patronage.

I have conducted new scientific polling that shows that 60% of the public are opposed to spending more money on politicians and elections, yet that is what the Bill offers them. If we are really to fix Parliament, we must give it the tools to legislate better. Let us strengthen the role of Select Committees and give more time for Back-Bench business. Let us not solve the problem of a broken legislature by making it harder to legislate. Let us not inflame the deep mistrust of party politics by bringing in a system that hands more power over to the party machine.

I am a loyal critic of the other place. The White Paper states that it performs its role of scrutiny and revision with “distinction”, yet I know that there is much that we could do to improve it. We could reduce the number of peers, abolish prime ministerial patronage, remove the final hereditary peers and increase the professional expertise that already makes such a great contribution to the quality of parliamentary debate. I have argued, and will continue to argue, for all this and more, but subverting the primacy of the Commons is not the answer to reform.

The Government know that it would be impossible to write into law the conventions governing the relationship between the Lords and Commons. As a result, the only protection against legislative gridlock between the two Houses would be the good faith of the new senators. We would have to require 360 career politicians to promise not to use their new democratic mandate to oppose the will of the Commons. If one day in the future this House is legislating on military action or an emergency Budget, for example—situations in which time is of the essence—we would run the risk of a costly delay as our new senators discover the power and publicity that this mandate conferred. Of course, we could always use the Parliament Acts to ram a Bill through this new House of senators, but that hardly seems to signify a new era of democratic accountability to me. Indeed, how ironic that the supporters of a Bill for reforming our democracy are refusing to take their argument to the country.

The claim that the choice was put to the public at the general election does not hold up either. Where was the choice when all the main parties offered it in their manifestos? The polling overwhelmingly shows that an elected House of Lords is not a priority. Does it stretch belief that voting intentions may have been dictated largely by what our parties were promising to do on the economy and public services, rather than on constitutional reform? A referendum would ensure that the public have all the facts before making their choice known. In the same polling I quoted earlier, even Liberal Democrat support for these proposals fell to just 29% once the costs of elections were factored in.

I know that many colleagues will have been urged to express their concerns on Third Reading, but those suggesting that approach are being disingenuous at best. Unless a referendum clause is added now, there is no guarantee that it will be added later and, with a combination of the Parliament Acts being used and Opposition Members saying that they will support the Bill on Second and Third Reading, there is little chance that a Back-Bench amendment would be successful. The only way that the views of hon. Members would be heard and debated properly is if we vote against the programme motion and, in the absence of a referendum clause, vote against the Bill’s Second Reading. Anything else is merely a protest vote, not one that will make a difference.

Debate on the Address

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:

Most Gracious Sovereign,

We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament.

In this year of the Queen’s diamond jubilee, I am deeply honoured to move the Loyal Address. For six decades, Her Majesty has provided us with a peerless example of duty, dignity and service to the nation. And it was the subject of “peerlessness” that was immediately on my mind when I was called into the Chief Whip’s office last week. I really thought that he wanted to have a full and frank discussion with me on the reform of the other place. I ran to No. 9 Downing street, in the pouring rain, clutching my folder of briefing notes, while continuously repeating, “More effective, but not elected. More effective, but not elected.” I can announce to this House that having a small glass of water, without the biscuits, with the Chief Whip has allowed us to reach agreement; as our manifesto demanded, a consensus on this thorny issue has been reached.

It was only later that I remembered something important: the accepted convention is that this Address is usually delivered by an hon. Member of this House just as their illustrious career is starting to approach its expiry date—perhaps my right. hon. Friend the Prime Minister was gently hinting that I had a great future behind me. Equally, the Loyal Address is usually seconded by a young, ambitious, thrusting Back Bencher who is hungry for promotion, and it is in that spirit that I warmly congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), who has that happy role today.

Although I have rarely seen the Chamber this full, this will probably not be my most watched speech. Not many Back-Bench MPs can boast more than 130,000 downloads on YouTube, for a few lines uttered during an Opposition day debate. To any colleagues in the House seeking a wider audience for their speeches, my advice is: spend less time thinking about what you are going to say and more time thinking about what you are going to wear. I recommend a loud tie—preferably one with a soundtrack.

The last person to move this motion was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), and I seem to recall that he informed this House that he was able to trace his lineage back to the village of Lilley, which has existed in his constituency since Anglo-Saxon times. With a name like mine, I was never going to convince the voters of Stratford-on-Avon that my ancestors fought the Normans at the battle of Hastings. In fact, Stratford-on-Avon is a constituency in the heart of England, in the county of Warwickshire, that is 90% white. If I may say so, Mr Speaker, this is not a kaleidoscope county. But it is testament to the values of that constituency, and of this country, that it chose me as its representative, and it is on its behalf that I deliver this address.

During the election, I canvassed every one of Stratford-on-Avon’s 79 villages and hamlets, as well as its four principal towns. It became clear to me that people were not interested in my ethnicity, or in where I had gone to school. What they wanted to know was: was I on their side, and was I up to the job? For us politicians, and for this Government, those are the questions that really matter. Our different backgrounds were certainly a point of curiosity, but what made the difference was our shared values, and in that the people of Stratford represent the very best of modern Britain.

Mr Speaker, my family arrived on these shores with only £50 in their pockets—immigrants from a land in the grip of a cruel and murderous regime. This great country offered us the priceless gifts of freedom and opportunity, and the ultimate proof of that opportunity is that I can stand before you today as a Member of this, the oldest and greatest of all Parliaments.

Today, the task before us all is to spread that opportunity further. To do so, we must strengthen enterprise and deliver a more affordable state. It will not be easy. As my hon. Friend, and co-author, the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) well knows, over the past decade or more our banks have been managed not by the masters of the universe, but by the masters of nothing. I am therefore pleased that the Gracious Speech has announced measures to implement the Vickers recommendations on banking reform. We should not make the mistake of thinking that this is merely a technical issue, of no interest to the public. It matters to people, because they want a fairer and stronger financial system, not one of cosy cartels and taxpayer bail-outs.

What is happening right now in the eurozone will matter, too. In Greece, hardliners and extremists are threatening to take over the political mainstream, but it is comforting that there are early signs of a reverse trend here in the UK. In Britain, extremists and hardliners are rejoining the mainstream. Only yesterday my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary issued a clarion call for the repatriation of powers from Brussels. After such a far-sighted and decisive intervention, by such a senior member of the Government, no one can say that this coalition is not working. But there is a serious point here. People at home watching the political mayhem in Europe would be utterly dismayed if we failed to maintain a strong and focused Government to deal with this crisis.

There is a real opportunity beyond the crisis, and I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to build strategic partnerships with the emerging powers. Over the next 10 years the global economy is forecast to grow by $9 trillion—and $6 trillion of that growth will come from one country: China. In fact, China is growing so quickly that it creates an economy the size of Greece every three months. On current trends, we might have to revise that upwards.

In my own constituency, I see even small businesses grabbing hold of the opportunities that those huge numbers represent. Reforms that unleash the creative power of our small and medium-sized businesses are the best growth strategy that this country could possibly have.

In business, we soon learn that the world owes us nothing; historic ties, patient diplomacy, shared values and even shared language will not get us that contract unless we can also beat our rivals on quality, service and price. That is a lesson that we ignore at our peril. Yet there is one area in which the world does owe Britain—one field in which we remain both a net creditor and a leading exporter. It is more stable than finance and more enduring than oil. I am describing our extraordinary cultural industries. Indeed, as the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, I cannot proceed any further without a mention of William Shakespeare, my most famous former constituent.

Members of the House will doubtless be familiar with Shakespeare’s warning in Act I of “Hamlet”:

“Give thy thoughts no tongue,

Nor any unproportion’d thought his act”—

valuable advice indeed for those of us who use Twitter, Mr Speaker.

The House will be aware of not only Shakespeare the playwright and poet, but Shakespeare the industry—another area in which our fame resounds across the world. When the Chinese Premier, Wen Jiabao, visited Britain for two days last summer, one day was reserved for high-level strategic talks in Whitehall, but the other—at his own request—was spent with the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust in Stratford. The thought of one of the world’s most powerful men wearing special white gloves, so that he could handle a Shakespeare first edition with reverence, is a striking reminder of just how far our cultural reach extends. And the traffic is not just one-way; for the many Chinese visitors to Stratford, a park bench where Premier Wen took a short rest has become a major tourist attraction.

In summing up, I should say that it is Shakespeare the man who resonates with me the most. As well as creating great art, Shakespeare built a great business. Uniquely among Elizabethan playwrights, he owned a share in the theatre company for which he wrote. Like all good business owners, he invested in his company. In 1608, he helped to finance a second theatre in Blackfriars, just across the river from the more famous Globe. Lacking family connections, but possessed of a great grammar school education, his achievement is all the more remarkable.

As well as being the greatest writer in our language—in any language, I would say—there is no better embodiment of British values than this self-taught, self-made, and indeed self-created, man. He was a man who worked his utmost to put on earth and in our hearts a source of wealth that endures to this day. In fact, more than that, I would go as far as to say that the great bard was in his soul and actions a natural Tory. I commend the motion to the House.

European Council

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Most of the measures in paragraph 15 were not in the original draft of the communiqué. What was decisive was that it was not just the usual suspects, such as the Swedes, the Danes, the Dutch and the British, coming forward with the agenda; we also had support from the Italian and Spanish Prime Ministers, who have not always championed this agenda, but who now see that it is vital for European growth.

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

Consistency delivers results, so whereas Opposition Members have been criticising the Prime Minister for being consistent in pushing for a digital single market, I congratulate him because, apart from silicon valley, the UK is uniquely placed to take advantage of that. More specifically, did he get a chance to discuss with his colleagues why it costs so much more to start a company in Europe than in America, Canada or India?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The truth is that if we want to get anywhere in Europe, we have to be a bit of a bore about things and keep going back to them again and again and again. Countries across Europe need to look at all the steps we have put in the way of people starting up businesses. There is the venture capital issue, for instance: for every dollar raised in Europe for venture capital, $5 are raised in America. That is yet another area in which Europe needs to do better.

Oral Answers to Questions

Nadhim Zahawi Excerpts

Wednesday 8th February 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The shadow spokesman on London and the Olympics said that the big society “should be Labour territory”. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that the whole point of the big society is that it is not just for Labour but for everyone?

[Mr Letwin]

Yes, I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend, and I should like to pray in aid the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), who said that the big society is

“something that the Labour party should instinctively understand as part of its own DNA”.

The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband), told the Labour party:

“We shouldn’t be afraid of the Big Society; we should claim it for our own”.

I hope this can bring the whole House together.