Point of Order
Debate between Kate Green and Nigel Evans
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Last Monday, following Education questions, I raised a point of order querying the Secretary of State’s claim that the Government aimed to roll out tutoring to 6 million pupils. The Secretary of State insisted that that figure was correct; however, at the end of last week, “Schools Week” reported that when it approached Department for Education officials about the figure they contradicted the Secretary of State, saying that the pledge is for 6 million courses, not 6 million pupils. Mr Deputy Speaker, in the light of that discrepancy, and the possibility that the Secretary of State has given incorrect information to the House, can you advise me on what steps I can take to ensure that he comes to the Chamber to clarify the matter, in order that hon. Members can be sure that we have accurate information?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for giving notice of the point of order, because that allows for a fuller response, which I think is what every Member would like. Although the content of answers to parliamentary questions and contributions is not a matter for the Chair, I must remind the House that the Government’s own ministerial code requires Ministers to correct any inadvertent errors in answers to parliamentary questions at the earliest opportunity. An error has been made in this instance, and I am sure that the Government will seek to correct it as quickly as possible. I know that the Whip on duty will pass this on to the Minister. If the hon. Member wishes to pursue the issue, I am sure that the Table Office will be able to further advise her. I now suspend the House for three minutes.
Christmas Adjournment
Debate between Kate Green and Nigel Evans(3 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to my point of order earlier this afternoon about the return of schools in January, Madam Deputy Speaker reminded us that Mr Speaker expects statements from Ministers to be brought first to this House. At 2.20 pm or thereabouts, the Department for Education issued a press release on schools’ return, yet it took until nearly 4.30 pm for a written ministerial statement to be laid before the House. Parents, teachers and school leaders cannot possibly plan for January in the face of this Government chaos. Mr Deputy Speaker, with the House due to rise for the Christmas recess in just a very few minutes, how can right hon. and hon. Members have the opportunity to question Ministers about what on earth is happening?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and her forward notice of it. The Government have laid written ministerial statements in both Houses on the subject this afternoon. However, I am sure that Ministers on the Treasury Bench will have heard what the hon. Lady has had to say. We are approaching the time of new year resolutions and I can think of one for those on the Government Benches straightaway on that matter, so I am extremely grateful to her for that.
We now move to—as we are giving full titles—the Treasurer of Her Majesty’s Household. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am just wondering whether, with that amazing tie that I have been admiring for the last hour, some of the coffers from the Household have gone on it. I think we are just about to be told. I call Stuart Andrew.
Point of Order
Debate between Kate Green and Nigel Evans(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Green
Very wise.
In his statement on the return of students to university on Tuesday, the Secretary of State made two claims that I believed were not fully accurate, and later that day I sought a correction to the record. The Secretary of State said on Tuesday that there was £100 million in funding for universities to provide digital access for learners. There is no such fund. That funding is for schools and some further education providers. He also said that the Student Loans Company can provide additional support to students who need it. Again, that does not appear to be accurate. I was grateful that the Secretary of State’s office indicated that there would be a correction to the record, but today when I looked in Hansard, all that was changed was the date on which he said guidance was published. It seems that he has corrected one mistake, which I must admit I did not know about, but failed to correct two more that he was asked to correct. May I ask for your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how we can have all the Secretary of State’s mistakes corrected on the record?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving me advance notice of her intention to raise this matter, and I know that she sent notice to the Secretary of State’s office, even though he may not have yet seen that. Although the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy or otherwise of ministerial answers or the completeness of ministerial corrections, she has used this opportunity to raise the matter. The Secretary of State in his place and may wish to respond.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Kate Green and Nigel Evans(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Robinson
Did my hon. Friend attend Prime Minister’s questions, given that she said that “redistribute” was a word heard more often among Opposition Members, and redistribution is perhaps a policy more often pursued by the Opposition? The Prime Minister ruled out redistribution almost unilaterally as a means by which we could help—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I listened to the Prime Minister at PMQs, and I did not hear him refer once to clause 35. This is rather specific. I know that the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) wants to talk about the broader generalities, but that is not what clause 35 is about; otherwise the debate would be very general indeed.
Kate Green
I am grateful, Mr Evans. I am mindful of the provisions in clause 35, which is specifically about taxation and tax breaks for child care. This is about redistribution, and I will say in passing—just one sentence, I promise—that I am proud of Labour’s record on redistribution. We do not talk about it as loudly and proudly as we should in my view, but a set of redistributive policies since 1997 took 600,000 children out of poverty.
To return to the meat of the clause, I am proud of the way in which we redistributed spending in favour of families and children, particularly the spending that we directed towards building significantly increased child care provision. That is a significant creation of child care provision. It is not perfect, as a number of families are still not provided for, but by any measure it was a step change in provision and a fundamental change in the child care landscape which resulted from Labour policies over the past 13 years.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend is right. She highlights another of the Government’s key strategic objectives, an objective that commands great support and interest across the House, but the Government fail to put in the infrastructure and the investment that would enable them to deliver such an objective. Again, that is a matter of regret.
Any parent will say that child care remains an enormous challenge for families, particularly in terms of helping parents to access the labour market, but much more broadly than that. We know that UK parents already pay the highest child care charges of any parents in the OECD. That is probably why in the OECD report just last week on progress on child poverty across the OECD nations, it was specifically identified—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. This is turning into a general debate on child poverty and that is not what clause 35 is about. It is about higher earners. I am sure the hon. Lady has read the clause. Will she speak just to clause 35, please?
Kate Green
I beg your pardon. This was not intended to be a general discourse on child poverty. There was a specific reference in the OECD report to the importance of child care, and it is specifically that element of the report that I feel is relevant to the clause, but I entirely accept that we are discussing the implications particularly of the provision to remove the tax break for higher earners. My point is what do we do with that money. That must be a financial consideration too.
Kate Green
Indeed, and that does not make good fiscal sense. It cannot be sensible for public money to be invested but then not exploited for the benefit of the community, those families and, indeed, the economy. In the context of this Finance Bill debate, that surely has to be at the heart of our scrutiny of its clauses.
It is also important that we understand just how much is going on to make it even more challenging for parents to afford child care, and therefore why it was all the more important to use the funding that the tax break before us is saving in order to replace some of the funding that is being lost for the provision of child care.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Just to inform the House, I am not going to allow a general debate, either, about what the money could have been spent on. We are talking about the merits, just simply, of clause 35.
Kate Green
I am grateful.
What is important about the legislation behind clause 35 is that it retained all parents, higher-income parents as well as lower-income parents, in a single integrated child care market. It ensured that all parents received some financial support that helped to create, expand and ensure the quality of that market.
When lots of families participate in a child care market, the market is sustained, secure and improved in terms of what it can offer to families, and that is important for raising the aspirations of families and children, a particularly important strand of the Government’s social mobility strategy. If we are to remove higher-income families from the ambit of the child care market, and Opposition Members all understand why the Government might choose to do so, it is very important indeed that we recognise the potentially deleterious effects on the quality of the child care market for those families who remain within it—those families whom we want to remain within it because of the improvements that it can secure for children’s outcomes. Importantly, therefore, when removing that tax advantage we must be very careful to ensure that we compensate for any damaging effects that its removal might have on the general landscape of child care provision, including its quality and its availability for other families who remain within its ambit.
This is very much a debate in the context of a Finance Bill. It is therefore a debate about what works most effectively for the economic strength of the country, and it is very much a debate about how best we come through the recovery and start to promote the return of the growth that we all hope to see. We have just begun to see it return hesitantly and slowly, but we now want to see it improve.
Kate Green
My hon. Friend leads us into really important territory: the issue of universal provision. If we are going to start to eat into that universal approach, for good reasons, we have to be very mindful of and careful about the consequences, so my hon. Friend is right to highlight the consequences for social cohesion, which is a key fundamental of good economic growth.
We are not going to do well as a national economy if we have to compensate all the time for a fractured society, a society of strains and tensions, in which the public pick up the cost all the time in order to remedy the damage that that causes. My hon. Friend is therefore absolutely right to point out that undermining the universal approach has potentially dangerous consequences for our economic performance down the line—[Interruption.] I sense that the Chairman fears that I am straying slightly—
Kate Green
Not slightly—straying from the ambit of clause 35.
My hon. Friend’s point is correct: fundamentally, the clause removes a universal approach, an approach that keeps everyone in the context of the child care market and the wider social community. That is a really important point.
It is also important to recognise that we are talking about developing children’s long-term economic potential. I do not like to think of our children as future economic actors—I like to think of them enjoying and making the most of their childhood now—but they are the next generation of providers and sustainers of our economy and community care for us in our old age. Removing this financial support from some families and not placing it in the child care market means that some children will be more likely to lose the advantages that good-quality, professional, formal child care can bring.
Andrew Gwynne
My hon. Friend is adding great expertise to the debate with her background in this area of policy. Although clause 35 was a mechanism that was suggested by the previous Labour Government, is not the difference between our approach and that of the Government that we would have invested the money raised back into child care provision?
The First Deputy Chairman
Order. I am not going to allow any further discussion as to what the money could have been spent on. This debate is simply about clause 35. I know that the hon. Lady has expertise in this matter, so I ask her to restrict herself to clause 35, which relates to higher earners’ child care.
Kate Green
I am grateful, Mr Evans. I was mindful of your earlier injunction not to stray into a discussion of what the money be spent on, and I do not intend to do that.
Grahame M. Morris
I wonder about the specific impact of clause 35 on bankruptcy and personal insolvency, given the loss of tax credits for middle-income families who will be faced with quite considerable personal burdens. That is part of the transfer of debt from the state to the individuals in low-income families, as highlighted by my hon. Friend and by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). The Insolvency Practitioners Association highlights the rapid increase in the number of personal insolvencies and bankruptcies, and perhaps the increasing cost of child care will be a factor—
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Interventions must, by definition, be short. That was wide of the mark and does not need a response.
Kate Green
We are aware of the difficulty in planning the paying for child care. Parents are often required to pay a lump sum at the beginning of term or for a group of sessions. They are often required to pay for sessions that they subsequently cannot use for various reasons, but there is no money-back guarantee. Parents will often pay for sessions for more than one child, but there is no financial advantage to them; there is regrettably no bulk discount when buying child care.
Removing money from parents that they could have used to meet some of the burden and the lumpiness in the structure of the way that child care charges are often levied will be a real financial burden on family budgets. Some families will take on debt to meet those commitments, because parents will always try to put their children’s best interests first. If they are happy with their current child care setting, they will do all that they can to keep their child in that stable child care place.
Even if parents are worried that they might be unable to afford that place because of the loss of the tax advantage but can see a time coming when they could resume paying for that place, they will none the less not want to give up that child care place. If they think that they can afford the place again in six or 12 months’ time because their economic prospects might improve, they will stagger on through those six or 12 months, desperate to keep their child in that child care place for two reasons. First, they know that child care places are like gold dust and that, if they give one up, they might not get one back again very easily. That is certainly the case in some parts of the country. Secondly, they know that it will be good for the child. If a child is thriving, doing well and prospering in a settled, high-quality child care place, a parent will make all sorts of sacrifices elsewhere to sustain that child in that place.