Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On the cost of living, among concerns raised by parents in response to the most recent National Parents Survey by Parentkind, the cost of school uniforms, trips and food came up the most. Labour has a plan to cut the cost of school uniforms by limiting the number of branded items, and our free breakfast clubs in every primary school will put money back in parents’ pockets while improving attendance and attainment. We have done the Government’s homework, and they are still failing families. Will it take a Labour Government to give every child in this country the chances that they deserve?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

The millions of children persistently absent from school is a national scandal, yet last week Government MPs joined together to vote against Labour’s long-term plan to deal with that issue, putting party above country and children. So far the Government have only announced sticking plaster policies. Will the Secretary of State come forward with a long-term plan to address that properly, or do schools and families have to wait for a Labour Government to finally give all children the education they deserve?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Monday 11th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the Minister to his place.

On Friday, I joined Labour’s candidate Alan Strickland on a visit to Ferryhill School in County Durham. The staff team and students are amazing, but staff are left teaching in portacabins, the dining room and the sports hall, the staff room is behind a curtain on a stage, and years 10 and 11 are in a different town. Last week, yet more schools were added to the list of those with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, and the Secretary of State could not confirm how many will need complete rebuilds. Given the urgency, can the Minister tell parents, children and staff when this chaos will end?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Monday 23rd October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Last week, the Government added another 41 schools and colleges to the RAAC list, bringing the total to 214. The Education Secretary claims that children prefer to learn in portacabins, but it is far from a joke when some are still waiting for temporary classrooms, studying from home or in cramped sports halls and dining rooms. Can the Minister confirm the total number of pupils who are already impacted and are expected to be impacted by this chaos? When will all children receive undisrupted face-to-face learning? Surely that is the minimum that a parent can expect for their child.

Downing Street Garden Event

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 11th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Does the Paymaster General agree that it would be utterly obscene if, at the same time—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Somebody’s phone is going off—it has stopped. Carry on.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Does the Paymaster General agree that it would be utterly obscene if, at the same time that a support group for recovering alcoholics was contacting me, desperate to meet because they needed the mutual support to manage their addiction during the crushing isolation of lockdown, staff at No. 10 were not only being encouraged to gather, but being told to bring their own booze while doing so? I appreciate that the Prime Minister is not here to answer for his actions, but does the Paymaster General agree that that would be obscene?

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Of course it does.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

Schools spend the pupil premium on things like extra teaching staff, breakfast clubs, laptops, and tailoring support to their most disadvantaged pupils. However, due to the Government’s inexplicable decision to base pupil premium funding for the next financial year on data from October rather than using the up-to-date January figures as usual, north-east schools could lose out on up to £7.6 million for the 5,700 north-east pupils who became eligible for free school meals between October and January. The Education Secretary has ignored pleas from the North East Child Poverty Commission and others to put this right. May I urge the Leader of the House to make time for a debate in Government time on ensuring that schools in regions such as the north-east that have experienced some of worst learning loss do not lose out on even more funding?

Sittings in Westminster Hall (Suspension) (No. 2)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]]

The public health situation in the capital and across the country is extremely worrying, and it is vital that the House ensures that Members and staff are working in the safest possible conditions. However, this eventuality should have been planned for before now, because the Government’s plan to close Westminster Hall without an alternative is not just taking away our ability to hold debates, but reducing the opportunities for members of the public—our constituents—to engage with Parliament.

Already in this Parliament, around 11 million people have signed a parliamentary petition, but the public are once again seeing the space for their debates being shut down. On Monday I led a debate on support for the hospitality industry, following a petition that got more than 200,000 signatures, and I heard from many hon. Members that they cared deeply about the subject and knew their constituents did, but felt they could not travel down from their constituency to Westminster to take part. Last week my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House asked—this was mentioned earlier—about hybrid proceedings in Westminster Hall, and the Leader of the House said that the potential £100,000 cost was too high for the Government to consider. Perhaps we now have an answer to the question, “What price democracy?”

But where there is a will there is a way; and when Westminster Hall closed in March, the Petitions Committee innovated. We held one-off sessions and inquiries. We undertook a huge range of online public engagement. We held our own hybrid e-petition sessions, allowing Members to contribute in lieu of the debates we would have liked to have. For some shielding Members, it was actually the first time that they were able to contribute substantively to a Backbench Business debate since the first lockdown began.

Those innovations, however, cannot be a substitute for the proper parliamentary debates that I know we want to see. Hybrid debates may not be perfect, but surely the Leader of the House, who I know considers himself a champion of Parliament, would accept that some form of debate taking place safely, either in hybrid form or entirely virtually, is better than no debates at all. So, since Westminster Hall reopened in October, the Petitions Committee has held 22 debates, covering 37 petitions, signed by over 7 million people. Thirty-three petitions are waiting for debate and the number is growing every week; they share more than 6 million signatures. Petitions debates since March have been viewed more than a million times and are some of the most-read debates in Hansard, and the Backbench Business Committee also currently has at least 12 debates that it wants to schedule. The closure of Westminster Hall without an alternative prevents both our Committees from scheduling any of our debates, and so for petitioners, for Back Benchers and for the good of debate, which is vital to our democracy and the good functioning of government, I urge the Leader of the House to urgently bring forward a motion to ensure a hybrid Westminster Hall, whether that is in the existing hall or in a new location, so that that can come into effect as soon as possible.

[Mr Speaker]

I just want to say that the decision on spending the money is for the House Service; it is not a Government decision.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 2nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Some 25 petitions are waiting to be debated in Parliament, with more than 5 million signatures from the public represented in them. However, as you know, petitions debates were suspended when we moved to remote proceedings. This morning I received a disappointing response from the Leader of the House suggesting that Government business would be the priority while social distancing is in place, which is likely to be some time.

Petitions are a crucial means by which members of the public and Back-Bench MPs hold the Government to account, and the sacrifice in bringing us all here in person has been very real for very many people, but it cannot be entirely on the Government’s own terms. So can you, Mr Speaker, advise the House what more we can do to ensure that this vital route of scrutiny for the public is resumed as soon as possible?

[Mr Speaker]

As the hon. Lady knows, that is not a matter for the Chair. The business of the House is for the Chamber to decide. No doubt today there will be an opportunity to raise the matter, and I would have thought that Business Questions on Thursday would be a good place to raise it with the Leader of the House. That will allow him to tell us what measures he will be putting in place, if any.

Points of Order

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Wednesday 29th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This week we mark Holocaust Memorial Day, a powerful reminder of where hatred and division can lead, but despite all the warnings, antisemitism is on the rise. As co-chairs of the all-party group against antisemitism, we have worked hard to ensure that all MPs sign up to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, and 640 Members have done so. Mr Speaker, is there any way to convey the message that this sends a vital signal that this House will take antisemitism seriously; and that we congratulate the Antisemitism Policy Trust on this initiative, encourage all MPs who have not done so to sign, and reaffirm that each solemn pledge must now convert those words into real action and change?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady has carried out her desire. The message has certainly gone out. She realises that that is not a point of order, but I am so pleased it has, quite rightly, been raised.

Customs and Borders

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

It does not bear thinking about. I and my hon. Friend are not alone in our concerns. Last July, when the North East chamber of commerce, which represents more than 3,000 businesses of all sizes across the region, conducted a survey of its members, 88% of respondents said that they wished to remain in some kind of single market and customs union. Unsurprisingly, the proportion is even higher among those who export solely to the EU.

The confusion and uncertainty is particularly felt by small and medium-sized enterprises in the north-east, especially those that currently export only to the EU and have no idea what the future holds. The situation has certainly not been improved by rumours that the Department for International Trade will in future provide support only to firms with a turnover of more than £4 million. I hope that the Minister will disabuse people of that concern.

The chief executive of the North East chamber of commerce, James Ramsbotham, wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in February to express his concerns about the forecasted harmful effects of Brexit on the north-east and the Government’s strategy to mitigate them. More than two months after he wrote that letter, he is still waiting for a reply. It is worth quoting from his letter at length:

“I was not surprised that the biggest potential impact is on North East England. As you know, we are the region with the best record at trading with the rest of the EU: an achievement delivered by many Chamber members. It is to be expected that anything which makes doing business with Europe harder will have a greater impact here. I am, however, very disturbed that Government has so far failed to adequately allay the obvious concerns this has created among our members, even before these assessments became public.

You will recall the Government was elected last June on a manifesto that said closing the gap between London and other parts of the UK is ‘the biggest prize in Britain today’, a ‘great endeavour’, and that the Conservative Party was ‘determined to lead the way in the next Parliament’. These forecasts suggest the gap will not reduce but grow significantly wider. If there are figures being shared around Whitehall that suggest your Government’s stated top priority could be seriously undermined, I would expect to see some concerted action to tackle it.

I assume that Government must expect a better outcome from Brexit than that indicated by these forecasts, otherwise you would not be going through with this plan. Given the manifesto commitments mentioned above, I also assume that you expect it to be at least as good for North East England, if not better, than for London. I therefore assume you must have some evidence to support this. It is beyond time for some more frank communication from Government so we can understand the basis of this confidence.

In light of these forecasts, Government should re-think its position on leaving the Customs Union. It seems clear that to do so will exacerbate the risks to the economy, particularly in our region. The freedom to pursue independent trade deals with other countries will present opportunities—but it will also present significant risks, involve great complexity and require huge capacity building. We have not yet seen any evidence to suggest that the opportunities can genuinely be greater than the negative impact of disrupting trade with our nearest markets.

If there is sufficient evidence to show there will be benefits from leaving the Customs Union, then there should be consideration of extending the implementation period. The time to put in place the capacity to deliver such trade deals, and the time for businesses to adjust to new terms of trade and respond to a signal that they should prioritise different markets, is perilously short.

In the meantime, we should be seeing significant investments going in to the support structures to help businesses make these adjustments, and in to the agencies that must manage major new processes—not least HMRC. At present we do not see this and businesses have very limited sources of expert advice available.”

It is difficult to imagine a more damning assessment of the Government’s approach. It is shocking that these calls for clarity, from a body that speaks on behalf of the north-east’s business community, have so far been ignored. I fear that that confirms that the Government do not have our region’s best interests at heart, or that they simply have their head in the sand.

I want to end by asking the Minister a fundamental question: how do the Government intend to close the gap between London and the north-east when all the evidence suggests that their Brexit policy—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment 3, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—

‘55F Review

(1) Within six months of the passing of the Finance Act 2014, the Chancellor of the Exchequer must undertake a review of the impact of the tax relief for married couples and civil partners introduced under this Chapter.

(2) The review must in particular include—

(a) a calculation of the proportion of married couples and civil partners who are eligible for the tax relief in the financial year 2015-16;

(b) an assessment of the impact of this tax relief on those who are neither married nor in civil partnerships;

(c) the cost to the Exchequer of this tax relief; and

(d) an assessment of alternative tax reliefs that would benefit a greater number of families.

(3) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must publish the report of the review and lay the report before the House.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 11 stand part.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Hoyle. I rise to speak to the Opposition’s amendment to clause 11 regarding the coalition’s proposed tax relief for married couples and civil partners. Before I begin, let nobody be in any doubt that the Opposition believe that marriage and civil partnerships are a force for good in society. Making a binding lifelong commitment to a partner in that way is truly to be celebrated. Let us not pretend, however, that the Government’s marriage tax allowance, introduced by clause 11 of this year’s Finance Bill, is anything other than a complete and utter dud of a policy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think we need shorter interventions rather than speeches—I would sooner save your voice for later.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On the basis of my hon. Friend’s insightful intervention, I am looking forward to his speech on this matter. He makes the point well, and it is the point that I am seeking to make. As the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has said:

“This policy is not about children and families…it does nothing for millions of families with children struggling to make ends meet.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I appeal for shorter interventions. We have time, but Members cannot make a speech as an intervention.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank you, Mr Hoyle, and also my hon. Friend whose intervention was powerful and to the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Indeed. Government Members often lament red tape and the complexity of the tax system. I am not entirely sure that they will be thanked for adding to it in this way and putting the burden of implementation on employers.

The apparent onus on taxpayers proactively to apply for this allowance is a concern that has been raised more widely. The Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has pressed the Government to ensure that a claim for the marriage tax allowance can

“be made on paper, as well as online; digital exclusion affects disproportionately people on low incomes, the very people to whom this relief is directed. It is particularly important that a paper copy is available since, in some cases, taxpayers will seek assistance from the voluntary and charitable sector with, perhaps, only one spouse being physically present at such meetings.”

LITRG goes on to urge that

“the claim/election process will be made as simple as possible—preferably a joint election rather than separate claim and election.”

I look forward to the Minister’s response to those concerns.

The complexity of the Government’s marriage tax allowance proposal has been commented on by the IFS, which stated, when the measure was first announced:

“One striking feature of the policy is that it complicates the income tax system. A transferable personal allowance for married couples capped at £1,000 and then withdrawn using a cliff-edge at the higher-rate threshold is not the simplest to understand. It is three years since another cliff-edge at the higher rate threshold was announced at the 2010 Conservative Party conference as a way of effectively means-testing Child Benefit, only to be removed and replaced with a less egregious taper at Budget 2012. The amounts involved here are less than in that case, which perhaps explains the willingness to cliff-edge again rather than implement a taper. Nevertheless, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that an income tax system which makes some people worse off after a pay rise has something wrong with it.”

One might think that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) pointed out, a Government who have so boasted about being committed to tax simplification would want to avoid further complicating the system. At the launch of the Office of Tax Simplification, the Chancellor commented:

“A decade of meddling and intervening has made the tax affairs of millions of families and businesses across the UK extremely complicated. We need to sort out this mess.”

What does the Office of Tax Simplification make of the marriage tax allowance, which will clearly make the tax affairs of couples and employers more complex? We do not know because, in the words of the Exchequer Secretary in response to a written question I tabled:

“The Office of Tax Simplification (OTS) has not made an assessment of the proposals for a transferable tax allowance.”—[Official Report, 12 February 2014; Vol. 575, c. 642W.]

Why on earth not? What could Ministers possibly fear from the outcome of such an assessment?

It may be clear now that the Opposition oppose the Government’s marriage tax allowance and will vote against clause 11. We believe that the marriage tax allowance is perverse and unfair. It is a poorly targeted use of resources and is overly complex, and our amendment to clause 11 presses the Government to undertake a proper review of the cost, the impact and the benefits for those who will receive it and for the overwhelming majority of married couples and families who will not benefit at all.

Amendment 3 calls on the Government to ensure that any such review includes an assessment of alternative tax reliefs that would benefit a much greater number of families, because we are not just opposing the marriage tax allowance today. Indeed, we have said that a future Labour Government would scrap this policy and use the money saved, together with funding from a mansion tax on properties worth over £2 million, to reintroduce the 10p starting rate of tax, meaning a tax cut for 24 million people on low and middle incomes, by contrast with the 4.2 million couples who will benefit from the marriage tax allowance. Crucially, almost half of those benefiting from a new 10p tax rate would be women.

We know that the Liberal Democrats are apparently implacably opposed to the policy introduced by clause 11 and secured a deal in the coalition agreement to go so far as to abstain on the measure. I believe it was before the 2010 general election that the now Deputy Prime Minister described the Conservatives’ proposal for a transferable tax allowance for married couples as

“patronising drivel that belongs in the Edwardian age.”

I know that Liberal Democrats have, as some might say, an irritating habit of saying one thing before a general election, then doing precisely the opposite—university tuition fees and the VAT bombshell spring to mind—or of saying one thing at any point in the electoral cycle and doing precisely the opposite: for example, 46 Lib Dem peers voted to retain the bedroom tax just 24 hours after their party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), said it was something his party could not “continue to support”. Although the Liberal Democrats may be thinking about abstaining on clause 11 as it stands, it is difficult to see how they could sit on their hands this afternoon and vote against our reasonable amendment.

We know that the Lib Dems apparently secured the policy of free school meals for every child in reception, year 1 and year 2 from September 2014, reportedly in exchange for agreeing to abstain on the marriage tax allowance. We of course back the policy, having piloted the idea in government in County Durham and Newham, with excellent results, but there are very real concerns about the way in which the policy was announced, and how it will be implemented. The initial pledge was for a “hot, nutritious meal at lunchtime”, but that is now being described as an aspiration. Ministers are now simply referring to a free, nutritious school lunch.

Many thousands of schools across the country simply do not have the facilities to ensure this provision. The Liberal Democrats have stated that around £80 million of the additional £150 million capital funding required for the project will come from an underspend in the Department for Education and an additional £70 million would be new money from the Treasury. [Interruption.]

I hear hon. Members on the Government Benches chuntering from a sedentary position. They seem very disturbed by the Liberal Democrat policy of free school meals and do not see how it is linked to the marriage tax allowance. Would they like to confirm that that was not an agreement, as has been reported?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The advice is not needed. There is a definite link, and if Members were to listen a little more closely, they would understand where the link is between the choice and where the money can be spent. Less advice and more listening might help all of us.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Deputy Speaker for his clarification. The link is clear. It is to do with the allocation of resources and the agreement that has been made. It also goes fundamentally to the heart of the Liberal Democrats and how they intend to vote on the matter. We believe they are likely to abstain on the measure, although we have not had that confirmed. We hope and assume that although they will abstain on the Government’s motion in relation to implementing the marriage tax allowance, they will support our call for a review. If the measure goes through, they would have as much of an interest as we would in ensuring that it is properly reviewed and monitored in the months to come, and that the Government take seriously the proposals for possible alternatives that benefit a larger number of families throughout the country.

The Opposition believe that the money allocated to the marriage tax allowance could be put to much better use elsewhere. That is why we have pressed the Chancellor to scrap it, and to use the money to give tax help to many more working people instead, including more married couples and more families.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I say once again that we must have shorter interventions? I know that many Members wish to speak. We have been going for a long time and have not even got to the Back Benches yet.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Although my hon. Friend’s intervention took longer than Mr Deputy Speaker might have liked, it was a very good intervention.

I would be interested to hear what Government Members think about the fact that this provision could very much reward men who desert their spouses, leave them with the children to care for, and then receive a tax benefit, but only if they marry the woman they ran off with.

Finance Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the Minister for his comprehensive account of new clause 7 and for responding to our queries. As he has said, the Government want to introduce a number of new clauses and amendments to the Bill. Could you clarify, Mr Deputy Speaker, whether we are dealing with just new clause 7 at this stage, or are we taking any other amendments?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Just new clause 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are wandering away from the amendment, and I know the hon. Lady just wanted to make a point on the amendment.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My point relates specifically to the amendment, Mr Deputy Speaker. Many businesses that manage to obtain funding are often required to provide their home as security. If this provision has a detrimental impact on small businesses and puts family homes in jeopardy, will the Government keep it under review?

Basketball (Funding)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Monday 28th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) on securing the debate. I had not realised that we had a little extra time, so I tried to be as quick as possible with my previous intervention—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I hope the hon. Lady will be quick again.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will try, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have attended a few of the Newcastle Eagles’ games, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) will share my enthusiasm for the amazing family-friendly atmosphere at them. Everybody should experience it as it is quite something.

Public Spending

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Catherine McKinnell

Thursday 17th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

This morning, when I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), for clarification of the Government’s commitment to funding for the reinvigoration of the Tyne and Wear metro, I was told to wait for the statement from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Unfortunately, his statement has made it no clearer to the people of Tyne and Wear whether that vital transport infrastructure will be given the investment that it needs in order to survive—investment that has not been made for 30 years—or whether it will be left to die on its feet.