Childcare Payments Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Chloe Smith

Monday 14th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, I do not accept that. It is tempting for Government Members to quibble about measures and markers, and I know that a lot of time has been spent arguing about how to measure child poverty instead of recognising the desperate increase in it. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has projected that there will be 1 million more children in poverty by 2015 than there were in 2010. Government Members need to be careful when obsessing and arguing about those measurements while ignoring the reality, which is that hundreds of thousands more children are now living in homes that their parents cannot afford to heat, and struggling in households where their parents cannot afford to put food on the table and are using food banks.

When we look back on Labour’s record in government, we are proud of the introduction of the Sure Start local programmes and the subsequent huge expansion of Sure Start centres up and down the country. We are proud of the free part-time nursery education that we introduced for all three and four-year-olds. We are proud of the more affordable and higher-quality child care that we brought in through the employer-supported child care voucher scheme, and of the child care tax credits and the introduction of the early years curriculum. We are also proud of the increased financial support for families with children, including the introduction of tax credits and the increases in child benefit and maternity pay and grants. Those policies and changes were aimed at giving every child the best possible start in life but, perhaps more importantly, they lifted 1 million children out of relative poverty and more than 2 million children out of absolute poverty.

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady now recognise measures, then?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I genuinely do not understand the hon. Lady’s intervention. Obviously, we recognise that there are measurements of child poverty. The point I was making was—[Interruption.] No, I did not say that I did not recognise measurements of child poverty; we introduced them. What I find unacceptable is that the Government quibble and argue about how to measure child poverty rather than taking the necessary action to deal with a problem that is staring them in the face—namely, an increasing number of children in poverty. As the IFS concluded in 2011, the reduction in child poverty during the first two terms of the Labour Government was

“by far the largest and most sustained since”

figures began in 1961. As UNICEF pointed out when it compared child poverty levels internationally in 2010,

“without UK Government intervention in the form of cash transfers, tax credits and services for children and families, the UK would see a child poverty rate three times higher than its current levels.”

Government Members seem to be quite vexed about this issue, but I think that that is because they have a shameful record. Unfortunately, the story under this Government has been very different from that under the Labour Government. That is the case despite the promise in the Conservative manifesto in 2010 to

“make Britain the most family-friendly country in Europe”.

It added:

“We will help families with all the pressures they face: the lack of time, money worries, the impact of work, concerns about schools and crime, preventing unhealthy influences, poor housing.”

Let us not forget the Liberal Democrats—I am pleased that one of them is here today. Their 2010 manifesto claimed:

“Liberal Democrats believe every family should get the support it needs to thrive, from help with childcare through to better support for carers and elderly parents. Liberal Democrats will improve life for your family.”

Have those promises been translated into reality? We know that parents are facing a child care crunch because child care costs have spiralled, the number of places has fallen and the support that families receive from the Government has been slashed. One consequence is that progress on reducing child poverty has stalled.

Cost of Child Care

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Chloe Smith

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton South East (Mr McFadden), whose surname I have just acquired, with an extra z, from his fellow Scot, my husband.

Parents in Norwich North are taxpayers, too, and in this debate we must think about what they are paying. I am delighted that the Government I support have taken many of the lowest-earning parents out of income tax altogether, which is a good thing, but we ought to approach the debate honestly. Those young parents, who, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, are very busy, do not necessarily have time in between looking after their youngsters to take an extremely close interest in the goings on of this Chamber, but they should not be paid the disrespect of our talking dishonestly about the size of the pot and who pays for it.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), I am grateful to the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) for calling this debate, which gives us an opportunity to talk about these important issues. The hon. Lady might not be surprised if I begin by saying that, if she knew how hard it was going to be to reduce the deficit, she might have thought twice about her support for her party’s running up of the deficit in the first place. I know of no woman or man, no mother or father—indeed, no rational person—who would desire to leave debt to their children without having had the courage to address it themselves. It ought to be commonplace in this debate to say that addressing the deficit now ensures that future generations are not burdened with unsustainable debt, higher taxes or diminished public services. Of course, I will address the public service aspect today.

Among the many claims and counterclaims that have been made in recent weeks, the salient point, with respect to the taxpayers who have to trust us to do such things for them, is that the Leader of the Opposition has pledged to extend free child care for three and four-year-olds, but he is trying to pay for it using a concept of money that he has already used more than 10 times. It is just not good enough to face young parents with such false accounting, and I am confident that the Minister agrees. It is not good enough to say, “Yes, we’ll borrow more to fund it,” because that borrowing only comes back on the children who we might otherwise be trying to help.

I am pleased that the introduction of tax-free child care that the Minister has so passionately advocated will mean that parents get £1,200 towards each child’s child care costs in addition to both our extension of the hours of free child care and our cutting red tape for schools, so that they can offer more affordable care after school and in the holidays. Those are practical and affordable actions, and we must have this debate in that context. We have to take decisive action for the reasons that we have all tried to set out, but we have to do that by addressing the cost and quality of child care and by having respect for those who entrust us with the job of honest politics.

It is essential that the Government maximise the contribution that women can make to the economy, not because of political correctness but because it is an economic reality. Growth will get this country back to where it ought to be after Labour left it lying in a ditch. Such growth will come about only if we have women in the workplace doing their best for themselves and their family and gaining satisfaction from the careers that we would all like to see. We must remove barriers to the workplace, which is why I am here today to add my voice to the support for what the Government are doing to promote child care policies that help women get back into the workplace.

That leads me to yet another of the numbers that we might want to focus on in the debate. Yesterday, in the main Chamber, a couple of points were made about the number of women in work and the way we might look at the statistics. One statistic, which is important to use in today’s debate, is that almost 200,000 women in coupled families with dependent children have re-entered the workplace since 2011, compared with 185,000 between 1996 and 2011. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal had to deal with the notion that a few years of achievement now are worth more than 13 years of non-achievement in the past, and that point stands on the same side of the argument.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that many of the women who are entering the work force are doing so in part-time jobs, although they probably need more hours to pay their bills, and on zero-hours contracts and poor wages, terms and conditions? Seven out of 10 women say they cannot go back to work, because the child care costs are so high that they deter them from doing so, while those who do go back are simply not earning enough to pay their bills.

[Chloe Smith]

I think that the hon. Lady knows all too well that we will deal with the point inside the policy only by tackling the cost of child care, and my hon. Friend the Minister has set out plans to do that. I think that the hon. Lady also knows all too well that we will tackle the far bigger point that sits outside this issue only by securing an economic recovery, and that is what I want to point my comments at on behalf of the taxpayers and families in my constituency.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am interested to hear the hon. Lady’s economic arguments, but I must correct her on one thing. She suggested that the Labour party left the economy in the doldrums in 2010. In fact, the economy was growing in 2010, but we have had complete economic stagnation since. It would be more honest if she acknowledged that point before continuing.

Tackling Corruption

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 11th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Miss Smith]

The hon. Gentleman raises a wise point. If he will forgive me, I will allow a Minister from the Department for International Development to respond in more detail than I can today.

Let me turn to what we are doing on enforcement and what we are doing in the UK, because both are vital. We are playing a key role in the tracing, seizing, recovering and return of illicit assets. That is important, and in September the Prime Minister launched a taskforce to work with the Egyptian Government to gather evidence on stolen money, for example. That builds on the work of two police units that DFID has funded in that arena.

Effective enforcement is central and essential in the trustworthiness of the whole process. Laws mean very little if they are not enforced by every official who might come into contact with the process. The UK targets foreign and corrupt officials who launder the proceeds of corruption and bribery through our country, and I will give an example. James Ibori, the former Governor of Delta state in Nigeria, became one of its richest men by embezzlement. Following a British police investigation, he was sentenced to 13 years in jail, which sends a clear message to those who might seek to use the UK as a refuge for criminal acts.

In addition, the UK operates a comprehensive anti-money laundering framework which, in accordance with the revised international standards of the Financial Action Task Force, helps us to combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the Minister clarify that the action that she is outlining and has given examples of is pursued under the Bribery Act 2010 and through the Serious Fraud Office? If so, will she clarify the SFO’s funding situation, and whether it has sufficient resources properly to tackle corruption on an international scale, an example of which she has given?

[Miss Smith]

I am conscious that the hon. Lady asked that question earlier, and perhaps I can return to it. I have just mentioned one case, and I can furnish plenty more than what I have been able to give on my feet this afternoon. She will appreciate from her role on the Front Bench that it will be hard for me to pre-empt future spending decisions, but we are putting a serious focus on the new UK National Crime Agency, which I am about to come on to. I hope that she will find reassurance in that.

As well as telling other countries to put their houses in order, the UK must put its house in order. We should not be complacent. According to Transparency International’s work, we are perceived to be less vulnerable to corruption than some of our friends, such as the US, France and Ireland, but we remain behind other counterparts with whom we might seek to compete. We have subjected and continue to subject our domestic systems to peer review by the OECD, the UN convention against corruption and the Council of Europe’s anti-corruption experts.

We are already working across Departments and law enforcement and prosecution agencies to see how we can make it easier for UK residents and businesses to identify, prevent and report bribery and corruption. We need to improve the intelligence picture through a more joined-up and co-ordinated approach that gives us a clearer picture of the true nature and scale of domestic bribery and corruption. We can then use that to support a stronger law enforcement response.

From next year, the new UK National Crime Agency will have a part to play, and while the details are being developed, it will seek to reduce the threat from corruption and bribery within the UK and internationally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

I see the force of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. If he will allow me, I will ensure that in due course he receives a fuller answer than I can give him in the three minutes remaining.

I want to add to some points about what has just been announced in the autumn statement. The Government have reinvested more than £900 million in HMRC to tackle evasion, unpaid tax debts and avoidance. That allocation of extra resources to HMRC during this spending review period will add a real element to what we have discussed today. Our serious compliance activity shows that the Government are committed to clamping down on tax avoidance wherever it is identified, and that is an important plank in what we are talking about in the most general terms and in preventing corruption.

The autumn statement announced the closure with immediate effect of some newly identified loopholes that were being exploited, and that will protect hundreds of millions of pounds for the UK. It also announced the introduction of the UK’s first general anti-abuse rule, which provides a significant new deterrent to abusive avoidance schemes and strengthens HMRC’s means of tackling them wherever they persist. Finally, we are cracking down on the marketing of tax avoidance schemes through proposals to introduce new information disclosure measures.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister is aware that very little time is left for this debate. Apart from the measures that she has just outlined on activities at HMRC, she has not told us whether there is a cross-departmental anti-corruption strategy, or whether one is likely to be published. That would be useful information to have before we run out of time in this debate.

[Miss Smith]

I endeavoured to address that in my opening words. As the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman know, my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio is delighted to continue to be the anti-corruption champion; there has been no change in that respect following the ministerial reshuffle in September. It is with his full support that I am here today answering the hon. Lady’s questions.

It has been difficult to give a full overview of everything the Government are doing, but that is what I have endeavoured to do in this debate. I will convey to my right hon. and learned Friend her desire for a fuller response. I am sure that the all-party group’s work, which is supported across parties, will be well recognised, and I am sure that its desire for that strategy can be discussed in greater detail at a later date.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

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

International connectivity is crucial to business in the north-east, and Newcastle international airport provides a vital link. Will the Government therefore support calls from regional airports for a congestion charge to be applied to air passenger duty to ensure the future viability not only of jobs and tourist income, but of international trade routes?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)]

As briefly discussed during last week’s debate on the Finance Bill, the Government are undertaking various pieces of work on aviation strategy and, more recently, received representations on regional congestion charges and other things during the APD consultation. I can confirm to the hon. Lady that, although I have not spoken to her personally about the matter, I am happy to meet her, her colleagues and representatives of those airports to hear more evidence of what they believe might occur if we set different tax rates.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Chloe Smith

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Miss Smith]

Any elected MP will regularly meet constituents in their constituency and discuss a range of matters. I certainly do that, and when I have met those affected in my constituency—whether as a constituency MP or, most recently, as a Minister—I have explained the fairness of this measure, which is that it puts couples on a par with lone parents. Where is the Opposition’s concern for single mums and dads, who have always had to face that challenge?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister knows fine well that in today’s economy part-time workers will find it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get the extra eight hours a week to keep their working tax credits. The lowest-income families will lose £3,870 a year, which would be crippling for any family, let alone the poorest. To accord with reality—something that the Minister should get back in touch with—what are this Government going to do about that?

[Miss Smith]

This Government’s main priority, as the hon. Lady knows very well, is to reduce the deficit left to us by her party, for which her party shows no responsibility whatever. She will also know that the cumulative average loss for households from our measures next year will in fact be £310.