All 3 Debates between Catherine McKinnell and Kate Green

Community Pharmacies

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Kate Green
Wednesday 2nd November 2016

(8 years ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Kate Green
Wednesday 9th April 2014

(10 years, 7 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

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

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the disproportionate benefit of the marriage tax break to men. Does she not agree that the argument that couples will benefit as a unit completely fails to recognise financial coercion in relationships, and that those who get the money have the power?

Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend raises an important point and it goes to the heart of so many of the changes that this Government have made. So many of the decisions that they have made time and again in Budget after Budget have hit women hardest. Back in September 2011, a leaked No. 10 memo admitted that the Government had a problem with women, and promised a new communications campaign to turn things around, but it clearly has not worked. A key recommendation of a No. 10 communications campaign to be female friendly was to “focus on more visible women leaders”, but until this morning women made up only four of the 23 Cabinet members and that figure is now down to three. Let us not let the Deputy Prime Minister off the hook. Only four out of 25 Lib Dem Ministers are women—[Interruption.] Government Members are shouting, “What has that got to do with this measure?” I wonder whether one of them would like to intervene.

--- Later in debate ---
Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

That is an interesting statistic. I know that the hon. Gentleman is committed to the principle of this measure, but I and other Opposition Members are trying to make the point that the policy is not only dud as regards its practical application but further compounds the unfairness in how the Government have made their decisions in Budget after Budget. Let us remember when hon. Gentlemen question what my point has to do with this measure that we know that the majority of gainers from the policy are men.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend think that the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) was seriously suggesting that £3.85 a week would encourage more couples to stay married? There is no evidence of cause and effect at all.

Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend’s point goes to the heart of the matter. It demonstrates what is wrong with this policy and how ill-conceived it is.

--- Later in debate ---
Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has entered the debate, because the Liberal Democrats are key to today’s measure, and I shall go on to explain why. I think we know that there is long-term inequality. The mere fact that 85% of those who benefit from the tax cut from 50p are men speaks volumes about how this country is weighted. The majority of wealth is held by men. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I urge caution as the Liberal Democrats are in an interesting position today when it comes to how they will vote not only on this measure in the Bill but on our proposed review.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend agree that evidence stretching back over several decades shows that when money is paid to the main carer of a child, usually the mother, that money is more likely to be spent on the children? A Government about to preside over a startling rise in child poverty should be mindful of that when they introduce a measure such as this.

Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend makes an incredibly pertinent point, and expresses her case powerfully. Child poverty is set to increase by a staggering amount under this Government, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has clearly said that that is a direct result of the tax and benefit changes that they have implemented. The measure, which Government Members are keen to support, will do nothing to alleviate child poverty or to turn the tide of increasing child poverty over the next few years.

--- Later in debate ---
Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I would add that it is not a third of families who will gain from the policy—it is a third of married couples. Five in six households with children, whom many would consider to be families—particularly the Opposition, but perhaps not the Government—will not gain anything from the policy, which only compounds the child poverty issue about which the Government seem complacent.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does my hon. Friend not agree that the reading of the figures by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) was highly selective? Perhaps the bottom half of the income distribution scale benefits from the measure, but the very poorest will not benefit at all, because they are not tax payers.

Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell
- Hansard - -

Absolutely. That is why many people, including married couples, will not gain anything from the policy, which is why I am astounded by the vehement support for a policy that does not properly recognise marriage in the tax system, which Government Members are usually keen to do.

To conclude the point that I am making about the impact of the measure, I shall give one example of the women who are particularly hard hit by it: low-paid, new mums, who are losing almost £3,000 during pregnancy and their baby’s first year as a result of cuts to child benefit; cuts to the health in pregnancy grant; the axing of the higher rate of tax credit for families with babies under one; restrictions in the Sure Start maternity allowance; and the Chancellor’s “mummy tax”, which will cost new mums £180 by 2015 in real terms—not to mention cuts in public services and the disappearance of Sure Start centres, with three closures a week, which will impact on mums, dads, families and, indeed, married couples up and down the country for years to come.

The policy is a total turkey in terms of its reach and the benefits it brings. Even the Chancellor thinks so, as does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—and I am sure that we will hear what the Exchequer Secretary thinks later in the debate—but what about its cost and complexity? Surely, Ministers must have learned from the child benefit fiasco, and would not seek to introduce a new, complex aspect to the taxation system—that fiasco must have given them a few grey hairs—or one that might require significant additional administration and input from the taxpayer. Oh—but they are doing so! Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has issued a tax information and impact note on the policy that suggests that it will have an Exchequer impact of £515 million in 2015-16, rising to £820 million by 2018-19.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Kate Green
Monday 11th March 2013

(11 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell Portrait Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

6. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s proposal for a single-tier pension on women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953.

Kate Green Portrait Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

7. What recent assessment he has made of the effects of the Government’s proposal for a single-tier pension on women born between 6 April 1952 and 6 July 1953.