Checks on Goods: Northern Ireland and Great Britain

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Thursday 24th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must move on at 11.30 am.

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

The raft of contradictory statements by senior members of the Government has caused nothing but confusion and anxiety for businesses over the past 24 hours. Given that the Prime Minister does not even seem to understand or be able to be straight about the impact of the Brexit proposals on the future of £18 billion- worth of trade within our own country, why on earth would anyone trust him to negotiate our future trading relationships with the EU or the rest of the world?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry, but the hon. Lady, in the course of her attempted point of order, frankly elevates me to a status that I do not enjoy. It is well beyond my limited capabilities to know the precise order of clauses, or that which is present and that which is not. My counsel to the hon. Lady is that in her pursuit of her mission, she could make a point of intervening on colleagues who speak with a compendious knowledge of the contents of the Bill to seek to extract from them the information that she seeks. I can see many pointy-headed, brilliant brains on the Government Benches who are doubtless going to rise to celebrate the merits of the Bill and whom she could usefully question on this matter.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Oh, very well. Whether it will profit the hon. Lady, I do not know, but I am offering my benevolent assistance within the limits of my modest capabilities.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I, too, noted that the Prime Minister referred to checks and declarations on GB-Northern Irish goods as being “transitory”. He also said that they would “melt away” unless a majority of Northern Ireland chose to retain them. I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) that that is not in fact correct and that perhaps there has been some confusion between the future decision relating to a single market and being in a customs union. Does it not highlight the challenge that we face that the Prime Minister appears to need additional time to consider the real implications of the decisions being taken that will have a significant impact not only on this country, but in particular on our trading relationship with Northern Ireland and on trade from Northern Ireland to the European Union? This really adds to the weight of concern about the lack of time to properly scrutinise such issues in this debate.

[Mr Speaker]

I have two points. First, I do not sniff or cavil at the concern that the hon. Lady raises about the allocation of time, but ultimately the House has ownership of time in the simple sense that it determines acceptance or otherwise of the programme motion. Secondly—please do not take this as a pejorative observation, as I am just trying to take a holistic view of the situation—what she is really saying is that there is great disagreement about what is or is not the case. It calls to mind the fact that people often say, “Well, give us the facts and then we’ll make a judgment.” Sadly, it is not so simple. There is no agreement on what the facts are, and I am afraid that that has to come out in the course of the debate, which, as I say, is well beyond the competence of the Chair.

If there are no further points of order, we can now proceed, because I think that the leader of the Scottish National party, the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), is in a state of heightened animation at the prospect of being able to orate to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 18th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Indeed. That was what I was volunteering.

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

15. If he will review the UK’s support for the Saudi-led coalition forces operating in Yemen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Bad Boys bakers no doubt felt very privileged to be visited by the hon. Gentleman.

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

10. What progress he has made on proposals for reform of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Thursday 26th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, that is not a stretching of the question; it is a departure from it. Ingenious, but flawed on this occasion.

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

The sad reality is that hate crime is a growing problem. A young Muslim woman, Ruhi Rehman, was racially abused when travelling on the metro in my home town of Newcastle on Saturday. Thankfully, her attacker was chased off by outraged passengers, but not everyone is fortunate enough to have “Geordie angels”. More than 27% of prosecutions for hate crimes are currently failing because of victim issues, a significant rise since 2010. Do the Government share my concern that victims are being let down, and that serious crimes are going unpunished as a result?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Ian Lavery—not here.

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

20. I recently joined more than 100 supporters of 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers as they marched on Parliament protesting against the Government’s decision to scrap it. Ministers believe that the battalion can be replaced by reservists, but the chairman of the Northumberland and North East Fusilier Association is concerned that it will be impossible to recruit the necessary numbers. Will the Secretary of State tell us to what extent the targets are being met?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will find a way of getting his thoughts across on the matter in the course of the day.

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

2. What steps she is taking to increase the number of female entrepreneurs.

Rail Franchising

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before she attends to her next pressing commitment, let us hear from Catherine McKinnell.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I agree with the Secretary of State that if our country is to compete on jobs and growth, we need a transport infrastructure that is second to none. Can he therefore reassure me that today’s announcement is in no way driven by the view expressed by the chief executive of the North Eastern local enterprise partnership that there is no need to invest in north-east transport, and that he does not share that view?

Local Government Finance (England)

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Minister is well aware that he is talking at cross purposes with what I am setting out, which is the impact over the next three years, not in the next financial year. I hesitate in case it is out of order to say that it is very disingenuous for the Government to present these figures in a way that does not match up—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady should not attribute an unworthy motive to the Minister. Therefore I feel sure that through her dextrous use of language she can find another word to make her point.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for keeping me in order. There is clearly a difference of opinion about the impact of the cut and the period we are talking about.

Yes, Newcastle still has spending power per household of £2,522, which is over £700 more than the £1,814 per household in Wokingham, but Newcastle is more deprived and has higher needs. Newcastle has 550 looked-after children, compared with 70 in Wokingham. That is 101 looked-after children per 10,000 children in Newcastle and 20 per 10,000 in Wokingham. Newcastle has nine times the cost of statutory concessionary travel owing to high numbers of poorer pensioners travelling in the city, and Newcastle has fewer people able to fund their own social care, greater homelessness needs, higher council tax support needs and a lower council tax base.

I am sure many of my hon. Friends have already highlighted similar differences between the settlement in their authority and those in other—predominantly Conservative—local authorities, which are not seeing the same level of spending cuts. Local authorities are having to slash front-line jobs and close Sure Start centres, libraries and many other vital services as a result of these unfair and disproportionate cuts.

I must return to a point I raised with the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday regarding some Liberal Democrats in Newcastle who are campaigning against the impact of the cuts. Once again, I would extend a welcome to any Liberal Democrat MPs who want to join us in the Lobby tonight and vote against this unfair settlement. Otherwise, they have no place campaigning against the impact that will result if it goes through.

Points of Order

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

She does not wish to do so. In that case, I will say to the right hon. Gentleman that the content of ministerial answers, notwithstanding the practice in previous Parliaments, is not a matter for the Chair. If he is dissatisfied with the answer he has received, or what he regards as the lack of an answer, he may wish to raise the matter with the Procedure Committee.

I note in passing that, on the back of his nearly 26 consecutive years of service in the House, the right hon. Gentleman is as canny as most in the deployment of opportunities open to Members to eke out of Government information that is important to him. Moreover, as Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, he may be aware of other means by which Ministers may be held to account, and is perhaps in a position himself to apply those means. We will leave it there for now.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister did not intend to mislead the House when he incorrectly claimed, in response to my question at Deputy Prime Minister’s questions this morning regarding the local government settlement to Newcastle city council, that it was shutting all arts venues in Newcastle. That is blatantly not true. Owing to the very difficult local funding settlement, the council has proposed a variety of cuts to grants awarded to arts organisations, which represent roughly 15% of the funding stream, which is no doubt a difficult decision, but it is far from shutting all arts venues in the city. Given the alarm that such a statement could raise among my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne, could you advise me on how best I may go about correcting the record in regard to the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. I can say with confidence that the Deputy Prime Minister would not deliberately mislead the House, for that would be a serious transgression and I know that he would not commit it. Whether he has done so is not altogether obvious to me, but the Deputy Prime Minister will have heard, or if he has not done so, will very soon come to hear of the content of the hon. Lady’s point of order, and if in the light of it he judges that the record needs to be corrected, it is open to him to do so. On top of that, she has put her concerns on the record and it is open to her, if she judges it necessary, to pursue the matter with the right hon. Gentleman in correspondence and in other ways. That is the best guidance I can give her for now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Catherine McKinnell.

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

I did not have a question on this.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady does not want to come in. Fair enough.

Finance Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 3rd July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure we are all indebted to the Minister for the informative character of his contribution —and, of course, for his oratory.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will speak to new clauses 10 and 12, as well as the Government amendments that the Minister has already set out for us in quite some detail today.

The Opposition’s new clause 10 seeks to put a stop to the chaotic farce of ill-thought-through VAT changes being slapped on items from the pasty to the caravan, from haircuts to church alterations—imposed, defended, downgraded and then, in some cases, eventually quietly removed by Ministers during the parliamentary recess, once they realised quite how ridiculous the changes were to begin with, particularly given the current economic climate. We simply ask the Government not to meddle with VAT exemptions until they have carried out a proper assessment and worked out exactly what the impact of any change would be on jobs, living standards and businesses.

We assume that, before imposing a 20% tax, the Government will do their sums, work out who would be affected, consult them and think long and hard about whether such a change was a good idea. Our new clause 12 seeks to reverse the VAT bombshell, which, as I am sure many Members will recall, the Liberal Democrats shouted so loudly about before the election, and before they all subsequently discovered that they actually supported raising the 20% rate after all. That was a surprise all around, even to themselves, I think. In fact, everyone’s surprise about that was surpassed only by the discovery that the Liberal Democrats had also been in favour of £9,000 tuition fees all along.

Labour is clear that higher VAT hits the poor harder than the rich. It drives up the cost of living at a time when people are already feeling the squeeze, and it takes money out of people’s pockets and off the high street at a time when businesses are crying out for spending to drive growth. Our five-point plan for jobs and growth calls for VAT to return to 17.5% on a temporary basis until the economy is strong enough to cope with a rise. That would give £450 a year back to couples with children, to give the economy a boost and to drive growth.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are far too many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. I want to hear Ministers’ answers, and I want now to hear Catherine McKinnell.

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

T4. I have been contacted by several constituents who believe that the World Bank should be leading the way towards a green economy and a greener future for the world’s poor. Will the Minister outline what discussions he and his colleagues in government have had with the World Bank to ensure that there is investment in clean energy projects in developing countries?

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

On point of order, Mr Speaker. There appears to be a fundamental anomaly in this Budget, which hon. Members are expected to vote on—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If it is a point of order, let us hear it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

In one section of this Budget, Mr Speaker, it says that the disability living allowance mobility component will not be withdrawn, but another section—section d on page 55—clearly allows for that to happen. This is an anomaly that we are expected to vote on in three minutes.

[Mr Speaker]

That is a matter of debate, and it is for Ministers to decide whether and when to explain their position and in what way.

Legislation (Territorial Extent) Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Friday 11th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I have received no indication from any Minister at the Department for Education of an intention or desire to make a statement in the House today. It would, of course, be open to a Minister to do so however, and the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record. It will have been heard by Members sitting on the Treasury Bench, including the Leader of the House, and I am sure there will be other opportunities fully to explore these matters in the days and weeks ahead.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the significant financial implications of this decision, have you had any indication from a member of the Treasury ministerial team that they will come to address the House today on the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

No.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the message about bottoming up; we are grateful.

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

The north-east of England has a burgeoning offshore wind sector, supported by the new renewable energy centre in Blyth. What is the Department offering to support the growth of that industry now that the very successful regional development agency, One North East, which provided a lot of vital support, is being wound down?

Points of Order

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Monday 31st January 2011 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be grateful for your guidance in relation to recent announcements made in the media about convictions following the Ratcliffe-on-Soar power station protest. As shadow Solicitor-General, I wrote to the Attorney-General on 14 January asking for an urgent update on this case—I am yet to receive a response. When I met the Director of Public Prosecutions on Tuesday, I was informed that the Independent Police Complaints Commission was investigating the case and that no comment could be made until that process was complete. Yet, on Friday, only a couple of days later, both the BBC and The Guardian appear to have been officially informed that the DPP will appoint a senior barrister to review all 20 cases, less than two weeks after sentencing took place. Given the significance of this case and the wider questions that arise for our criminal justice system, could you provide some guidance on how I may ensure that the Attorney-General, who is accountable to this House for the actions of the Crown Prosecution Service, ensures that announcements of this gravity are made to this House, and not directly to the media, particularly where an update has been specifically requested?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. I am not familiar with the circumstances to which she draws attention, but I can say to her and to the House that I have not been informed of any Government intention to make a statement on this matter today. The hon. Lady asks for my guidance as to how best she might pursue the matter. The short answer is that she should discuss with the Table Office other opportunities for her to pursue the matter to what hopefully will be, from her point of view, a satisfactory conclusion.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and John Bercow

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

Am I the last speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes.

[Catherine McKinnell]

In that case, I will give way.