Proceeding contribution from Geoffrey Robinson (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 4 May 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance (No. 3) Bill.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Listening to my hon. Friend, it is clear that she has an in-depth knowledge of this sector and of how child care can most effectively and cost-effectively be used. Reflecting on her experience, does she see any economic rationale or moral principle underlying the idea inherent in clause 35 that if only one parent is working and is in the higher rate tax bracket, they are not eligible for child care, but if two parents are working, they are? That seems to be a perverse incentive. All it will do—this is why some Labour Members had reservations about our Government's policy, which led to clause 35 —is to put higher rate taxpayers in the same position with child care as they choose to be with comprehensive schools, whereby they do not bring their middle-class, extreme commitment to them. We will force them out of the national provision of child care and create social division as opposed to greater social cohesion.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 527 c739-40
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Childcare Business Corporation tax Capital allowances Investment Equipment Economic growth Manufacturing industries Tax allowances Taxation Tax rates and bands
- Legislation
- Finance (No. 3) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 15:52:57 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738272
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738272
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_738272