All 2 Debates between David Gauke and Ian Blackford

Mon 21st Mar 2016
Budget Changes
Commons Chamber
(Urgent Question)
Mon 29th Jun 2015

Budget Changes

Debate between David Gauke and Ian Blackford
Monday 21st March 2016

(8 years, 1 month ago)

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

Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.

Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.

This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record

David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - -

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We can afford to take such steps, including funding our NHS properly, only because of the strong economy delivered by this Government and by this Chancellor over the past six years.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We on the Scottish National party Benches agree that the deficit must be cut and that we must control the debt, but that that should not be done on the backs of the poor. With the disability cuts and the £3.5 billion of cuts to come in 2019-20, and with corporation tax cuts, capital gains tax cuts and an increase in the income tax threshold, does the Minister really believe we are all in this together?

David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - -

I am pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman believes we have to get the deficit and the debt under control. He will be aware that an independent Scotland, given what has happened to the oil price, would face the biggest deficit in the western world.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Gauke and Ian Blackford
Monday 29th June 2015

(8 years, 10 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - -

As I said, a decision was made by the Scottish Government, believing that the efficiency savings were more than sufficient to outweigh the costs incurred by losing the section 33 refund. That was the basis for the decision, and the position in respect of section 33 was clear.

Ian Blackford Portrait Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

We keep hearing about respect. We all know why the Scottish Government introduced the change—it creates efficiency in the delivery of police and fire services in Scotland. A clear case has been made by many of my hon. Friends and by those on the Labour Benches as well. If there is a genuine feeling of mutual respect between the Government in Scotland and the Government in Westminster, all the Treasury has to do is make sure that we get the VAT back and we will invest it in front-line services to benefit the people of Scotland.

David Gauke Portrait Mr Gauke
- Hansard - -

We respected the Scottish Government’s decision, because they were perfectly entitled to decide to reform the police and fire services in the way they did, but they knew what the consequences of the law of the land would be with regard to VAT. That decision was taken and it would be unreasonable for us to maintain the existing legislation, given that there are many demands on section 33.

Let me turn to clause 15. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) asked why we are simply assigning half of the VAT revenue, rather than all of it. That reflects the agreement reached by the five main political parties under the auspices of Lord Smith. It represents a balance between providing a sufficient incentive for Scotland to grow its economy, relative to the rest of the United Kingdom, in order to increase its revenue from VAT and exposing the Scottish Government’s budget to potential fluctuations in VAT receipts.