All 1 Debates between Maggie Throup and Stewart Hosie

Public Finances: Scotland

Debate between Maggie Throup and Stewart Hosie
Wednesday 3rd February 2016

(8 years, 3 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie Portrait Stewart Hosie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

For the sake of brevity. Let me be very clear that the negotiations that are under way are founded on a number of principles, including no detriment as a result of the devolution of further powers initially and no detriment as a result of the policy decisions of the UK Government or Scottish Government post-devolution. I would have thought that the Chief Secretary might have known that.

The whole point of getting this right is to avoid a potential cut of an additional £3.5 billion over a decade, so that the Scottish Government can continue their good work. We do not want those additional cuts to be made, because they would weaken our ability to internationalise the economy; hinder our support for businesses seeking to innovate and to do research and development; suck vital resources out of our plans to invest in education and infrastructure; and undermine all the work being done by the Scottish Government to deliver the fall in unemployment and the highest employment rates in the UK.

We understand the trajectory that Scotland’s public finances will take if the wrong block grant adjustment is chosen. As I say, it will perhaps mean the loss of £3.5 billion over a decade.

Maggie Throup Portrait Maggie Throup (Erewash) (Con)
- Hansard - -

Given how the hon. Gentleman is speaking, it almost sounds as if the SNP MPs are having second thoughts about the new powers in the Scotland Bill. Is that because they are afraid of taking them on board?

Stewart Hosie Portrait Stewart Hosie
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

No. The hon. Lady is absolutely wrong; we are not having second thoughts about the powers. We want the powers—indeed, we want more powers—but the agreement that is reached must deliver a Scotland Bill in line with the Smith commission principles, in particular that of no detriment.

We want to avoid a potential additional cut of £3.5 billion over a decade.