European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

David Gauke Excerpts

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

[Robert Buckland]

My right hon. Friend, in his nuanced way, makes the important point that in the pursuit of perfection we are in danger of losing the entire House. The majority of us in this Chamber have made it clear that the one thing we do not want is a no-deal Brexit. Through all the debates we have had and all the decisions we have made, that one thing has been clear.

[Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

Many of us are still concerned that we may end up with a no-deal exit for Great Britain. Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that we will make sure, in the Bill, that Parliament has an opportunity to vote before 1 July on whether the implementation period should be extended—whether for one or two years—if it does not look like we will get in the negotiations a free trade agreement by the end of the year? Will he also assure me that the Government will abide by that vote?

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. What would happen if there were potential for an extension of the implementation period has been concerning Members right across the House. We believe that we can negotiate in the time that we have now, but we accept that Parliament has a legitimate role to play, and I can bring forward an amendment that would allow Parliament to have its say on the merits of an extension of the implementation period—

[Mr Gauke]

And the Government will abide by it.

[Robert Buckland]

And the Government will abide by that.

Now, that is an example of representative democracy working well, because one of the things that we British pride ourselves on is our ability to compromise, to listen to each other, to learn from each other, to respect each other and to come to a reasonable compromise. I have done everything that I can in my political career to reflect those values, and I believe that I see many other right hon. and hon. Members who share that view.

Prime Minister’s Statement

David Gauke Excerpts

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The time has come to uncork the Gauke.

[Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister said that he wanted to leave with a deal, and he has shown determination and flexibility to reach a deal, for which he deserves credit. He will be aware, however, that unless we reach a free trade agreement in the next stage of negotiations, there is a risk that Great Britain will leave the implementation period without a deal with the European Union. Can he commit today to showing the same determination and flexibility to ensure that we reach a deep and special partnership through a free trade agreement with the European Union, before we allow the implementation period to come to an end?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point—indeed, that was really the substantive point that I have been discussing with our European Union friends in the past couple of days. That is where they want to go now. They are interested in our timetable and in whether 14 months is enough, and it is absolutely right to focus on that. I think that it is enough; I think we can do it in 14 months. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asks why from a sedentary position. She may not know that we are already in perfect regulatory alignment with the European Union, and it may have escaped her that we already have zero-tariff and zero-quota arrangements with the EU. We have a fantastic opportunity to do a free trade deal. Yes, 14 months is a blistering pace, but we can get it done. I remind doubters and sceptics—[Interruption]—there they all are. They said that it was impossible to reopen the withdrawal agreement, they said we would never get rid of the backstop, and they said we would never get a deal. There is a very good deal on the table here today, and I hope they vote for it.

Brexit Negotiations

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

The publication of specific proposals to deal with the backstop is to be welcomed, as is the Prime Minister’s commitment to not having physical infrastructure in Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. His commitment to the Good Friday agreement is also to be welcomed, but could he say a bit more about what obligations he believes we have under the Good Friday agreement to ensure not only that there is no physical infrastructure, but that goods can flow freely between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Of course, what this offer does is take one step further, by consent, in having regulatory alignment for goods as well, so obviating the need for checks on perhaps 30% of the other traffic from north to south in addition to the 30% that we have already achieved by sanitary and phytosanitary alignment. That is always assuming that consent were to be granted, if he understands me.

Prime Minister's Role in Creating a Safe Environment

David Gauke Excerpts

Thursday 26th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

At best, the Prime Minister’s answers to some of the questions last night were deeply insensitive, but the concern that many of us have is that there is a deliberate strategy of division and confrontation. Can the Minister reassure me that the Conservative party and the Government are not going to pursue a strategy of division, of confrontation and of the undermining of the institutions that protect the peace and stability of our citizens?

[Kevin Foster]

I can reassure my right hon. Friend that the Conservative party, going into a general election, will go forward with a manifesto that seeks to serve the country and unite the country, but a key part of doing that is bringing a resolution to the Brexit process. I know he has supported a deal, and I hope when the Prime Minister brings back a deal we can look forward to his support again.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman wants to put that matter to the people, the best thing he can do is persuade his right hon. Friend to summon up his courage and to stop being so frit. If he is going to pass this wretched surrender Bill, at least he should submit it to the judgment of the people in the form of a general election.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to implement the will of the people of Swansea, what he should do is vote with this Government and not for the surrender Bill tonight.

[Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

The Prime Minister has said that the Prorogation of Parliament is nothing to do with Brexit. Is that still his position?

[The Prime Minister]

As my right hon. Friend knows full well, there have been demands for the Prorogation of Parliament ahead of a Queen’s Speech from the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) and from across the House. This Session has lasted longer than any in the last 400 years, and there will be ample opportunity to debate the Brexit deal in this House after 17 October if this Government are allowed to get on and deliver a deal.

G7 Summit

David Gauke Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I do not comment on leaks. Even if I did, I have got no idea, quite frankly. I think it is highly unlikely.

[Mr David Gauke (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The Prime Minister will be aware that many of us are concerned that we are currently on course to leave the European Union without a deal on 31 October and that we will not have time to negotiate and legislate for a new deal. Those concerns were not allayed by reports in The Daily Telegraph this morning that suggested that it was stated in a strategy meeting on 29 July that the Government were going to run down the clock. Nor are our concerns allayed by the suggestion that the Attorney General, on 1 August, said that removing the backstop altogether would mean that we would not be able to reach a deal. Are those reports accurate?

[The Prime Minister]

I do not comment on leaks—[Interruption.] Even in pages as hallowed as the ones described. What I can tell my right hon. Friend—he asked me exactly the same question this morning—is that we are working for a deal, and I believe that we will get a deal. It should be a deal that I think everybody in this House would want to support and that, above all, their constituents would want to support. They want and we want this business to be over and for us to leave the EU on 31 October.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

2. What discussions he has had with representatives of the North Sea oil and gas industry on UK Government support for that sector.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Ministers and officials have meetings with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors, including the oil and gas industry. Last week, the Chancellor announced a further package of reforms to support jobs and investment in the oil and gas sector. That will help the industry respond to the challenging commercial conditions caused by the steep fall in oil prices.

[Stuart Andrew]

The excellent Budget package for the oil and gas industry has certainly been welcomed by that industry. Is that another example showing that when Scotland’s two Governments work together they can get the best outcome for Scotland in the United Kingdom—something that an independent Scotland could never have achieved?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. The United Kingdom is able to absorb the shocks of the volatile oil price, and take steps to ensure that our oil and gas sector is as strong as it can be, given the low oil prices.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Will the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues commit to taking action to ensure that companies in the oil and gas sector have appropriate access to finance at this time?

[Mr Gauke]

The Government do all they can to support businesses the length and breadth of the United Kingdom in all sectors. My point is that we are able to take action and support the oil and gas sector because we are the United Kingdom. Had Scotland become independent, it would be facing a very substantial loss of revenue and have great difficulties absorbing that.

[Ms Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP)]

3. What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effects of the Government’s welfare programme on social and economic inequalities in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

7. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on commencement of the fiscal powers in the Scotland Bill.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The UK and Scottish Governments have met 10 times under the Joint Exchequer Committee since the election last year. These discussions resulted last month in the agreement of a new fiscal framework for the Scottish Government. Agreement on the fiscal framework enables us to deliver on the vow we made to the Scottish people and delivers one of the most powerful and accountable devolved Parliaments in the world, with the economic and national security that comes from being part of the UK.

[Nigel Huddleston]

Does the Minister agree that it would be bad news for Scotland if it became the highest taxed part of the United Kingdom? Does he agree with Ruth Davidson MSP that Scottish taxpayers should not have to pay any more in tax than fellow Britons in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Gauke]

The Scottish people have essentially three choices in their elections. Two of them—voting Labour or SNP—would involve paying more in income tax.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Does the Minister agree with me about the Chancellor’s reckless, last-minute intervention to tweak the fiscal framework after it had been agreed by the Treasury and the Scottish Government? Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor’s brinkmanship intentions endangered the framework at the very last moment?

[Mr Gauke]

The answer is no. An agreement has been reached. We are pleased that we have that agreement, and now it is for the Scottish Government to be held accountable by the Scottish people.

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

8. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect on Scotland of measures announced in the Budget.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Chancellor has delivered a budget that delivers for Scotland. This will be the last Budget where a UK Chancellor sets out income tax rates and thresholds for Scottish earners. The changes to the income tax personal allowance will benefit 2.6 million taxpayers in Scotland. The Budget delivers on our plans to build a stronger Scottish economy as part of the UK and put the next generation first.

[Deidre Brock]

I congratulate the Minister on finding the Chancellor to have those discussions—earlier this week, we thought he had gone walkabout! The Budget had £1 billion-worth of cuts to the Scottish budget and £650 million-worth of cuts to the English NHS. Given the volte-face on social security cuts, does he think he could persuade the Chancellor to reverse Scotland’s cuts and put in a good word for the English NHS as well?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me remind the House that there were three asks from the SNP: a freeze in whisky fuel duty, a freeze in fuel duty, and help for the oil and gas industry. That is exactly what the Chancellor delivered.

[Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)]

12. Did the Secretary of State discuss with the Chancellor the merits of an £8.5 billion corporation tax cut and a £6 billion giveaway in capital gains and inheritance tax versus those of a proposed £4 billion cut in payments to the disabled, and how that would affect people in Scotland, or did he sit there and do what he was telt yet again?

[Mr Gauke]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that 73,000 businesses in Scotland will benefit from the cut in corporation tax. Is he saying that he opposes that?

The Prime Minister was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the effect on household incomes in Scotland of the changes to welfare announced in the summer budget 2015 and the spending review and autumn statement 2015.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The analysis published at spending review 2015 shows that more than half of all spending on welfare and public services goes to the poorest 40% of households in the UK. That has not changed as a result of the Government’s policies since 2010.

[Robert Flello]

The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that by 2020 more than 2.5 million working families on universal credit will, on average, be £1,600 a year worse off owing to the cuts to the work allowance in universal credit. My constituents know how that is going to damage them, but do the Secretary of State and the Minister have the first clue as to how many of those families will be in Scotland and what the scale of the impact will be on them?

[Mr Gauke]

The best way to help working households in this country is to ensure that we have a job-creating economy; that wages go up; that we introduce a national living wage that will help millions of people; and that we have a secure and stable economy. That is what this Government are delivering. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Household incomes in Scotland will be of intense interest, not least to people living in Scotland. We must hear the questions and the answers.

[Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)]

In a recent written parliamentary question to the Secretary of State, I asked:

“what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the introduction of the Work and Health Programme in Scotland.”

His response was a masterful example of how not to answer, which is what we have seen again today. Will he now take the opportunity to tell the House whether he has bothered to discuss with the Department for Work and Pensions how this new programme will affect my constituents?

[Mr Gauke]

This Government are making reforms to the welfare system—we are making sure that work always pays. We do have to ensure that the system is affordable, but may I remind the hon. Lady that the Scotland Bill gives the Scottish Government the powers to top up benefits and introduce new benefits?

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

8. What discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on increasing the number of undergraduates attending Scottish universities.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)]

2. What recent discussions he has had with Her Majesty’s Treasury on the future of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs tax offices in Scotland.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

As part of its ongoing and long-term transformation, HMRC will shortly be making face-to-face announcements in all 170 offices to all staff explaining where its future offices will be.

[Stuart C. McDonald]

Good-quality jobs at our local HMRC office—the largest employer in Cumbernauld—are in serious danger because of this Government’s drastic cuts, debt management privatisation and proposed office mergers. What will the Minister and the Secretary of State do to protect the jobs of hard-working HMRC employees and the local economies of towns such as Cumbernauld?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said, HMRC will be making an announcement in the next few days about its long-term plan, but it is right that it seeks to find savings on its property costs so that the money can be used to improve customer service and get the taxes in.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

3. What assessment he has made of progress in meeting the recommendations of the Smith commission; and if he will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)]

5. What discussions he has had with his Cabinet colleagues on reforming the estimates process to take account of the changes made to the Standing Orders of the House to implement English votes for English laws.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Ministers have had discussions with the Leader of the House on English votes for English laws and their implementation. These sensible and pragmatic steps do nothing to limit Scottish MPs’ rights to represent their constituents.

[George Kerevan]

Is the Secretary of State as concerned as I am that Barnett consequentials that affect all three devolved nations are not clearly spelled out and safeguarded in the new arrangements for English votes for English laws? Will he take his fifth opportunity to explain what is happening with the fiscal compact?

[Mr Gauke]

The changes to Standing Orders do not make any difference to the estimates process. When my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House challenged hon. Members to provide examples of where there would be difficulties, no examples could be provided.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

As the Procedure Committee is planning to hold an inquiry into the manner in which the House deals with estimates, may I urge the Minister to defer holding discussions with his Cabinet colleagues until that report is to hand?

[Mr Gauke]

The Government will look carefully at what the Procedure Committee has to say about reforms to the estimates process, which is ultimately a matter for the House.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

6. What steps the Government are taking to facilitate the sharing of best practice with the Scottish Government on public spending on health.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Health spending is a devolved matter and the Scottish Government are responsible for the NHS in Scotland. It is up to the Scottish Government to decide how best to use their funding and deliver health services in Scotland. The UK Government are happy to share good practice with the Scottish Government to help ensure that people living in Scotland receive high-quality healthcare. Discussions between UK Health Ministers take place where necessary.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Has the Minister seen the recent Audit Scotland report which shows that the Scottish Government have completely failed to pass on health spending increases instigated by the United Kingdom Government, and that that has resulted in a 0.7% real-terms reduction in health spending in Scotland between 2008-09 and 2014-15?

[Mr Gauke]

I have seen that report, and my hon. Friend is right to bring it to the House’s attention. The fact is that a Conservative Government have shown more commitment to public spending on the NHS—[Interruption]—in England than an SNP-led Government have shown in Scotland.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

We now have “English votes for English laws” on issues such as health spending in England. Does the Minister not think that it is time for “Scottish Members for Scottish business” and “Scottish questions for Scottish Members”, and for Scottish Ministers to answer Scottish questions in this House?

[Mr Gauke]

I note that the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of English votes for English laws, and that he gets very worked up about it. Let me remind him and the House that, just a year ago, he said that English votes for English laws was

“an issue that the Scottish people could not care less about”.

That does not seem to be his approach any more.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the level of anti-Semitism in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

8. What steps he is taking to ensure that the new devolution arrangement which would result from the provisions of the Scotland Bill is financially neutral.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The UK Government are delivering the cross-party Smith agreement in full, giving the Scottish Government substantial new powers over tax and spending. The Smith agreement stated that the devolution of powers

“should be accompanied by an updated fiscal framework”.

The UK and Scottish Governments are discussing that.

[Deidre Brock]

Let me offer the Secretary of State a sixth opportunity to disassociate himself from the subsidy claims that have been made by his own party in the Chamber. Will he do so now? Does he agree that the Treasury’s statements of funding policy over the devolution years have been a creaking and unstable mess, creating unnecessary friction, and will he recommit himself to a more open and transparent process—as he refused to do previously—for the calculation of the block grant to underpin the new fiscal framework?

[Mr Gauke]

There is a process, and it involves UK Treasury Ministers in negotiations with the Scottish Government. We are continuing to work on that process, and we will update the House when there is further news.

[Jo Cox (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

9. What discussions he has had with women’s organisations on devolving competence for abortion legislation to the Scottish Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Gauke Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

1. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the effect on claimants in Scotland of changes in entitlement to working tax credits and child tax credits.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Chancellor has regular discussions with Treasury colleagues, as well as with the rest of the Cabinet, on a wide range of topics. The changes to tax credits are at the centre of the Government’s intention to move to a higher wage, lower tax and lower welfare society.

[Debbie Abrahams]

The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that the poorest 20% of the population will lose proportionately more than any other income group as a result of the benefit and tax changes. Given that International Monetary Fund analysis has shown that an increase in income to the poorest 20% stimulates growth, what is the Minister’s assessment not just of the increase in poverty in Scotland but of the stifling of growth?

[Mr Gauke]

The point I would make to the hon. Lady is that if we want to have a strong economy, we have to move to a higher wage, lower tax and lower benefits system. That is what the Government have been elected to do; that is what we are delivering.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that part and parcel of changing the system is to encourage the Scottish people to live on the wages they earn from the jobs that will be created under the long-term economic plan?

[Mr Gauke]

The key to prosperity is to ensure that we have a dynamic economy. That is why we are cutting business taxes so we have higher wages and higher productivity; that is why we are improving our skills and investment in the United Kingdom; and that is the way we can ensure we have higher living standards for the people of Scotland and all parts of the United Kingdom.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

The UK Government are planning to restrict child benefit to two children for new parents. The Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs have in the Budget been asked to

“develop protections for women who have a third child as a result of rape, or other exceptional circumstances.”

Can the Minister explain how that will work?

[Mr Gauke]

The point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that we think it is right that all families face the same situation, having to make choices bearing in mind the financial consequences of the number of children they have. It is right that a regime is put in place for exceptional circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman does not want to restrict tax credits to two children per family in future, he will be able to bring in top-ups paid for by the Scottish taxpayer under the powers provided in the Scotland Bill.

[Angus Robertson]

Rape is one of the most serious crimes and has one of the poorest clear-up rates. It is thought that 85% of women who are raped do not confirm that they have been raped. May I urge the Secretary of State and his colleagues to look very, very closely at this issue? I have already asked the Minister the question once and he did not give an answer as to how the Government are going to manage this very, very sensitive issue. May I ask him again how the Government plan to make this work?

[Mr Gauke]

We will set out the details in due course, but it is perfectly reasonable to limit in future—this is prospective; this is for future births—the support that is provided to families to two children under the tax credits system, so that all households face the same consequences of decisions about how many children they have. That is what most families have to live with.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

2. If he will make an assessment of the effect of benefit sanctions on (a) levels of poverty and (b) social cohesion in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

7. What estimate he has made of the level of public expenditure per person in Scotland in each of the last three years.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The latest edition of the Country and Regional Analysis calculates that in 2013-14 total identifiable expenditure on services in Scotland was 15% higher than the UK average. Once the Smith agreement has been implemented, changes in Scottish Government funding will increasingly come from changes in Scottish taxes rather than as a result of the Barnett formula.

[Mr Bone]

If we translate that into English, we find that more than £2,000 less per person is spent on people in the east midlands—including my constituents in Wellingborough—than is spent on people in Scotland, yet my constituents pay exactly the same taxes. Does the Minister think that that is fair and just?

[Mr Gauke]

There is no consensus on what the solution should be. The Barnett formula has been in place for some time. In future, however, more than 50% of funding will come from Scottish taxes rather than from the block grant, and the Barnett formula will therefore become less important over time.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Government are very keen to focus on public spending, but not so keen to talk about tax contributions. People in Scotland have paid more, on average, for more than three decades. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the public expenditure cuts in Scotland, on top of the tax credit cuts for working people, will mean that the poorest in those communities will suffer the most? Given that Scotland has rejected the Secretary of State’s austerity programme, when will he give the Scottish Parliament powers to choose a different path?

[Mr Gauke]

We are giving the Scottish Parliament the powers to follow a different route. Perhaps it is time the SNP explained how it would use those powers, rather than constantly complaining about wanting more powers. On hurting the poorest, full fiscal autonomy, which would cost the Scottish people £10 billion a year, would hurt the poorest in Scotland.