Skip to main content

1-14 of 14 results for subject:VAT

Member X
David Gauke
Subject X
Petrol

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Gauke, David (14)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Thirteenth opposition day debate (part one). Main question negatived on division (236 to 301). Amendment agreed to on division (307 to 239). Main question, as amended, agreed to.

Lead member
Angela Eagle
Answering member
Justine Greening
Department
Treasury
Type
Opposition days
Date
16 March 2011
Reference
525 c309-73
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. With the new policy prepared, how could the shadow Chancellor's plan possibly fail? An interview round was done on Sunday, a press conference was booked for Monday, and an Opposition day was planned for today—I believe by moving aside...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 March 2011
Reference
525 c363-5
House
House of Commons

This has been a helpful debate. There is little doubt that the cost of living and the rising price of fuel are difficult issues that affect all our constituents. I thank my hon. Friends who raised issues from their constituencies, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
16 March 2011
Reference
525 c363
House
House of Commons

I agree with the Financial Secretary that we have had a good debate this afternoon. My hon. Friends the Members for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) and for Braintree (Mr. Newmark) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) have highlighted some of the issues for business caused by...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 June 2007
Reference
462 c78
House
House of Commons

Before I deal with new clause 4, let me say a few words about Government amendment No. 2 and return to the comments made by the Financial Secretary earlier. As he said, on my debut on the Front Bench in Committee, he generously agreed to amend the Bill to require...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 June 2007
Reference
462 c66-7
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 June 2007
Reference
462 c65
House
House of Commons

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will deal with some of these points in more detail in a few moments. HMRC’s standard target is 21 days —15 working days. There may well be circumstances in which additional time is necessary, but at the moment there are regularly...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 June 2007
Reference
462 c67-9
House
House of Commons

I do not intend to detain the House and impede the speedy progress that we have achieved so far. I am grateful for the Financial Secretary’s comments about new clause 1 and the fact that he accepts the principle behind it. Indeed, in his letter to my hon. Friend the...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
25 June 2007
Reference
462 c44
House
House of Commons

In the continuing debate about these matters, and especially in respect of the definition of a disabled person, the Paymaster General has made great play of the fact that a consultation process was held two years ago and that a particular answer was reached. I shall return to that in...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 July 2006
Reference
448 c686-7
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. During the Bill’s passage through the House, people have asked repeatedly, ““Why would anyone set up a trust? It must be a mechanism for tax avoidance.”” They have not appreciated that there are non-tax reasons for setting up a trust. Moreover, why are...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 July 2006
Reference
448 c687
House
House of Commons

I think that the Paymaster General is referring to our exchange on Second Reading, when she argued that Treasury officials were saying that the original provisions in the Bill would not have a particular effect, and I argued that professional advisers were saying that it would have a particular effect....

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 July 2006
Reference
448 c692
House
House of Commons

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) makes an excellent point. The Paymaster General’s response suggests that the original drafting was poor; there was certainly much uncertainty and the amendments could have resolved the matter. However, if the answer is none, why did we go through all...

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 July 2006
Reference
448 c688-9
House
House of Commons

I give way again to my colleague on the Treasury Committee.

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 July 2006
Reference
448 c688
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend may be right, albeit rather inelegantly. I am not entirely sure what the explanation is; perhaps the Paymaster General will enlighten us later.

Member
David Gauke (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
4 July 2006
Reference
448 c688
House
House of Commons