Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I caught that something had occurred, but I could not see what the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) did with his hand. If he did make a gesture that is unbecoming of an hon. Member of this place, I am sure he will apologise.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I certainly had no intention to make any gesture that would cause offence. I do not know why the offence has been taken. I was trying to indicate that the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) had not given due consideration to what I had said. I am not sure exactly what gesture is meant. I was pointing at my head and saying, “Think about it.” [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Let us not prolong this. I take it that the hon. Gentleman will apologise if he inadvertently caused any offence by a gesture that should not have taken place in this place. It would be helpful if he would just nod to me.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I do apologise if any offence was taken; it was not intended.

Liaison (Membership)

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]]

I also wish to support the amendment. It is a fundamental tenet of democratic systems that the legislature should be separate from the Executive. Our role as an elected Chamber should be to make laws and scrutinise how the Government implement them. Our ability to do that depends upon having people who will speak out with independent mind and be prepared to criticise the Government, even when they might be in the same party.

Our Select Committee system is not perfect, but time and again, Committee reports have held the Government to account and even led to a change in policy. To their credit, these reports have often been fronted by Chairs who belong to the same party as the Government. This process is built upon Committees and their Chairs being appointed by Parliament—by elected Members— rather than by the Government. Put bluntly, if someone owes their position to an appointment by the Government of the day, they will be unlikely to be as forthright in their criticism of that Government. Few people bite the hand that feeds them.

The Leader of the House’s proposal will fundamentally change the relationship between Parliament and Government. This has nothing to do with the individual concerned, but everything to do with how he is appointed. If this goes through and the Committee is led by a Government placement, it effectively means that they will be marking their own homework.

Many Parliaments have an Executive—in mainland Europe, it is commonly called a bureau—that can act when Parliament is in recess or otherwise unable to meet. We do not, and I wonder whether our experience of the current emergency should lead us to conclude that we might have been better prepared if we had. Some will feel that the Liaison Committee might fulfil that role, but if anyone hopes that the Committee might act as some sort of interlocutor between Parliament and Government, this proposal will fatally compromise that ambition. A body led by a Government appointee who relies upon not distressing the Government in order to keep that job cannot and will not speak up for a critical or inquisitive Parliament.

Earlier today, we considered the Government’s proposals to abandon any facility for Members to take part in parliamentary proceedings remotely during the current health emergency. Agreeing to that was a mistake that we will come to regret. Preventing MPs from working from home will reduce, not enhance, their ability to scrutinise the Government. It will effectively disbar and discriminate against those who are sick or vulnerable, and it will force others to choose between representing their constituents or putting their health and the health of others at risk.

There is a pattern emerging here. It shows a Government trying to mute criticism by procedural means, a Government running scared of accountability, and it is not a good look. This proposal should be rejected and the Liaison Committee should be allowed to get to work and elect a Chair from among its members, all of whom have been elected by and are accountable to this Chamber. To do otherwise—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Thank you.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Tommy Sheppard

3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons
Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am unsure whether the hon. Gentleman is listening. I am saying that the SNP put a proposition before the people in a democratic election and they voted for it. Just to be sure, when I talk about this mandate, it was not only the SNP that talked about this matter. The central proposition of the Conservative party in Scotland was, “Say no to indyref 2.” The Conservative party in Scotland asked the people of Scotland to reject a referendum on independence, but the people of Scotland instead rejected the Conservative party. That is the truth of the matter, and that is why that party now has less than half the Members it had four weeks ago.

We have a new situation in these islands. For the first time in history, in this Chamber, which is charged with representing the whole United Kingdom, are Members elected from the two principal countries within the United Kingdom who have different mandates for the constitution of the country. I invite the Government to say—this will not go away—how they will respond, how they will acknowledge Scottish public opinion and how they will come to an accommodation with the political representatives of Scotland. The start of that process will be to understand what their response will be to the approach from the First Minister of Scotland, who has asked for negotiations with a view to transferring powers to the Scottish Government so that they may consult the people on how they are governed.

To be crystal clear, we are not asking the Conservative party or this Parliament to agree with the notion of Scottish independence. We are not even asking them to agree that there should be another referendum. We are simply saying they should agree that when and whether that happens should be a matter for the people who live in Scotland, and no one else. The decisions on these matters should be made by the people via their elected representatives in the national Parliament of Scotland in Edinburgh and not here in the Union Parliament in London.

That is the central proposition and, in making it, we are consistent with the claim of right for Scotland, which was debated in this very Chamber in July 2018 and endorsed by the House without opposition. I know that many Conservative Members did not really support it and thought the better option was to ignore the debate and pretend it was not happening, but it did happen and it will happen again.

If the request from the First Minister of Scotland and the request from the Scottish Parliament are denied and ignored, it will be inconsistent with the claim of right for Scotland. It will mean this House does not agree that it is a matter for the Scottish people to determine their own form of government. That would be a very serious position, because it would mean this Parliament is advocating that this United Kingdom should continue to include parts of this island even against the wishes of the people who live there. That would undermine the fundamental principle of consent on which this constitution has so far been based.

We would no longer be talking about a Union of equals, or a Union at all; we would be talking about the subsummation of Scotland as a territory into a wider political territory known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is a different constitutional position. If people want to argue it, we are happy to take them on and have that debate, but at least be honest about it.

The most important people in all this are not those who voted for the Government or for the SNP in opposition. The most important people in this debate are those who voted for neither. Many people, including in my constituency, put their faith in the capacity of the United Kingdom to reform itself and to give voice and expression to their needs and fears within this Union Parliament. They voted in significant but not overwhelming numbers for the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties in particular, and many of them are now asking themselves whether, indeed, the type of society they wish to live in can be delivered by this Union Parliament and this Government, or whether it would be a better course of action to consider Scotland becoming a politically independent country capable of setting its own priorities and giving vent to the aspirations of its own people.

They have not yet made that decision. They are on a journey and the debate, my friends, is wide open, but one of the key things that will focus that debate is the attitude and reaction of this United Kingdom Government. If the Government decide to keep their head in the sand and to pretend that this did not happen north of the border, if they pretend it is business as usual, if they use their 80-seat majority to railroad stuff through Parliament, if they drag Scotland out against its will, if they refuse to give Scotland a say and if they refuse to make any accommodation, they will become the best recruiting sergeant for the cause of independence in Scotland. We look forward to explaining to the people of Scotland the consequences of the Government’s actions.

We will be voting against this miserable set of proposals because we have not voted for them, the people we represent have not voted for them and the Scottish Parliament will not consent to them. These proposals are wrong and they do not represent the aspirations and the character of the people of Scotland. That, in the long term, will be represented much better by Scotland becoming an independent European nation in its own right.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

I call Neil Parish.

Imprisonment of Catalan Leaders

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Tommy Sheppard

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The prize for patience and perseverance goes to Tommy Sheppard.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. To be clear, the question before us today is not whether we support Catalan independence. It is not even whether an offence was committed under the Spanish constitution. The question is what we think about the jail terms that were issued yesterday to elected politicians. I know what I think. I think that they were barbaric and outrageous and that they diminish how people perceive Spain in the world. I already know of several friends who were planning to visit Spain next year on holiday who are now making alternative arrangements. The question to the Minister is not whether he wants to interfere in internal Spanish matters. The question is what he thinks about it. What do his Government think about it? What relationship will change as a result of what has happened? It is not good enough, Minister, to sit there and say nothing and do nothing. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. It is getting a little bit noisy, and we ought to hear the Minister’s final answer.

EU Withdrawal Agreement

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Tommy Sheppard

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

Let me explain it this way: we can never say that people do not have the right to reconsider a proposition in a democracy. On the other hand, we cannot have a referendum every month or every year, so we have to set tests for whether it is legitimate to have a second referendum. I would set three tests. First, the information on which the initial decision was taken needs to have substantially changed or to have been shown to be wrong—I think that test is met. Secondly, a significant number of people have to have changed their minds—enough to create a different result. That test is met. The third test is whether the elected Parliament is incapable or unwilling of discharging the mandate from the referendum. When we get the chance to vote on it, that test, too, will have been met. It is now possible that having a people’s referendum is actually the only way to get out of the current impasse and crisis.

Let me turn to the official Opposition. I am being completely non-sectarian. I do not just want to work with the Labour party in defeating this Government; I am desperate to do so. I am really concerned by what has happened over the last 24 hours. Earlier comments suggested that the mis-wording of Labour’s no confidence motion to include “the Prime Minister” but not “the Government” is somehow a mistake or an ineptitude. It is not. It is a deliberate attempt not to put the question, so that it now languishes on the Order Paper with the same authority and effect as 1,900 early-day motions that are lying around.

I say to the Labour Front Benchers: you need to do something to dispel a growing concern, which is that Labour Members are not effectively taking on the Conservatives because they are not actually disagreeing with their policies all that much and would be quite content to see them go through. The Labour party needs to lead. It is the biggest Opposition party in this House. It needs to step up and co-ordinate the opposition on the Opposition Benches, but also on the Government Benches, and to defeat these proposals. Please do that and we will be your willing accomplice, if you ask us to be so.

There has been a lot of talk about the fact that Scotland, for the time being, remains part of the United Kingdom. I respect the 2014 referendum result. Scotland does remain part of the United Kingdom, and we have every right to argue in this Parliament for the benefit of our constituents within the United Kingdom, which is why we are desperately engaged in a process of trying to save this country from itself—from the worst act of collective self-harm in history—by stopping this ridiculous process of Brexit. But know this: we will not go down with the ship if it does not change direction. We will use our right of self-determination as a lifeboat to escape from this catastrophe. And when the time comes, if this process unfurls the way the Government want it to, you will be the greatest champions of Scottish independence, because the people of Scotland will take their opportunity to chart a different course and become a proper European nation at the heart of Europe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman several times referred to “you”, when he meant hon. Members, not the occupant of the Chair.

I now have to reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Occupied Palestinian Territories: Israeli Settlements

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 9th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree, which is why the people who talk about face-to-face talks really ought to consider that this is a David and Goliath situation. In any conflict where that situation has existed and peace has been achieved, it has been with international support and an international framework. It was true with the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, too. We need to listen to the Palestinians when they appeal for our help and support to try to achieve a resolution.

Over the past 25 years, the Israeli Government have, in contravention of the fourth Geneva convention, moved half a million of their own civilian population into an area in which they are in military occupation. That is why people call the settlements illegal. At some stage, they will have to be dealt with. There will need to be land swaps. Some settlers may wish to be Palestinian citizens and some may wish to take advantage of relocation schemes to go into Israel proper, but the issue will have to be dealt with. Every brick that is laid and every new apartment that is built in the settlement complex puts a solution further away. When in a hole, stop digging; that is why the resolution calls on the Israeli Government to review their policy and to put a cessation on settlement building so that peace talks can begin. To have peace talks, there has to be a ceasefire; stopping building settlements would be the equivalent.

I will finish with four asks to the Minister and the Government. The first is that we implement UN resolution 2334, particularly with regard to differentiation of the occupied territories in Israel proper. The second is—I am out of time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will to find another way of making his other points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I also wish to draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I went on a trip to Israel and the west bank last year with the UK branch of the Fateh Movement.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Does anyone else wish to make a point of order?

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

All I can tell you is that it works well in Scotland, and we tend to take the approach “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

I will make a couple of points on specific aspects of the Bill in a moment, but first I want to welcome the Minister’s general support for the role of charities in our society throughout the country. It is important to recognise, however, that the people involved in charitable organisations are not just there as service providers who deliver things. They are also a valuable source of information and opinion, which can inform many of our social policies, and despite the Minister’s support, the Government may have some bridges to mend with the charitable sector in some areas of social policy. In particular, more than 60 disability organisations and charities have been critical of the Government’s changes to disability benefits. Let us contrast that with the situation in Scotland, where the leading children’s charities have actually praised the Scottish Government for amending some of the regulations.

Turning to the Bill, there are some clauses in which you are bringing the situation into line with that in Scotland. Clause 2 relates to the time limit on the suspension of trustees and clause 8 relates to property. These provisions already apply in Scotland in more or less the same way. I note that in clause 10, which covers the criteria for the disqualification of trustees, you are going a lot further than we have done in Scotland. Our approach would be to let you get on with that and see how it works out—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has frequently used the word “you”. Actually, that was quite appropriate in the first part of his speech, because he was in a way addressing the Chair. However, when he is referring to the Government, it is better to say “the Government”, or “the Minister”, rather than “you”, because I will not take the blame.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I stand corrected, Madam Deputy Speaker. Sometimes I use the word “you” in its Scottish vernacular to imply “one”, but I will try to refer to the Government in the third person.

There are some clauses in which you are bringing the situation into line, and some in which you go further, and it is our intention to wait and see what happens. A review is under way in Scotland, which has in part come about because of the discussions that are taking place in England and Wales.

Our main concern relates to the regulations on the ability of charities to raise money. The Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations has expressed concern that the high-profile cases in English charities relating to the misuse of funds, and the inappropriate ways of raising funds, will have an effect on charities in Scotland, even though they are not part of the same regulatory framework; they could effectively be tarred with the same brush.

We see no great need to change the funding regulations at the moment. Our charitable fundraising arrangements are essentially self-regulatory, and we would like that to continue. However, a discussion involving the charitable sector is under way in Scotland and we are determined that, whatever happens, we will arrive at an appropriate agreement, in which the charitable sector will be involved. It is a matter of debate whether we continue with self-regulation or whether we see the Government becoming more directly involved. The Ministers here have taken the view that this Government should be more directly involved, and that they wish this House to be the ultimate place to which the regulatory system is accountable. We shall watch the situation with interest, and we wish you very well in your endeavours to improve the regulation of charities in England and Wales.