Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

I believe that I have set out two sensible and compelling reasons to have the date on 12 December, and I have yet to hear to the contrary an argument about why we need to move it by three days. I really think that we have dealt with this point. I know other hon. Members wish to speak, so if the Committee will forgive me I will conclude my points on amendment 14, which stands in my name.

The Government’s amendment removes St Andrew’s day 2019 only from the operation of regulation 29(4) and 8(3) of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Regulations. This both restricts the change to this election only and leaves the subsequent register intact. The effect of the amendment is to remove the bank holiday from the calculation of time for registering for the voter deadline. It would instead be classed as a normal working day, but for this election only. We feel that the amendment, as we have drafted it, will, I hope, address SNP concerns, but will limit any unintended consequences of amending the relevant provision of the regulations.

In summary, we are trying to achieve straightforward, simple legislation that ensures that we can have a general election in short order. I urge all hon. Members to resist the temptation to complicate and amend this to allow us to have the general election on 12 December so that we can get a sustainable majority to deliver the Prime Minister’s deal and finally move on.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I want to make some comments generally on the Bill as a whole and then to discuss the individual amendments that have been selected.

I must start by saying that, clearly, it is not ideal for anyone to have an election a couple of weeks before Christmas: the nights are fair drawing in, it will be cold and dark, and many of the people in this country will, quite understandably, be looking forward to Christmas and spending time with their family and relatives. So it is hardly an ideal time, but from our perspective in the SNP, we think that this is a necessary requirement now, because we have reached a situation of impasse in this Parliament where it is incapable of resolving probably the biggest political issue that has divided the United Kingdom in my lifetime. There are competing views as to what the end point of the Brexit process should be, and parliamentary democracy in this country, it seems to me, has now reached a point of stasis where it is incapable of adjudicating between those outcomes. It is therefore right and proper that we should go back to the electorate and allow them to reflect on what can happen.

This will very much be the Brexit election. I am pleased that we have moved the Government from their position a few weeks ago, when they did not actually want a Brexit election in which the people would be allowed to cast their views about different outcomes. They wanted to get Brexit done and go to the electorate afterwards. That would have been a travesty because it would have said to the people, “We’re going to have a general election. Brexit will be one of the big topics of conversation, but there is really no point in you expressing a view, because we’re going to conclude the matter before the first ballot is cast.” That would have been a ridiculous and anti-democratic situation. I am glad that we have moved the Prime Minister and the Government away from that approach, even if it does mean that the Prime Minister might be looking for a ditch on Thursday.

Many people have lamented the fact that Parliament has not resolved this matter, three and a half years on. In my view, that is simply because it is without any reasonable resolution. The promise of Brexit has turned out to be a lie. In 2016, people were told that they could vote to leave the European Union and would be better off as a result. That is not true, and hardly anyone in this Chamber would now argue that it was. In fact, it is a matter of how bad the different Brexit options are. That is why, quite understandably, there is now a large body of opinion in this country for whom the conclusion of this process should be to say, “That’s it. It has gone far enough. Stop it now; we want to get off.” An election will allow that view to come to the fore.

The election will also allow the Prime Minister to put his deal before the electorate. And hon. Members should be under no illusions—the Prime Minister has taken an extremely flawed deal by his predecessor and made it immeasurably worse. This series of proposals that the Prime Minister has agreed with the European Union will impoverish people in this country, very much remove the standing of the United Kingdom in the eyes of the world and leave it a much worse place. I do not want that for the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and I certainly do not want that outcome for the people of Scotland. That is why it is right and proper that the Prime Minister should put his case before the electorate. I look forward to him being challenged—not just by Opposition parties, but by Nigel Farage so that we can see whether the deal he has come up with satisfies the real hard-right Brexiteers, for whom nothing will sate their appetite.

As many people have remarked, the situation in Scotland is quite different; 62% of the people of Scotland did not vote for this mess. Had teenage voters and most people in Scotland born elsewhere in the European Union been allowed to take part in that decision, the figure would have been far higher still, as it would if the question were asked again today. It is my responsibility to represent the people who elected me.

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

On the issue of votes for 16 and 17-year-olds, I believe that all men and women are born equal and that everybody in this place should be equal. Amendment 10, which fortunately was not selected today, would have given 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland and Wales the vote, but—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady is out of order; amendment 10 is not debatable.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am confused as to why that particular intervention should have been made at this point in my speech, but I will mention the issue when I come to consider the amendments before us.

I think it was the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips) who said that the outcome of an election could be another hung Parliament, without a majority one way or the other. That, of course, is true. But an election will allow us all the opportunity to refresh a mandate. I for one believe that there are far too many people in this Parliament who are imprisoned by an out-of-date mandate from 2017 that is against what they would do now, having considered the matter. It will give colleagues, particularly those in Her Majesty’s Opposition in seats where a majority voted to leave the European Union, the opportunity to go there and argue, if they so wish, for a rethink and for this matter to be put back to the public before any final decision is taken. That mandate was not present in this Parliament; it could be present in a new Parliament. That is another reason why an election would be welcome.

[Ian C. Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a fact that in the 2016 referendum electoral offences were committed by Vote Leave—the campaign that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and their chief adviser were actually involved in. Is not this general election an opportunity to highlight their role and for a new Government to investigate that properly—something that has not been done under this Government?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, there would be the opportunity to do that. Those transgressions should be investigated and they do undermine the result of the 2016 referendum. That is yet another reason why the electorate should be allowed to look at this matter again.

I want to be very clear that with regard to mandates in Scotland, we will be fighting this general election with three objectives: first, to stop Brexit, not to rubber stamp it; secondly, to get rid of the most right-wing Tory Government in my lifetime; and thirdly, to demand that people in Scotland have the right to choose an alternative future—an alternative path for doing things— and should not be dragged along against their will. We will put that case to the people in Scotland, and if we win that mandate and win that election, then I demand that other people in this Chamber respect that decision and do not stand in the way of the people of Scotland when they next seek the opportunity to determine their own method of governance.

Let me turn, in closing, to the amendments. I will not discuss amendments that have not been selected, but I simply say that it is a matter of regret that, at this time of political crisis when we are discussing how to get out of it, we are not able to seize the opportunity to extend our franchise and allow two very important groups of people in our community who have a vested interest in the outcome of this decision—more than we do—the opportunity to participate.

[David Duguid (Banff and Buchan) (Con)]

On voting age, I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates—I am sure he does—that those who were 17-year-olds in 2016 were 18-year-olds and of voting age in 2017, when 56% of voters in Scotland voted for either the Conservative party or Labour, both of which, if only at the time in the case of Labour, were committed to delivering Brexit.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am unclear that that is an argument against 16 and 17-year-olds being able to vote in this election or, indeed, in any subsequent election.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman’s point; indeed, I made it more widely on Second Reading. It is a shame that we are not doing this—although obviously we are not able to discuss amendments that have not been selected.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I think there is actually a broad level of agreement among Members across the House, including the odd one over on the Conservative Benches as well, that the time has surely come to extend the franchise. I hope we do not end up in a situation where we have a general election in December and it will be another five years before we can even consider this possible enfranchisement. It would therefore have been a timely opportunity to seize the issue, but we have chosen not to do so.

On the amendments that have been selected, we are very much in favour of the one suggesting that the election should move to 9 December, and we shall vote for it tonight. The Government said that they wanted an election as soon as possible, so why would they not wish to have it three days earlier than the date—

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

I think I have taken enough interventions, in fairness—I need to conclude.

[Sir Hugo Swire]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

No, thank you. [Interruption.] No, thank you. Which part of “no” don’t you understand?

A 9 December election brings a number of benefits. It enables more of the electorate to participate and it puts an extra little bit of distance between the election and Christmas. Furthermore, it does not inconvenience our ability to conclude our business in this Parliament in any way. We could get our business finished and have Dissolution at the end of this week, so it is entirely doable. I do not understand why the Government, who have been so determined that there must be an election as soon as possible, are so resistant to doing it three days earlier. Let us do it as soon as possible, in order to get this lot out as soon as possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

No, I am in the middle of this point.

[Tommy Sheppard]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

If the hon. Gentleman will give me a moment to let me finish my point, I will then give way to him.

We have seen consistently throughout that people who did not vote for Brexit and are on the other side of the debate consistently tell Brexit voters what it is that we voted for, and they think they have the right to interpret what—

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

I am responding to a speech made in the Chamber, Sir Lindsay, and directly to a point that was made.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I just want to clarify this on the record. At no time has any of us ever said that people did not know what they were voting for in the Brexit referendum in 2016. What we do say is that they were wilfully lied to in that campaign.

[Andrew Percy]

That is exactly the point. It is saying that the people who voted remain knew full well what they were doing, but Brexit voters were misled, they were a bit daft, they were lied to and, uniquely, they could not see through it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and that is exactly the commitment that the Prime Minister has given.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Back in the 2014 Scottish referendum, the winning side promised that Scotland’s views would not be ignored in the Union, yet on the matter that has consumed British politics for the past four years, the opinions of the Scottish people and their elected representatives have consistently been sidelined. The Minister will know that that has driven many people to reconsider their faith in the Union. Does he have any regrets about how the Conservative party has approached this matter?

[Oliver Dowden]

The hon. Gentleman talks about commitments, but I remember the commitment from the leader of the Scottish nationalists in Scotland, who said the referendum was a once-in-a-generation event. As for how many people voted, more people voted to leave in Scotland than voted for the Scottish National party.

Preparations for Leaving the European Union

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. It is the case that we co-operate with EU nations in a variety of forums, not just through the EU; that the security of all benefits as a result; and that many of the shared tools for law enforcement and national security that we have allow EU citizens to benefit from intelligence gathered by our agencies. We hope to conclude a new arrangement as quickly as possible, as part of our future partnership with the EU. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to Frans Timmermans, the Commissioner responsible for security, to say that in the event of no deal we continue to share access to tools such as ECRIS—the European Criminal Records Information System—SIS II and Prüm. So far, Frans Timmermans has not indicated that he would collaborate, but we believe it is in everyone’s interests to ensure that we would.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. It leads me to my first question, which is: what is he not telling us? What does he know that we do not know about this entire process? He must know something, otherwise I do not understand why he continues to commit hundreds of extremely highly qualified civil servants and to waste hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in the service of an objective that we have consistently ruled out. He himself said as recently as March that no deal is something that must be avoided, the Benn Act has made no deal illegal unless this House agrees to it and now the Prime Minister has sought an extension to the process from the EU in order that no deal can be avoided. I admit that the Prime Minister has acted with the maximum bad faith and with all the enthusiasm of a petulant schoolboy, but none the less he has written the letter, and the letter has been received and accepted. That means that the only way the scenario that he is planning for can unfold is if this House fails to pass the Government’s withdrawal Bill, which I hope it will, and the EU then declines to extend beyond 31 October. Is Government policy therefore now based on the assumption that the EU will refuse to extend the article 50 deadline beyond 31 October? If it is not, why does he continue with this wasteful exercise?

I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke): how come this date of 31 October has become elevated to the extent it has? The Government have this Halloween fetish now. The only reason 31 October matters—rather than, say, a week, month or year later—is to save face for this Prime Minister. It is a rum day indeed when the Government of the day are more concerned about the vanity of the Prime Minister than they are about making good legislation and doing what is good for the country. Is the truth not that all this talk of Yellowhammer and no-deal preparations is a propaganda exercise, trying to whip up fear and anxiety to drive people into the welcoming arms of the Prime Minister’s deal, in relief and thankfulness? It won’t work, Chancellor.

[Michael Gove]

One of the many reasons I had hoped the hon. Gentleman would have become deputy leader of the Scottish National party was shown in the way in which he delivered his questions without notes, with great fluency and authority. All of us in this House recognise what a great speaker he is. What a pity, however, that a very well delivered speech got one or two fundamental aspects of the position in which this House finds itself wrong. He asked about the money that is being spent. As I pointed out in response to my opposite number, the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett), this money will be wisely spent come what may, because we needed to make sure that businesses across the country, including in Scotland, are prepared for life outside the single market and the customs union. That money, which the Scottish Government have asked for, has been given to the Scottish Government and they have spent it. If they and the SNP believe there was no point in spending that money, I imagine they would have returned the cheque to the Chancellor of the Exchequer saying “Not required here.” That was not the case, so they clearly do feel, as we all feel, that it is important to make preparations.

The hon. Gentleman made two other points. He asked why fetishise the date of 31 October. That is the date in law that has been passed in this House and by the EU as the date by which we must leave, following the extension of article 50. It is not a date that was chosen by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and it was certainly not one chosen by me. It was a date that this House accepted, following negotiation with the EU, and that is the law. It is also the case that, in law, any extension has to be granted by all EU27 member states. We are sometimes accused in this House of being insular, but the President of the Commission, the Taoiseach and the French President have all made it clear that there is no guarantee that any extension will be issued. All those of us who value relationships with our friends and neighbours in Europe should take heed of what they say; no extension is guaranteed, and no certainty exists. That is why we must back this deal, and I hope that SNP Members, who have done so much to say why no deal is unwelcome, will, at this late stage, repent and recognise that the interests of our United Kingdom are served by their presence in the Lobby supporting this deal.

Preparations for Leaving the EU

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I do not know what the contents of the telephone call between the Prime Minister and the Bundeskanzlerin were earlier today, but we remain committed to working with the German Government and other EU Governments to find a deal. I am sure we can find a way through.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It saddens me that in the middle of this political crisis what we have is a pathetic masquerade from this Government pretending that they are competently arranging our departure from the European Union, when in fact everyone knows that there is no agreement as to how that departure will take place and that without an agreement it is simply not possible to plan in a proper way how it would take place. The responsibility for that is entirely of the Government’s own making: a mixture of their bellicose intransigence in their negotiations with our European partners and their arrogant contempt in trying to establish a political majority in this Chamber, and using the Brexit vote for their own narrow political ends.

Now the Government are in a situation where the only thing they can possibly do is contemplate crashing out of the EU without a deal. I have to remind the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that that approach would be illegal, because we have passed a law to say that we will not leave the European Union with no deal. I therefore want to ask him: why is he preparing this document, which is called the “No-Deal Readiness Report”? Perhaps it should be called “Preparedness for Breaking the Law” since that is essentially the course on which he is now engaged. Why is he preparing this, rather than trying to come back to this House properly with proposals we can debate on the negotiations they are having with the European Union? To my eyes, and to those of many colleagues, it looks as if the Government are not in the least bit serious about getting a deal at all, but are in fact engaging in gesture politics, deliberately setting conditions they know cannot be met in order to come back here and try to blame everybody but themselves for the consequences.

I have two specific questions relating to the statement. The Opposition spokesman referred to the IFS report, a damning report that came out this morning. It tears away all credibility for there being an economic case for Brexit. The IFS is saying that the difference between asking for an extension and considering this issue further, or crashing out with a no deal in three weeks’ time, is 4% of GDP over the next three years. I invite the Minister to tell us whether this now means that, as we complete the first decade of Tory austerity, he and his Government are preparing for a second decade, because that is surely the consequence of the course they are on.

Finally, may I ask about the status of EU nationals? The Minister makes much of this, saying that everything is rosy in the garden. The truth is that most of the 1.5 million people he refers to as having some status have got what is called pre-settled status. It is not at all sure that they are going to get settled status. If he genuinely believes, and if it is the Government’s policy, that European nationals living in this country should not suffer any disbenefit to their rights as a result of Brexit, will he commit now to let each and every one of them have a permanent right to remain in this country?

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend hits the nail on the head.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I thank the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for advance sight of the statement. That allows me to begin by pointing out the glaring omission in what he told the House a few moments ago. He really ought to have started by thanking Lady Hale and her fellow judges in the Supreme Court for the decision they took yesterday because, without that judgment, he would not have had the opportunity to come to the House today and explain the Government’s preparations, and we would not have the opportunity to see in all its glory just how woefully inadequately prepared the Government actually are.

I do not put this down to a lack of effort on the Government’s part. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman’s XO committee is in permanent session, almost, and we know from the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) that the Government are fixated, almost to the exclusion of everything else, on preparations for no deal. The fact that we are so far away from concluding those preparations is simply testament to the enormity of the task and the fact that it is simply not doable in the next five weeks.

As a result, rather than being honest with the House, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is indulging in euphemisms, wishful thinking, banter and jokes. The truth of the matter is that he is trying to sugar coat a disastrous situation, and that begins with the very title of the document. I return to the point raised by the Opposition spokesperson. The First Minister of Scotland has confirmed that the document—the very same document—given to the Scottish Government was referred to as a “base scenario”, yet several days later, when it is published, it is referred to as a “worst-case scenario”. That is an attempt to suggest that there are of course much better scenarios and there is nothing to see and no need to worry.

I ask again, and I do not want a joke in response: who made the decision to change that title and why? There are other things throughout the document that show the degree of sugar feeding as well, but probably one of the most bizarre things that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has just said—he said it just a few moments ago—is that UK citizens would have visa-free travel throughout the EU in the event of a no deal. That is just rubbish. That is nonsense. The very fact of a no deal means that there will not be that—that is what no deal means. This is either an exercise in self-delusion or a wilful attempt to mislead the House, but it is most certainly not the truth. We ought to be hearing the truth.

This is my principal question for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Surely the time has now come to assess whether it is realistically possible to get a deal to leave the European Union on 31 October. The House has considered this question and come to a judgment that it probably would not be possible, and that therefore it is necessary for the Government to apply for an extension of the process. Will he accept that mandate from this Parliament? Will he act as a member of this Government to make sure that it is implemented, or will he continue to flout the will of the House and proceed with preparations for a situation that is now frankly unlawful according to the law of the land? This is what I want to know: will he commit to discharging the mandate given to him, will he follow the law of the land, and will he confirm to the House whether he has had discussions with the Prime Minister about doing anything other than that?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, and may I also say that I am grateful to the Supreme Court for the clarity of its judgment. I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government for the extensive work they have done along with colleagues from the other devolved Administrations to help us prepare for a no-deal exit. Only yesterday, I was chairing a committee meeting at which the Scottish Cabinet Secretary responsible for agriculture and rural affairs was, along with other Ministers from the devolved Administrations, actively taking steps to ensure that his constituents were actively ready to prepare for a no-deal Brexit. It is only right that we should record our thanks to the civil servants of the devolved Administrations for that work, too.

I do not shirk the fact that there are serious challenges. We are all aware of them, and we would all much prefer to leave with a deal. The hon. Gentleman asked what preparations are being made to secure a deal. I listed some of the advances that have been made in negotiations earlier, but one thing that I would say is that we have had a chance in this House of Commons to vote for deals before, and it was the choice of his party resolutely not to vote for a deal. We could have—[Interruption.]

Prorogation of Parliament

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Main.

I begin with a couple of points about the procedure we are engaged in here. Before members of the Petitions Committee leap up, I should say I do not intend any criticism of them. I have been at a number of these debates on matters on which the public have petitioned us, and I wonder if our procedures are effective and robust enough to deliver on the expectations of those who petition Parliament.

First, we are dealing with two petitions. I am not sure of the need to lump petitions together just because they cover the same topic, particularly in this instance, where they represent diametrically opposed views. One petition, which I presume has been organised by pro-Brexit campaigners because they believe this Parliament is made up of remoaners who are antipathetic to their case, has taken five months to get to the requisite threshold of 100,000 signatures. The other petition collected 1.7 million signatures in a matter of hours and reflects serious public outrage at a decision taken by the Government. To give parity of consideration to those two petitions is simply not fair.

I wonder how many people who sign such petitions understand that this is the place where their hopes and aspirations come to die on a wet Monday afternoon, in a Committee Room off the House of Commons Chamber, with 10 Members assembled who have no ability to advocate on behalf of the petitioners, or to influence, nevermind change, Government policy. It is too late for this Parliament, but if I come back to this place in the future, I will seek changes to our procedures and how we deal with those who petition this Parliament. I do not think we treat them fairly enough.

My concerns about how we deal with petitions are as nothing to my concerns about the inadequacy of our constitution when it comes to Parliament sitting. Is it not astonishing that our Parliament can be suspended for five weeks in the middle of a major political crisis, the ramifications of which are profound, legion, and no way near being concluded? Most people would find that astounding; I find it astounding myself that this can happen perfectly legally and normally.

The role of Parliament is to scrutinise and hold to account the Executive. It cannot be right that the Executive can relieve itself of that scrutiny by the simple expedient of suspending Parliament. It seems a bizarre situation, yet it is the one we are confronted by. By the time we get to 14 October, the Prime Minister will have held the most powerful executive office in the land for 82 days, and on only four of those days will Parliament have been able to hold him and his Government to account. That is frankly a shocking state of affairs. I do not buy the argument that that is because Government Ministers and their advisers need time to prepare a new legislative programme.

[Alex Sobel]

The hon. Gentleman just outlined that the Prime Minister will have been in office for 82 days, and that Parliament will have sat for only four of them. That means that there will have been only one Prime Minister’s Question Time. Members of this House will not be able to question the Prime Minister until after the Queen’s Speech, even though by then he will have been in office for over three months.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I know; it is staggering.

We need to ask ourselves why this is happening. It is because we have a Prime Minister who has no mandate, no majority in the House and no ability to get legislation through Parliament. Rather than compromise with Parliament or seek a majority, he is determined simply to walk away from it and not have the debate. That is a very bad look for our democracy.

It is also bad that we have a Prime Minister who, in his public pronouncements, is uncertain whether he will deliver on the will of Parliament, and now the law of the land, which is that in the absence of a withdrawal deal with the European Union, we should seek an extension until 31 January to allow further time for an agreement to emerge. That the Prime Minister and his advisers are equivocal on that is a matter for deep concern.

I do not buy the Prime Minister’s suggestion that all we need to do in these circumstances is have a quick cut-and-run election. There is no point having an election if the main point of it—to decide whether or not to crash out of the European Union without a deal—cannot be altered by the outcome. We cannot allow an election simply so that the Prime Minister can escape the obligation that Parliament has placed on him. Parliament has not allowed that to happen, and I am sure that it will not allow it later on tonight.

An election will need to come soon; the delay will be only a matter of weeks. As soon as we are confident that we will not crash out of the European Union without a deal, and have more time to consider options and strategy, it will be frankly impossible to advance the process in the country without going back to the people. It is time for them to have another say.

I sense that an awful lot of Members of Parliament, on both sides of the House, understand very well the consequences of Brexit; they are not attracted to them, but they feel that they do not have a mandate to oppose Brexit because of the nature of the manifesto on which they stood in 2017. Shaking up the political cards and allowing a different Parliament to emerge with fresh mandates may open the possibility for reconsideration of this matter. I hope that an election will allow a new Parliament to consider putting the matter back to the people who started the process.

It is not the role of Parliament to overturn, set aside or ignore the will of the people, but it is the role of Parliament to interpret it. If we have found, three years later, that what the people asked us to do—that is, to leave the European Union and make things better—is simply undoable, and if what they ask cannot be done, and the circle cannot be squared, then we need to go back to the people, explain that, and ask them whether they want to reconsider. It may well be that they do not want to do that, and that they are content to leave the European Union knowing that it will impoverish them and their families, and diminish the character and culture of this country. That choice should be for them, and they should be allowed to make it, but I am confident that if we are given the opportunity to fight that election, we can get an alternative point of view to emerge—one that will look at the benefits of remaining in the European Union, and changing it so that it delivers for people’s aspirations.

When that election comes in Scotland, my party will not just say, “Stop and reconsider the process of Brexit,” and campaign for an alternative Government to the one that we have had for nearly a decade, but demand and assert the right of the people of Scotland to choose an alternative future. It should be their right not to go down the path that they are being led down by the Prime Minister, and to say that they want to consider an alternative, independent future, in which they take political control of their affairs and determine their relationship with the rest of the people in Britain and Europe. That is the manifesto that we shall put before people in the election that I am sure will come in November, and I look forward to returning to this Chamber to argue that case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Foster]

Of course, any discussion of the number of days will be a matter for the usual channels when and if a deal is agreed. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) likes to shout, “No to no deal!”, but he regularly voted no to a deal earlier this year.

Prorogation is the normal end to a parliamentary Session. It remains a matter for the Prime Minister to advise the sovereign on, as it is a prerogative power. That has not changed since the Labour party was in Government. It is for the Government to determine the length of a parliamentary Session and to advise the Queen on the date for the state opening of Parliament. The state opening is marked by the Queen’s Speech, which sets out the programme of legislation the Government intend to pursue in the forthcoming parliamentary Session.

Normally, each parliamentary Session runs for a period of 12 months before Parliament is prorogued. The current parliamentary Session is an exception to the ordinary 12 months, as was touched on during the debate, with the last state opening of Parliament having taken place more than two years ago, on 21 June 2017. This has been the longest parliamentary Session for almost 400 years, far in excess of any of the others.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Very briefly, why does it take five weeks?

[Kevin Foster]

The Prime Minister set out in his statement on 2 September 2019 the many reasons why we want to have the Queen’s Speech on the date when we will be having it. The Government have committed to recruiting another 20,000 police officers, improving both national health service and schools funding, and completing 20 new hospital upgrades. It is to progress the Government’s agenda on these and many other fronts that the Prime Minister has sought to commence a new Session of Parliament with a Queen’s Speech on 14 October.

As I have touched on already, if Opposition Members are confident in their argument, they will have the chance tonight to take that debate out to the whole country, to go and face their constituents and explain their position on this subject. If many of them are thinking of voting no this evening, that will be a rather interesting contrast.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

Will the Minister give way?

[Kevin Foster]

I will not give way for now; I will make progress.

Interestingly, senior Opposition MPs have been calling for a Queen’s Speech. The shadow Leader of the House has called for a new Session and a Queen’s Speech five times in five months, while the Shadow Chancellor called for a new session back in May. As I have said, the Government want to bring forward a strong domestic legislative agenda, and ending the parliamentary Session and bringing forward a Queen’s Speech is the legal and necessary way to deliver that.

It is worth pointing out, though, that the larger petition asks that Parliament is not dissolved. Parliament is only dissolved before a general election. The effect of a dissolution is that all business comes to an end and every seat in the House of Commons is vacated until a general election is held. The Prime Minister has been clear that an election should take place ahead of the European Council on 17 to 18 October. That would allow the Prime Minister, elected by the British people—either my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) or the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—to go to that European Council and for a newly elected Parliament to be in a position to consider what is agreed, and hopefully to pass the withdrawal agreement Bill.

Colleagues will be aware that, as I have referred to several times, a motion for an early general election will be debated later today. They will have the opportunity to give a voice to their constituents, who they have repeatedly claimed in this debate will be silenced. They can give them the most powerful voice they have in this country—their vote in a general election. I look forward to seeing many of those hon. Members in the Aye Lobby. I hope that nobody will make what are, in some ways, contradictory arguments by shouting about defending democracy and stopping a coup, and then vote no on the biggest exercise of democracy that we can have in this country—a general election.

The Government’s position remains clear: we will not revoke article 50 or seek a further, pointless extension. The UK will leave the European Union on 31 October. I point out to some Opposition Members that there is no automatic right to extensions. An extension is not a solution in itself. After three years, merely kicking the can will not solve the problem.

The 17.4 million who voted to leave the EU represent the largest mandate ever given for any UK Government to deliver. Both main parties pledged to respect that result in the 2017 election, and now we must deliver on that pledge. The Prime Minister believes that Parliament must have time to consider further the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, and to hold the Government to account. Parliament has sat ahead of the European Council and will sit for three weeks prior to exit day. That means there will be ample time to debate the UK’s leaving the EU in the coming weeks, on both sides of the summit on 17 October—ideally, with a mandate from the British people to resolve this matter.

The Government would prefer to leave the EU with a deal, and we are working in an energetic and determined way to achieve that. The Government are very willing to sit down with the Commission and EU member states to talk about what needs to be done to achieve that. If it is not possible to reach a deal, we will have to leave with no deal. The Government are preparing for that outcome, and further delay will only increase the sense of distrust that many in the public feel and the uncertainty that is so damaging to our economy.

We take note of all of the points that have been raised in the debate today, but the decision to prorogue Parliament is one for the Government, because Prorogation is a prerogative Act of the Crown, exercised on the advice of Ministers. Therefore, in responding to both of these petitions, I must be clear: it is for the Government to determine when is the appropriate time to bring about an end to a parliamentary Session and bring forward a Queen’s Speech.

The Queen’s Speech and the debate that follows form one of the great set-pieces of the parliamentary calendar, where the Government are rightly scrutinised and held to account. The decision to prorogue Parliament is one for the Government of the day to make, as it always has been. We have set out our reasons for doing so—to ensure that a fresh, new domestic legislative agenda is put before Parliament.

There are those who, in recent weeks, have claimed that they wanted to stop a coup, to defend democracy and to give people a say. Tonight, they have the chance to do just that, and to give the electorate the chance to pass its own judgment. If they do not, many voters across the country will conclude that those comments were as hollow as their pledges to respect the people’s vote in the referendum in 2016.

Priorities for Government

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing that we are doing: we have secured for this country the COP 26. We will be hosting the world climate change conference here in the UK, once again showing the world what UK technology and technological optimism can achieve.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

We know that the Prime Minister is opposed to a second Scottish independence referendum. That is not my question. My question is this: if the people who actually live in Scotland elect a Parliament in Edinburgh, and if by a majority that Parliament votes to consult people on their constitutional future, will he respect that decision—yes or no?

[The Prime Minister]

It was common ground across all parties, including the Scottish nationalists, that the referendum was a once-in-a-generation decision. That decision was taken in 2014, and that was the right answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The incoming Prime Minister has been very clear that he wants to leave the EU with a deal, and that is the best outcome for Scotland.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Let me read this for fear of misquoting the Secretary of State. He told the last Scottish Conservative party conference:

“Unfortunately Mr Johnson seems to behave in a way that suggests he is only focused on his own self interest and not on the interests of our country, and I find that very disappointing.”

Has the Secretary of State now overcome his disappointment, and will he continue to serve the new Prime Minister?

[David Mundell]

Just like the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, everything I have ever said is on the record. What I want to make clear is that my priority remains Scotland’s place within the United Kingdom, and that—in government or out—will be my continuing priority.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The House will observe that that is not actually an answer to my question. The Secretary of State sits besides Cabinet colleagues who have demonstrated integrity and conviction in deciding that they will resign over the question of a no-deal Brexit. If he is against a no-deal Brexit, would it not be a better look for Scotland for him to do likewise, rather than wait to be sacked or abolished?

[David Mundell]

Of course, the hon. Gentleman’s position is not a deal Brexit or a no-deal Brexit; it is no Brexit. That is what he is seeking to bring about. There is no evidence that the SNP has at any time been serious about getting a deal for Scotland. On each occasion it has had the opportunity to vote for a deal, it has voted against it.

20 Years of Devolution

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney).

I want to look forward in this debate, but to do that I first have to look backwards. The Act of Union of 1707 gave protection to many aspects of Scottish life. In our churches, classrooms and courts, things were preserved. That aside, that Act of Union led to the creation of a single unitary state with a centralised government apparatus. It was not a federation or a partnership or even, in the proper sense, a union at all, but the creation of a single polity into which Scotland was subsumed. That represents a central weakness and fragility of the United Kingdom, which has been exposed in the time since. Everything that has transpired in this debate about devolution and decentralisation should be seen in the context of the United Kingdom’s imperfections and the ability to compensate for them to enable the state to represent the aspirations and needs of the people in Scotland.

That did not matter so much in the early days, but government expanded rapidly throughout the 19th century, so that by the end of the century there was a demand for decentralisation. In 1885 we saw the creation of the Scottish Office and the position of Secretary of State for Scotland, but not until the 20th century did the demand arise for political decentralisation, devolution and constitutional change. The home rule movement at the beginning of the 20th century was widely reflected in Scotland, leading in 1913, more than 100 years ago, to the passing through this House of the Government of Scotland Bill, in which some elements of home rule for Scotland were embodied.

That legislation was not enacted because of the advent of the first world war, and economic disruption and a further world war meant that the debate was not re-joined until the 1950s. Then we were in a completely new world. The old order had changed utterly. Empires were disintegrating and almost every couple of months a new nation state was formed somewhere on the globe, such that the demands of Scottish nationalism—the demands for Scottish self-government—were not cast in terms of the past or romantic notions of pre-Union days, but were a contemporary proposition very much in touch with the modern world. That was typified in the 1967 Hamilton by-election, when Winnie Ewing said:

“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on”.

The 50 years since have seen a series of reports, from Kilbrandon and Smith, and a series of Bills, which have all tried to dissipate and placate the demands for self-government from the people of Scotland. The central paradox is that despite all that has happened, that placation does not seem to have worked. I can understand why Unionists must be frustrated. The old dictum of Enoch Powell—that power devolved is power retained— does not appear to hold. Unionists must be tearing their hair out, thinking, “What more do we have to do for these rebellious Scots to be satisfied?” The Scottish social attitudes survey shows that about 8% to 10% of people think that there should be no Scottish Parliament at all, yet once we discount that small minority, a clear majority of the remainder believe that the Scottish Parliament should be independent rather than part of the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom.

Why has that happened? I think it has happened for two reasons. The first is that devolution has been a resounding success. It has led to perceptible benefits for the people of Scotland and changes in how lives are lived that people really appreciate. Other Members from across the Chamber have talked about the achievements of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government, so I will not repeat them. However, I want to make it clear that I do not regard those achievements as the preserve of any one political party. I am proud of the last 12 years of the SNP Scottish Government, but I acknowledge fully the progress made by the Labour and Liberal Democrat coalition in the first two terms of the Scottish Parliament. However, many people are now open to the idea that if some devolution can make positive changes to their lives, why not just devolve everything and take all the powers that we need to run our affairs in Scotland?

The second reason why the demand for self-government has not been dissipated is that the exercise of power throws into sharp relief the powers that we do not have. This is now a raging argument in Scotland. People say that there are things that could be made better, but we do not have the competence and capacity to do it. To give a few brief examples, we want to reduce carbon emissions in Scotland. The Scottish Government are now committed to having an all-electric road system, with charging points throughout the entire country, but are powerless to shift the transition to electric vehicles because they have no control over vehicle excise duty. We might want to give incentives to small businesses in Scotland and start-ups in key sectors of the economy, but we have no power at all over corporate taxation. From drugs to broadcasting, food standards to employment law, there are many aspects of life that could be improved, but we do not have the powers to improve them.

Now, that adumbration is not by itself a compelling argument for independence, because we could respond to that lack of competence with further devolution. However, it is a mystery to me why many proponents of devolution, who in many ways brought us to this point, now seem to think that it is time to pull up the drawbridge—to say that devolution is complete, that the process is over and that nothing can possibly be added to it. They therefore vote against every amendment that we table to legislation to try to increase the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. That obstinacy and refusal to see devolution as a process that is still continuing is fuelling the appetite for independence, because people wonder whether that is the only way to take these powers to ourselves.

When we talk about the devolution of powers, there is another role for the state to play: to represent the character and intention of the people who live within its boundaries. In that respect, independence provides an answer that devolution cannot. There are many, many people in Scotland now—more every day—who question whether the British state is able to articulate their views and their character, either in this country or abroad. That change has been turbo-charged by Brexit and the growth of right-wing English nationalism, so that many more people than before are now open to the prospect of Scottish independence.

There is much more that I want to say, Mr Speaker, but I appreciate that you want us to be brief. Let me finish with this point. It will be for history to judge whether devolution has succeeded in sustaining the British state and the United Kingdom as a constitutional set of arrangements by trying to remove its imperfections, or whether, in fact, it will be seen in history as a step along the way to full self-government. We have to wait and see what the outcome is. The important thing is that that decision is not a matter for me or for you, Mr Speaker. It is a decision for the people who live in Scotland to take. My party’s pledge to the people of Scotland is that we will take on all comers and meet all resistance in order to allow the people of Scotland to make that decision. I believe they will get the opportunity to do that in a very short space of time.

[Mr Speaker]

Two years to the day since the delivery of his maiden speech and making his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, I call the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Sweeney).

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster]

I do not recognise the shadow Minister’s description, not least given that we have been driving forward devolution settlements and devolving power to combined authorities in England, as well as what we have seen happen in devolution in the nations. Only this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales met those in the potential great western powerhouse to see how that could be taken forward. I find it ironic, however, to be lectured on control from the centre by a party whose leader wants to take control of the entire economy from Whitehall.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

We understand that the Dunlop review is to look at the organisation of Departments and whether they are optimised for devolution. Do the Government have any plans or intention to review policy with regard to the constitution that underpins the Union and to the devolution settlement in particular?

[Kevin Foster]

As I said a few moments ago, the review will need to take into account and support the current devolution settlement.

I wish that, in my assessment of devolution, I could have said that it had produced better education standards in Scotland. In fact, however, Scottish schools have fallen in international rankings, and a smaller percentage of Scotland’s most deprived children go to university than in any other part of the United Kingdom. It is not devolution that is at fault; it is the Scottish National party.