UK Intergovernmental Co-operation

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wilson. I had hoped that more Members would be present today, but I realise that this feels a little like a break-out group from the main plenary in the Chamber of the House of Commons.

I have two preliminary points. First, the last time I replied to the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) in a debate that he initiated in Westminster Hall, I said that I would not congratulate him because I felt that he was being extremely partisan in using this forum for debate to attack the Scottish National party. On this occasion, I welcome the fact that he has initiated this debate, and I congratulate him on the way that he conducted himself during the first half of his speech. There were moments when he perorated on constitutional and democratic theory, and I would respect that in any debate in this Chamber. Unfortunately, he got ahead of himself. He could not really help himself, and he went into his usual rehearsed invective against my party, the Scottish Government and, I suppose by implication, the 40% of the Scottish electorate who support what we argue for. That was a bit of a shame. I feel that he let himself down at the end, but there we go—something is better than nothing.

My other preliminary point concerns what a number of Members have said about the events of last week, which they described as some sort of theatrical parliamentary stunt, or apparent walkout, by my party. That situation arose last Wednesday because of what had happened the day before, when we were given 19 minutes to discuss all the consequences of the Lords amendments to the Brexit Bill in the context of Scottish devolution, Welsh devolution, and the whole question of Ireland and the Irish border. Nineteen minutes—one minute for every year that devolution has existed. I think everyone will agree that that was woefully inadequate; I hope that even the Minister will agree with that. When the leader of my party tried to protest about that lack of—

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking us away from the subject at hand. If he could concentrate on the motion before us that would be more than welcome.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will take your guidance, Mr Wilson, but I am responding to the debate and those accusations were made. I want to put on the record that we attempted to protest about that lack of opportunity to represent our constituents, and I feel that a better Prime Minister would have acknowledged that and provided more time. Instead she was dismissive of the leader of my party, who then got into a row with the Speaker who expelled him from the House. I do not know what else we could have done at that juncture except walk out in solidarity.

[Luke Graham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I fear not. I suspect that the Chair does not want us to get into a discussion about the events of last Wednesday.

Let me turn to the motion before us. It is good that we are discussing this issue now, because it is topical and relevant. We are in the middle of a process that is all about relations between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations of the United Kingdom. Government Members have suggested that when I use phrases such as “power grab”, not only am I over-egging the pudding, but I am completely misrepresenting the position. Apparently there is no power grab whatsoever; there is a powers bonanza with a huge list of powers being given to the Scottish Government—indeed, that list was read out in the Chamber last week. From the Labour Benches, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) says, “Actually, you are both wrong. It is neither a power grab nor a powers bonanza. Those are partisan arguments from two parties, one in government in Scotland, and one in government in the UK.”

I would like to test the arguments about a power grab. First, one must distinguish between responsibility for a particular area, and the power to execute and change policy in that area. It is proposed that the Scottish Government should get a list of additional responsibilities after powers are repatriated from Brussels post-Brexit, but they will have much less authority and power than they currently have to do anything about those responsibilities. In 24 major areas—the most significant ones—the way that the Scottish Government discharge their responsibilities will be subject to a United Kingdom framework. We do not know the details of that framework because the discussion has not even got that far. So far in the Joint Ministerial Committee on Europe, and other forums, there has been a discussion on the principles of how those arrangements might work, but it is the principles that are the problem.

Let me illustrate that by an example. Suppose after Brexit, we have a joint committee of the United Kingdom, involving the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations, to discuss agricultural policy. In that body, the interests of Scottish farmers would be represented by the Scottish Government or their appointees, and likewise for Wales and possibly Northern Ireland. The interests of English farmers would be represented by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—a Westminster Department. Why? Because there is no other body to do that for English farmers. There is no English Government or representative for English farmers.

I agree that English farmers need to be represented thoroughly in those discussions. The problem is that when there is a difference of opinion between the components of those arrangements, DEFRA will decide what happens. As well as advocating for the interests of one party, it will sit as judge and jury in deciding what happens for everyone else. That effectively means that this Parliament—Westminster—always gets to dictate what happens to the devolved Assemblies. There are two potential ways round that. One is to find another way of representing English farmers, such as by having an English Parliament or some other body, and the other is to allow DEFRA to continue to do that, but to have an independent arbiter as part of the arrangements that can arbitrate in disputes, supported by all parties and according to an agreed set of rules. That is exactly the proposition that the Scottish Government put forward in the JMC, but it was dismissed by the Westminster Government. We have therefore stalled the discussions about joint arrangements because there is no agreement in principle. We must return to the realisation that if we are to make this work, there must be a partnership between the component parts of the UK.

I do not accept for a minute that we need such joint arrangements to dictate uniform policy all the time, although there will be times when a case for that can be made. Sometimes, however, it is simply a matter of co-ordination. What does it matter if some things differ in different parts of the United Kingdom? Perhaps we can benefit if one Administration were to go further, while others might like to take see their time and see whether something works.

A smokescreen is being presented that claims that we cannot have the type of system I suggest because it would affect the United Kingdom’s ability to undertake trade deals. I think that is nonsense. No one is arguing for executive authority over farms and fisheries in Scotland to frustrate a United Kingdom trade deal. Let me illustrate that, because at the moment there are differences. Take liquor retail, for example, which I worked in before I became a Member of the House. At the moment there are completely different regulations north and south of the border. For example, the previous licensing Act prohibited the use of incentives to buy alcohol through discounting—we cannot have a three-for-two offer in Scotland.

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Order. I hope the hon. Gentleman is bringing his remarks to a close because I want to bring in two other Front-Bench speakers and allow time for the mover of the motion to wind up the debate.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am sorry, Mr Wilson. I thought I had 10 minutes, but I will bring my remarks to a close. At the moment, retailers and wholesalers in Scotland have different point of sale presentations, and different packaging on products. That is really not a problem—people are trying to make it one but it does not exist.

Finally, my beliefs have been caricatured and mis- represented in this debate. SNP Members have been called “nationalists” in the same sort of breath with which one might describe a pervert or somebody who has something wrong with them. Mine is a legitimate belief and not something that seeks to divide people—far from it. It is something that seeks to bring people together and allow them to exercise their democratic expression. What it boils down to is a belief that the people who live in Scotland should be the ones who control what happens in Scotland. We wish that power for the Scottish people in order to engage better with our neighbours. We seek not to put up fences but to break them down, and to have better arrangements for the whole island and the whole continent. In order to do that, people in Scotland must have the authority to make those deals and strike that mission for themselves.

[Phil Wilson (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Labour Front-Bench speaker, let me say that I would like to bring in the Minister at 3.48 pm.

House of Lords: Abolition

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Paul Scully]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. A unicameral system can work perfectly well and I have no doubt that we would survive quite happily with such a system, but the House of Lords can, and often—though not always—does offer something that is related to its composition: one advantage of having an appointed system is that we can bring in experts who can add expertise that we do not necessarily have in the Commons.

To give some examples, from the world of science we have the brain pioneer Baroness Greenfield, fertility expert Lord Winston, and Lord Darzi. From business, we have the former chief executive of HSBC Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint, Lord Rose from Marks & Spencer, and Lord Sugar. For social policy challenges, we have Baroness Newlove, Baroness Lawrence and Lord Bird, the creator of The Big Issue. When it comes to culture, we have Lord Bragg and the former head of the BBC, Lord Hall. We also have both the Lords Palumbo: one was chairman of the Arts Council of Great Britain; the younger, Lord Palumbo of Southwark, was the founder of the Ministry of Sound. We have sporting people, such as Baroness Grey-Thompson and people from public services such as Lord Dannatt, who adds military expertise, and Lord Hogan-Howe, a former Metropolitan Police Commissioner.

We also have people from the security services, philanthropists, human rights campaigners, religious leaders—beyond the obvious statutory role of the bishops—legal experts, academics and, of course, former Members of this place, who at least have an understanding of the parliamentary process and can help to get business through. Perhaps we can cover that in a bit more detail later.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman makes the argument that many Members of the House of Lords have considerable expertise in certain areas of policy and that that benefits the apparatus of Government, but surely those people could be drawn in to advise the Government in many other ways, such as through setting up expert panels or simply having Government advisers. They do not have to be part of the legislature for the Government to benefit from their advice.

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting point, but I am describing the existing situation, which nobody would create. We had hereditary peers in the House of Lords right up until the ’90s. The first level of reform went through under Tony Blair, but nothing was really put in its place. We are in that halfway house at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Scully]

These are obviously unusual circumstances for all manner of reasons. Brexit and the two-year Session are incredibly unusual. I have talked a lot about the fact that, in my view, the Lords have overstepped their remit. The petitioner is not talking about the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, so I will park that after this point. We need to look at the Bill as a whole. The Lords may be thwarting the Government now, but it depends on how the process finishes. If we can get the Bill into the form originally intended after consideration of Lords amendments on Wednesday and Third Reading, even if it has been amended, which is exactly what the Lords are there to do, as long as it has not been amended beyond recognition and its original remit—there will have been a lot of tension—we will have got there in the end. A lot of the things we do in this place may look odd or arcane to people, but they tend to have a way of working. That is done not just in the Chamber, but through the usual channels and debate and discussion outside the Chamber.

The reforms have been only half completed. The possibility of having an elected Chamber has been mentioned. That is one option. Do we abolish? Do we go elected? Do we have a hybrid system with a mix of elected and appointed peers, or do we keep it the same? I do not think anybody is saying we should keep it exactly the same. We went through the process of looking at an elected House of Lords before my time in this place, and nobody could agree on the detail. Although there was a lot of sympathy for having at least an elected element of the House of Lords, no one could say what percentage it should be and how long the terms should be. That is one reason why it did not go through. It will take a lot of parliamentary time—I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this—if that proposal were to come back to us. What could we agree on and coalesce around?

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman is describing the various reforms to the House of Lords over the years, and I think he would agree that the process has stalled somewhat in recent years. All those reforms were motivated by people who wished to see the Lords become more accountable and were concerned that people were in a position to make laws that apply to citizens without being accountable. Does he agree that it is rather ironic that citizens are petitioning the House of Commons asking for reform, and that the Government are doing nothing to reform it and will not make time available, yet the House of Lords is arguing for reform because its crisis of legitimacy has become so acute?

[Paul Scully]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The nub of the problem is this: what kind of reform do we want to achieve? Hon. Members who were here under the coalition Government talked about having an elected House of Lords, but they could not agree on one simple solution. The Lords are talking about reform, and I will cover that point in a second.

The hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) talked about hereditary peers. The daft thing is that, with the 92 who are left, it is a halfway house. I understand why people are concerned about the House of Lords and either want to change it or question its legitimacy. In 2016, we had a ridiculous situation when there was a by-election for one of the Members of the House of Lords. A Lib Dem peer, Lord Avebury, died, and seven hereditary peers from around the country were put up for election, but the electorate was only three. How daft is it to have an electorate that is half the size of the field of candidates? It makes a mockery of the process, so we clearly need to look at the situation.

The Government have already gone some way towards trying to lay a path to change. The House of Lords Reform Act 2014 allowed Members, for the first time, to retire or resign permanently. Those who do not attend or are convicted of a serious offence that carries a prison sentence of a year or more cease to be Members. That was not the case before. Again, it is a bit daft and I am glad it was sorted out.

The House of Lords (Expulsion and Suspension) Act 2015 enabled a suspension running beyond the end of a Parliament to be imposed on a Member, and allowed the House of Lords to expel Members. As part of that process, University of Strathclyde politics students came here, and we discussed the issue with them. Just this morning, pupils of Steyning Grammar School came to do a tour of this place, and went to the education centre—a fantastic resource. Instead of just having a question and answer session with a Member, we sat down and started to look at the options for reform, including abolition. Interestingly, both sets of students unanimously agreed that we should not abolish the House of Lords or elect it. They said we should carry on with appointed peers, but with significant change.

The students looked at the House of Lords and asked why people would be motivated to sign such a petition. They felt that it was because of a lack of understanding: the House of Lords sounds old-fashioned and undemocratic, lacks visibility, is not diverse or reflective of society—people could not relate to it—and it seems to be comprised largely of politicians for life, in effect, with Members moving from one end of the building to the other. Hereditary peers were also a concern. Those students, however, still believed it to be an important institution, which does more scrutiny with a lot of expertise—peers expert in their field and with nothing to lose—so they did not believe that it should be abolished.

How should the House of Lords be reformed? The Strathclyde students said that the bishops should be removed and talked about whether to remove political affiliation—to go totally Cross Bench—but they could not agree how. Again, we come back to the question of how to reform the House of Lords. The students wanted stronger emphasis on post-legislative scrutiny, with Committees looking at laws a year later or so to see whether they are working.

The Steyning Grammar School group had a similar discussion. One student did not believe that we should even reduce the numbers. She made an interesting point: the larger size allows for more diversity and a wider range of opinions. We have talked about how there is not enough diversity in that place, but there is scope. Not everyone turns up for every debate, so there are plenty of opportunities to speak for black and minority ethnic Members or women Members, depending on the subject matter—they are being drawn from a bigger pool.

Everything comes back to what reforms are possible and what reforms are being looked at by the Lords themselves in the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House—the Burns Committee. The Committee has come up with some interesting ideas. It, too, believes that the House is too big—we are talking about 800 Members, which makes it one of the biggest legislative bodies in the world—and recommends that membership should be reduced to and capped at 600 Members, which would bring it into line with this place should the boundary reviews go through later in the year.

The Committee also recommended linking composition of the House of Lords to general election results. It would reduce membership to 600 in just over a decade through a natural system—an accelerated “two out, one in” programme—with new Members appointed for a 15-year term. No party would be allowed an absolute political majority, and a minimum of 20% of seats would be reserved for independent Cross-Bench Members, largely appointed by the House of Lords Appointments Commission. The students to whom I was speaking all felt that patronage should be reduced if not removed, so an independent commission should have far greater say in membership of that place.

Political appointments, if there are any, should be shared between the parties. The Burns Committee believes that those should be in line with the result of the previous general election, defined as an average of the party share of the national vote and the seats won in this place. That formula and the 15-year term would together ensure that the composition of the House of Lords reflected the country over the medium term.

If consensus can be achieved in the House of Lords, I hope that that would start to bring that place into a semblance of order, though it would not be enough for some, such as those present who have been arguing for election or the petitioner, who is arguing for abolition. However, people might start to relate to the House of Lords and see it use the expertise that the Lords undoubtedly have, concentrating on things that need to be done. Given that, we need to understand the concern that the Lords must still, quid pro quo, stay within its existing remit. We should never lose sight of the fact that what matters ultimately is the contribution of peers to the scrutiny and improvement of legislation, and the difference that they can make when doing that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I came here with no intention of making a speech, but I was reminded by the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Drew) of those days back in 2011 and 2012 when the coalition was in office and House of Lords reform was debated in the main Chamber in Government time. It was frustrating that there were numerous reforms with which we all agreed and would have proceeded had our partners in the coalition not been so wedded at the time to the concept of an elected second Chamber that nothing else mattered. The entire reform programme fell pretty well as a result of that intransigence.

I was amused, as I always am, by the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I agreed with some elements but not with others. I took it—I hope I am not misquoting him—that he gave a pre-refusal should he be offered the honour of a place in the House of Lords when his long, illustrious political career in the Commons comes to an end. He can always intervene and tell me if I am wrong, but if that is the case, it is one less to worry about.

As I mentioned in an intervention, this debate is about the primacy of the House of Commons. All those years ago those measures fell because we could not find a way around the fact that, if we wanted the Commons to be a proper representation of public opinion and public feeling and not to be compromised, it had to have primacy. This is an argument not against House of Lords reform, but against having elected elements in it, and particularly some of the crazy schemes for two seven-year terms or whatever. The moment there is any suggestion of an elected element to the upper House, the Commons would suffer as a consequence.

It seemed we could not get around the idea that we were considering not abolition or reform of the House of Lords but wholesale constitutional reform of Parliament, and of the Commons in particular. It struck me then, and it strikes me now, that if as a result of the mood of the electorate we had a substantial Government majority in the Commons matched in the House of Lords, checks and balances would be significantly reduced, and the ability of the Lords to review, improve and scrutinise legislation—sometimes aggressively—would be somewhat reduced.

We should not be too pompous about some of the arguments we are getting from the House of Lords at the moment. It is important that the Government’s position on Brexit is challenged, however uncomfortable that might be. It is a little early to write off the House of Lords—in my view it is an anachronism worthy of abolition—before the process has ended.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The hon. Gentleman is basically saying there would be a problem with which House would be the most legitimate at any given point if both were elected. Will he speculate on why so many countries across the world manage to have a bicameral structure with two elected houses without that problem arising? If he thinks that problem is fundamental to the structure of Parliament, should we not first exhaust the possibility of a unicameral legislature before deciding whether and what type of revising Chamber we might wish to have?

[Simon Hart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is not about dismissing other potential reforms. I am simply making observations about why, back in 2011 and 2012, when we had the opportunity and momentum and there was spirit behind the proposals, they failed. They failed because they spooked Members of the House of Commons, who thought their primacy was in danger of being compromised. Unsurprisingly, they also spooked Members of the House of Lords, who felt that they would have to face the vulgarity of an election from time to time. We have to be pragmatic, and my point is about pragmatism. If we want to proceed, it is no good quoting what may be the case in other countries, however bona fide their examples may be; we must get the proposals through both Houses of Parliament. I am interested in exploring ways in which we can legitimately do that and make progress.

The other point I would make in response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is that if we can dip our toe in the reforming water and find that it is actually okay, other reforms will follow. Part of the situation is a fear of anything different. I suspect that if we can make the process evolutionary rather than revolutionary, many of the reforms we have talked about that have so far apparently been impossible will become a little easier. I am not attempting to dismiss the hon. Gentleman’s comments. They are legitimate, but we must look at them in the context of the history of numerous attempts in the past 10 or 20 years to address the problem, most of which have been unsuccessful so far.

As I was attempting to explain, the Brexit situation stimulated interest in House of Lords reform. I have no particular fear of the Lords making uncomfortable observations about the direction in which the Government are going, but I would take a different view if it became obvious that the Lords’ intention was to frustrate the will of the elected Chamber. Those two things are different and we are not there yet. We might be there in a matter of days, but we are not there yet, and therefore we are unable to pass or should be cautious about passing sentence today.

The hon. Member for Stroud hinted at reforms that could bring about progress. I am entirely sympathetic to a reduction in numbers—not so much for the Commons, in case the Minister is listening, but for the House of Lords. I completely understand that. He also mentioned expertise. I agree with pretty well all of his contribution, although I suspect that if we went down a different route it might cost money rather than saving it. The positions might have to be salaried if an appointments panel simply advertises vacancies and selects people—if we create a second Chamber that is properly diverse and representative, it could come at a salaried price.

Thirdly, there may be opportunities to look again at the Parliament Act 1949. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who opened the debate, pointed out, that has its drawbacks because it was created at a time when the present circumstances were not anticipated. Perhaps revisiting it with a view to ensuring that the Commons can get its way in a rather more timely fashion might be one way in which to start making sensible progress. We need a pragmatic approach to reform. Otherwise we shall find, as we often have so frustratingly in the past, that no progress can be made because someone somewhere will lose out. If we continue to make proposals that are not politically digestible, we will have this debate again in a few years’ time.

Voter ID Pilot Schemes

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

We have a real problem in this country with democratic participation and engagement. At the last general election, 14.6 million people who were registered and entitled to vote did not do so. In all parts of the country, at every local election we do not have a majority of those who are entitled to vote taking part in the election. In other words, our democracy hangs by these very shoogly nails, and we all ought to be extremely concerned about the situation. It therefore bewilders me that in the midst of all the things we need to do, the Government are committing so much concern and energy to this particular issue, which as far I can see has not been demonstrated to be a problem at all.

As others have said, we are talking about 28 alleged cases of personation last year—one case for every 1.6 million people who voted.

[Mr Lord]

With the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am afraid I do not have time.

That seems to be a problem so marginal as not to require Government attention. We also know that the public are not concerned: a survey released today by the Electoral Reform Society showed electoral fraud at the very bottom of a list of potential concerns the public have about the voting system

[Dr Poulter]

With the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am sorry, but I will not take interventions because we are short on time.

Unlike in Northern Ireland, where there was a serious problem, the instances alleged appear to be sporadic and individual rather than as a result of any organised campaign to scam an election—I have yet to see any evidence that the latter is the case. Given that, why are the Government so concerned and being egged on by some members of the governing party, for whom this seems to have become something of an obsession? Indeed, I note that someone recently put in a freedom of information request to the Human Tissue Authority, which regulates dead bodies, to ask what information it has about electoral fraud, as if we are looking at zombie voters coming to influence the situation.

As the evidence is not there that this is a huge problem that needs to be tackled, there is a case in what the Opposition are saying. In fact, the motivation is party political, with people seeking a party advantage. It is the case, is it not, that photo identification is less likely to be held by people who are unemployed, people who earn low incomes, black and minority ethnic groups, people with disabilities and migrant communities? All of those people have one thing in common: they are less likely to vote for the Conservative party. It seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) said, potentially very few votes influence the outcome of an election, if photo ID achieves the suppression of participation by voters in those categories—

[Chris Green]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am sorry, but I have only 60 seconds left.

There is a severe problem here. We need to look seriously at the results of the pilot. I would like the Minister to respond. It will not be good enough if all the Electoral Commission does is speak to the returning officers in those five areas and finds out who voted and who was turned away; we need to know much more than that. We need the breakdown of who was turned away and what their characteristics are, to see whether there are any particular trends. More importantly, we need to know not just who was turned away but who never turned up in the first place. People have suggested that there was no effect on turnout, but surely that was in part because there was a publicity campaign in those five areas, so people will have known that if they did not have photo ID, there probably was not much point in going to the polling station. Clear scientific research needs to be undertaken to find out whether that was the case before there is a further roll-out.

I plead with the Cabinet Office and the Minister to understand that there are much greater priorities in improving our electoral system than this. It is surely time, in the 21st century, that 16 and 17-year-olds should be able to vote. It is surely time to have automatic registration. And it is surely time that we piloted online voting, where there would be absolute security in who votes and absolute guarantees against personation and fraud.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

The Welsh Government, Welsh Labour representatives in the House of Lords and, indeed, the former Deputy First Minister, Jim Wallace, who is also in the House of Lords, have been clear that the Government’s proposals did not in any way undermine the devolution settlement.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I can forgive some members of the Cabinet their ignorance in not understanding the effect of their policies on the devolution settlement, but that is not a quality that we expect from the Secretary of State for Scotland. Does he not agree that it takes a particular form of arrogance to try to force through a position that is supported by only one of the five political parties in Scotland and by less than one quarter of the Members of the Scottish Parliament?

[David Mundell]

Again, this comes down to the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not accept the current constitutional arrangements, including the Sewel convention. That can probably be explained by this obsession with pursuing independence. The current constitutional arrangements are quite clear, and the Government are proceeding in accordance with them.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Four out of the five political parties in Scotland now understand that this is the first Secretary of State for Scotland in history who seeks to lessen the control of the Scottish people over their own affairs. Will he now stand down and make way for someone who will respect the wishes of the Scottish people and respect the national Government of Scotland?

[David Mundell]

The hon. Gentleman let the cat out of the bag with his final words. Scotland has two Governments. In 2014, Scotland voted to be part of this United Kingdom, and I will continue to stand up and defend Scotland’s place in it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

The key point is that we do expect the House of Lords to do a good job, but we also expect the House of Commons to be prime and to be able to do its job.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Does the Minister realise that her Government’s refusal to reform the upper Chamber combined with the provisions of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill mean that, for the first time ever, the unelected House of Lords will have more power over devolved matters in Scotland than the elected Scottish Government. As a democrat, how can she justify this outrageous situation?

[Chloe Smith]

I have two points. First, I am actually very pleased and grateful to the House of Lords for the consideration that it has given to the EU withdrawal Bill. It has provided important scrutiny, in particular of the devolution clauses for which I and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are responsible. Secondly, I think that many Members of this House would agree that there are many fine representatives of the Scottish people in this very Chamber who do a very fine job, and I welcome them to their places.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s reminder that we all simply have to abide by the law of this country.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Earlier this month, the House approved regulations requiring the Electoral Commission to disclose donations for parties in Northern Ireland, but that was limited to events taking place after 1 July last year. Given the recent disclosures and in particular the allegations about dark money going from the Constitutional Research Council, which is linked to the Scottish Conservatives, to the Democratic Unionist party, will the Minister consider bringing forward a new order to require the Electoral Commission to disclose information relating to the period from 2015?

[Chloe Smith]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been clear that, although she does not have any plans to provide for publication of the pre-2017 data, we will look to review the broader framework once those arrangements have bedded in. What I would say is that she and her predecessor took those decisions because the majority of parties in Northern Ireland agreed at the time that it was the right thing to do, and, indeed, the Labour Front Bench team, before it was against it, was for it.

EU Referendum: Electoral Law

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) on securing this debate. I find myself in agreement with him and with most of the speakers from the Opposition Benches.

I have a direct, personal interest in this matter: it is not one I need to declare under the code of conduct, but I have direct experience of operating in a campaign under the very regulations we are talking about today. In the summer of 2014, I was an activist and campaigner in the Scottish independence referendum. Because of my history and background in the entertainment industry, I was part of a group that was trying to co-ordinate that campaign among the arts and culture industry in Scotland. We wanted to organise a major, high-profile concert in the run-up to the event to demonstrate support and to provide a fillip for the campaign in the final days.

We went to the Yes Scotland campaign, the designated organisation, with the proposal. It said that it did not want to include it in its campaign plan and spend money on it. The advice was to go away and do it ourselves, so that is what we did. I registered my own events company with the Electoral Commission as a permitted participant in the organisation. We hired the Usher Hall, the grandest concert hall in Edinburgh, and we booked the bands. We arranged the production and the publicity, and we had a very successful event. Afterwards, we provided the Electoral Commission with a report and a detailed budget of what we had spent and the money we had received. At no stage did we either report to, or seek the involvement of, the official designated organisation.

[Tom Brake]

I am sure when the hon. Gentleman was considering what actions to take he would never have considered, for example, co-locating with the designated organisation, sharing a server with the designated organisation, or sharing the same supplier on the same basis as the designated organisation.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The right hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. I was going to say that I have had cause over recent weeks to wonder: what if we had done it differently? What if the designated campaign organisation had come to me and said, “We would like you to do this activity, and the best way to do it, because we do not want it in our budget, is if we set up a separate organisation. Just to make it easier for you, our lawyers have done the paperwork to set up the organisation. Just to make it easier for you, you can have our staff and you can work out of our office. Just to make it even easier for you, you don’t need to bother about writing the cheques, because we will book and pay for the hall and the production”? What would have happened if we had done that, I wonder? I am in no doubt about what would have happened: the Electoral Commission would have investigated. It would have found me and Yes Scotland in breach of the regulations. We would have been fined and we would have been reported to the procurator fiscal for prosecution on criminal charges.

I say that because that lived experience frames my opinion of the events we are talking about today, and my opinion is that this stinks to high heaven. In preparation for this debate, I looked at the original investigation and judgments of the Electoral Commission with regard to these complaints, and—I recommend hon. Members do this—at the High Court judgment on the application for judicial review of that decision. What it comes down to—what is absolutely central to this debate—is not whether different campaign organisations were arguing for Vote Leave, but whether they colluded to breach the expenditure limits that were set down. That is central.

Looking at the High Court judgment and other documents, it is clear that the most important thing is whether or not a common plan was in existence between Vote Leave and BeLeave, as defined under the 2000 Act. I have to say, in a situation where Vote Leave sets up a subsidiary organisation called BeLeave, uses its own personnel to establish it, manages to send it its lawyers and all sorts of support, and provides offices, computers and drives on the server for the same people, it is very difficult indeed to escape the conclusion that there was collusion and organisation between the two.

We are being asked to believe that Darren Grimes took a £600,000 contract and went to a data analytics firm in Canada, completely independently of people in Vote Leave, who had already spent £2.7 million with the very same company. It is literally unbelievable and we need to support the Electoral Commission and others in investigating this to the bottom.

[Layla Moran]

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that what would be even worse than any of this would be if the Electoral Commission came to the conclusion that it cannot prove it? That would say to me that there is something fundamentally wrong with the laws under which the organisations are operating. That is what this debate is about: how do we stop this happening again, should they not be found to have been colluding?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, and we will have to await the outcome of the Electoral Commission’s investigation before we consider whether the legal framework and the support that is provided for the Electoral Commission are in fact adequate for this task.

We have this new evidence. The Electoral Commission, by the way, had already reopened the investigation before the whistleblowing information came out in the last seven days, but we are surely indebted to Shahmir Sanni for what he has done in the service of democracy in this country. I have watched his video recordings and it is clear that we do not share the same point of view. We did not share the same point of view on Brexit during the campaign, and we do not share it now, but I do not think that anyone who watches those interviews can fail to be moved by the decency, integrity and bravery of that young man in coming forward and putting himself at risk. We owe him a great debt.

The response of our Government to the whistleblowing allegations therefore worries me. Others have mentioned this, but the Prime Minister’s explanation yesterday that this was a personal statement by Stephen Parkinson just does not hold water. How can it be a personal statement when someone is at a desk in No. 10 Downing Street, at the heart of Government—when they are on the payroll, issuing a statement from No. 10 Downing Street? This must be the first occasion in history, certainly that I can remember, when the Government have decided to attack a whistleblower by outing them as gay, causing them the possibility of actual harm to themselves and their family, and it is a disgrace.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that according to reports, that statement was approved by the Prime Minister’s chief communications officer, Robbie Gibb? There is no way that that was not an official statement, as the Prime Minister claimed yesterday.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree, and on the email it says “official”, so there can be no question that the Prime Minister did not know what Stephen Parkinson was saying. I have written to the Government today to demand that this young man be apologised to for the actions that have been taken. That is the very least that we can expect. Most reasonable people in this country will be wondering why Stephen Parkinson has not already been sacked, quite frankly, and in many other companies and areas of life, that is exactly what would happen.

[Adam Holloway]

Look, let the Electoral Commission do its investigation. Why is this House trying to pre-empt it? No one should be sacked until we actually have a decision.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I was not talking about the Electoral Commission investigation. I was not talking about the allegations of collusion between Vote Leave and BeLeave. I was talking about a senior official of the Government exposing somebody for being gay in response to their blowing the whistle on what has been happening in Government. That speaks to the character of this Government, who have hours, rather than days, to claw this back and put it right. I hope that when the Minister gets to her feet she will say that the Government will respond to these concerns, speak to Mr Parkinson and take the appropriate action—and I cannot see any other action possible than to say that this man is no longer fit to hold office in government.

What happens when the Electoral Commission does its investigation and comes to its conclusion? Even if the collusion is proven and the regulations were breached, it will not change the result of the referendum; it will not be overturned. Some on the pro-Brexit side seem to believe that the referendum was mandatory on Parliament and the Government. It never was—it was an advisory referendum—so even were the result to be challenged, it would not call into question the many decisions on article 50 and leaving the EU that Parliament has already voted on. I do believe, however, that it would add further poison to the well of British democracy, coming on top of the most mendacious campaign in political history—that fought in 2016—when people were lied to about what it would mean to leave the EU.

Not only were these lies told—lies that were not worth the bus they were written on, frankly—but the regulations and laws governing the conduct of the referendum might have been broken. The Minister needs to reassure us that the Electoral Commission will have all the resources it requires to get to the bottom of this matter. That said, I think that there is already enough evidence—because I presume that the whistleblowers’ statements will be sworn under oath—for this matter to be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service and for a police investigation to take place. That investigation needs to interview under caution the players in this debate, including those who now sit in government holding the highest offices in the land.

That brings me to the Foreign Secretary, who has chosen not to be present. Others have commented on how quick off the mark he was to denounce the allegations and the new information. I am left wondering whether this was just his attempt to be the English Donald Trump or whether this is someone using one of the highest offices in the land to bring their power and authority to bear to intimidate those who would criticise him and make these allegations, and that is very worrying indeed. I want an assurance from the Government today that if the Electoral Commission finds that there has been collusion and breach, those Cabinet Ministers involved in the management of the Vote Leave campaign will resign from office and take no further part in government. It would be ridiculous and would undermine our credibility if the Foreign Secretary and others, having been involved in a breach of our electoral law, were then to seek to hold the highest office in the land.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes) raised a very important matter. As we uncover this, we will find more traces of dark money creeping into our electoral system, and we need the utmost transparency if we are to resist it. I therefore invite the Minister to comment on what action she and her colleagues will be taking with regard to the Constitutional Research Council and the money it siphoned to the Democratic Unionist party for the Brexit campaign. This is an organisation that has no website, no published report, no published accounts—it is the very definition of shady, and it is not something that we should accept in our democracy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 14th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

2. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the proposal for a Welsh EU continuity Bill.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

7. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the proposal for a Welsh EU continuity Bill.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

11. What recent discussions he has had with the Welsh Government on the proposal for a Welsh EU continuity Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

My relationship with the First Minister and the Welsh Government is a positive one. We do not agree on everything, but we agree on the objective, which is to improve the outcomes for businesses and communities in Wales. There are 64 areas of the devolution settlement with Wales. There are 24 areas that we want to discuss further with the Welsh Government, to come to an agreement on how best to ensure that common rules apply across the UK, so that Welsh businesses are protected and can market their products across the rest of the UK.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Earlier this week, the long-awaited Government amendments to clause 11 of the EU (Withdrawal) Bill were published. Despite assurances and promises, they were published without the consent, support or agreement of the devolved Administrations. Is it still the Government’s policy to obtain the consent of the devolved Administrations? If further agreement is reached, will the Secretary of State bring forward further amendments?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Gentleman is referring to amendments tabled to clause 11 in the other place. Commitments were made that amendments would be tabled, and that is exactly what we have done. If we had not tabled those amendments, we would have been criticised. As I have said in this Chamber and elsewhere, we are determined to work with the devolved Administrations to come to an agreement, but it is the UK Government that have the interest of looking after the whole UK. It is the UK Government that want to act in the interests of businesses and communities to ensure that a Scottish business can sell or buy products in Wales under the same regulations, where a common UK market matters.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

It is incredible that that is indeed the position of the Scottish National party and the Scottish Government. Although at one point SNP Members came to this House and talked about a power grab, they are now willing and want to hand back powers over fishing to the EU right away and to go back into the common fisheries policy.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Will the Secretary of State explain why, if he believes that Brexit is going to have a profound effect on the devolution settlement, he was excluded from the recent meeting of his Cabinet colleagues at Chequers to formulate the UK’s Brexit strategy?

[David Mundell]

I know that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the result of the 2014 referendum and therefore that the UK Government Cabinet is a Cabinet for the whole United Kingdom, as are all its sub-committees. The decisions on the Prime Minister’s approach to the EU negotiations were agreed by the whole Cabinet.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Lesley Laird.

[Tommy Sheppard]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Was the hon. Gentleman planning to come in again? He has had one question.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I thought I had two.

[Mr Speaker]

There was no indication that the hon. Gentleman was seeking two. In an hour-long session, yes, but not otherwise. I do not know why the hon. Gentleman’s brow is furrowed; he has got what was his entitlement and has nothing about which to complain, so he can sit down and we are most grateful to him for doing so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Good communication is very important in these matters. My office was notified of the intention of the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) to ask a question, which he has asked. If he wants to ask a second, so be it, but he should not be flailing and gesticulating as though he has been the subject of some sort of adverse treatment, because he has not. If he wants to get up and blurt out a second question, he is most welcome to do so. Let’s hear from the fellow. Come on!

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Mr Speaker—I did want to ask the Secretary of State a second question. He has previously said that the most important thing about changes to the withdrawal Bill is that they should command the support of all sides. May I ask him: is that still his policy, and does he believe that any framework arrangements should require the consent of the Scottish Parliament if it changes its operations?

[David Mundell]

I have set out clearly that, in the process of leaving the EU, I want to ensure that the Scottish Parliament has more powers and responsibilities than it does today. I also want to ensure that we have an arrangement in place to allow us to agree frameworks as we move forward, and that frameworks, as I have previously said, should not be imposed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

That is absolutely correct. According to a 2016 report from the Electoral Commission, both completeness and accuracy have risen, and we should aim to keep it that way.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Given the Government’s determination to end freedom of movement to and from this country, might this now be an appropriate time to embrace the principle that everyone legally resident in this country should have a say in its governance? Would the Minister therefore consider introducing proposals to allow those born in other countries who decide to stay and make this country their home after Brexit the right to vote and to welcome them to our democracy?

[Chloe Smith]

I am considering this point—a number of points need to be taken into account as we complete an orderly exit from the EU—but the broader point is that if somebody has citizenship in this country they have the right to vote, which we think is correct.