Constitutional Law

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tommy Sheppard

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I must start by reflecting how glad I am to see that this topic has captivated the imagination of the House with the participation here today.

Let me start by agreeing with the shadow Secretary of State on one point: if anything reflects the zombie nature of this Parliament, it is the fact that we are spending 90 minutes on the Floor of the House discussing something that usually would be decided by 12 people in the attic and, at best, go to a deferred Division.

Clearly, the Government are very thin when it comes to stuff to put before the House, but given that this measure is here, I am happy to debate it. Let me also say that there has been suggestion that there is nothing to see here—that all that is happening is a statutory instrument to give effect to an agreement that has been reached between the Scottish and UK Governments. That is not quite the case, though, is it? Of course, officials in both Governments have worked out agreements on how things should be calculated—how inflation and various other factors should be determined—and it is good to see that officials in both Governments are singing from a common hymn sheet when it gets to analysing the situation before them. But that is not to pretend that the quantum of money involved is the subject of consensus or agreement.

I would have thought that even Scottish Ministers would be a little concerned to suggest that this is an inflation-related increase in borrowing limits. The increase is 1.6% over seven years, for money that mainly goes to the construction industry where we have been looking at 40% or 50% inflation over the same period. I do not even know how they can keep a straight face in describing this as an inflation-rated increase.

The truth is that these borrowing limits are not a matter of negotiation between the Scottish and UK Governments. They are not subject to a legislative consent motion; they are something that is determined by the UK Treasury, and that is the statutory position. This UK Treasury has determined what the figures are, and, to be frank, it has the Scottish Government over a barrel because the only option is to agree to this proposed increase, or to get no increase at all. The Government have us over the same barrel, because we either agree to this 1.6% increase, or the status quo ante will prevail and there will be no increase at all.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) about the shadow Health Secretary pointing out that all roads lead to Westminster, and that the spending constraints and austerity that have been chosen were foisted upon everybody, it is a ridiculous situation, surely, when Scotland’s hands are tied like no other country in Europe. Spain does not decide its priorities for health spending based on what France is spending, so why should Scotland or Wales do similarly? Why also do the Barnett consequentials stem from only one of the nations of the UK? Wales probably has the greatest health needs, but we do not see money for England as a consequence of Welsh needs or Scottish needs. Why does it all stem from the one part? That is something those of the Tory-Labour “Better Together” agenda have never addressed: the imbalance of the UK, with one partner in the lead and the rest having to follow with the choices they make for us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree with that. I was just coming on to talk about the impact of these cuts and the fact that, even with increased borrowing by the Scottish Government, we are still talking in overall terms about a 9% reduction in the capital budget in Scotland. A 9% reduction means that some big projects are going to be delayed and some are going to be shelved. People who are looking for a new building or a new piece of infrastructure in their constituency should understand, when they are told delays are going to take place, that those are a consequence of what we are deciding here.

Of course, not all capital spending is to do with big, grandiose projects; a lot of capital spending is focused on improving the day-to-day operational delivery of public services, and therefore the consequences of cuts and delays will have an impact on revenue budgets as well. If we cannot improve the energy efficiency of a particular building through capital improvements, it will cost more to run that building. If we have to provide temporary facilities, that will cost more.

There is a double whammy. Not only is the capital budget having to be funded in part by a charge on the revenue budget to Scottish taxpayers, because of the borrowing the Scottish Government undertake, but the revenue consequences elsewhere in operational budgets will put them under considerable additional strain.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will not, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, because I am just about to—

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

I will be brief!

[Tommy Sheppard]

Really? All right.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good point on capital spending. The Scottish Government and a small Scottish island cannot build a replacement hospital at the moment because of those capital constraints. Meanwhile, independent Ireland has so much money from its surplus that it is funding nurses and Erasmus students not just in its own territory, but in Northern Ireland, which is currently part of the UK.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed.

This is the final point that I want to make. Let us remember that when we talk about Scottish Government borrowing—the entire thing that we are talking about here—it is borrowing with the permission of, and guaranteed by, the UK Treasury. It is not possible for the Scottish Government to do a deal with a private sector house builder and get some private finance to build more social housing as an additional project in Scotland. That is not possible unless it is agreed to by the UK Treasury and comes within these limits, so the Scottish Government, who are heralded as the most powerful devolved regional Government in the world, do not have the financial capital powers that even a medium-sized business has to manage its own affairs.

That is why, in the end, the argument should really be for a Government in Scotland who have the capacity to make decisions about capital spending and other aspects of our finances based upon the needs and requirements of the people of Scotland, rather than the needs and requirements of mandarins in the Treasury in Whitehall. That is why we should have independence for Scotland.

Department for Exiting the European Union

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tommy Sheppard

Monday 26th February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was going to point out that the hon. Gentleman’s intervention had a tenuous link to the subject of debate and no connection whatever to what I was saying, but he has none the less made his point for the record.

What does this lack of preparation mean for financial planning? I shall give the House two quick examples. The first is the customs union—or the customs arrangements, as the Government will call them. I might be wrong, but it seems overwhelmingly logical for our global trade that if we are leaving the European Union, we should first immediately try to seek an arrangement with those countries that are nearest to us and with which we have the greatest trading links. That ought not to be a matter of controversy. The only reason that it is controversial is the existence of an unreasonable number of people on the Government Benches who are so Europhobic that they will not countenance anything that looks like a cut-down relationship with the European Union. The idea of having a customs union should not be controversial, however, and I very much welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Opposition now seem to be on a course towards coming round to that point of view.

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

At one stage, the Labour party was against “the customs union”. Now it is for “a customs union”. The Conservatives are clearly against the customs union, and the Opposition are rallying around it, but we now have a third option from Labour, apparently dividing the Opposition, in favour of a customs union that it cannot fully explain. Does my hon. Friend see a difficulty in what Labour is proposing?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am going to be uncharacteristically kind to the Labour party and take the right hon. Member for Leeds Central at his word. He seemed to be suggesting that we were moving towards a situation in which the difference between “a customs union” and “the customs union” might not be that great. In fact, I think he said that he viewed “a customs union” as having to replicate the procedures of “the customs union”.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I want to come on to that. A frequent argument for a revising or upper Chamber is the inadequacy of the first Chamber, and I want to look at some of the imperfections of this House. To start with, we may be elected and accountable, but we can in no way be described as democratically representative of the population who elected us. A system that results in a majority Government with 37% of the vote can never be described as such. Our system is also much more centralised than that of any comparable country. We in Scotland have been on a home rule journey, which we are anxious to speed up, but I actually feel for colleagues in England, who represent the bulk of the United Kingdom, about the absence of any meaningful regional or democratic local government beneath this level. If we actually looked at the matrix of governance underneath this place, we could relieve many of the pressures on this House.

Our procedures for policy review and scrutiny are not fit for purpose. This adversarial system—two sword lengths apart—often militates against a consensual or at least a majoritarian approach to developing public policy, which is why mistakes in this place often have to be rectified somewhere else. However, that is not an argument for the House of Lords; it is an argument for improving the procedures of the House of Commons. The truth is that we need to consider our legislature as a whole and bring in major reforms to both Houses of Parliament. If we do not do that, our system of governance will fall further into disrepute.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

I cannot give way because of the time. To say that the House of Lords is justified because it compensates for the inadequacy of the House of Commons is completely wrong. In fact, it exacerbates many of those inadequacies.

Turning to the imperfections of the House of Lords, that it is unelected is taken as given, but it is also profoundly unrepresentative for an appointed chamber. It is old, male and almost half of its Members are domiciled in the south-east of England. In no way does that even attempt to recognise our country. It is also very big—my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) noted that it is second only to the legislature of the People’s Republic of China—and very costly, with each peer costing an average of £120,000 a year and its operation costing almost £100 million. If the Government are serious about reducing the cost of government, I suggest that they look first at what is happening along the corridor.

It is time to begin the process of change. We should be looking at having an elected second Chamber. Indeed, that pledge was in the Conservative manifesto, so it has ceased to be an argument of principle; it is one of priorities and the timing being right. The time is absolutely right to begin the process of considering change and I recommend that this House do so.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I would be the first to acknowledge that the decisions of this Parliament over the last two decades to devolve political power within the United Kingdom have created an anomaly in terms of the governance of England. There are many ways for that anomaly to be solved. We could have an English Parliament. We could have English legislative assemblies. We could even consider giving a quasi-legislative function to some of the existing structures of local government. They would give English people more power and more control over their own lives. These proposals do not.

These proposals are not an exercise in the decentralisation of the state and they are not an exercise in the devolution of political power. They are a political tactic by the Conservative party to try to pander to the English nationalism of the UK Independence party and to try to shore up haemorrhaging support from its right flank. I say that to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) and his colleagues here today. I say to the English people: be very careful about what they are promising, because they are abusing your trust. They are hijacking your aspiration for their own political ends.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend is making a fine speech and he is absolutely correct. What we are seeing here today from the Tory Benches is a grievance culture. They never hesitate to point at us and talk about a grievance culture. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is the grievance culture right in front of us?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. The process Tories are engaged in—it is fair enough; it is a political party and I understand that—would be all well and good and just so much political banter were it not for the point that in doing so they are trying to corrupt and degenerate the procedures of this institution.

Humanitarian Crisis in the Mediterranean and Europe

Debate between Angus Brendan MacNeil and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 9th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I rise as a member of an Opposition party in this House and in support of a motion that is the collective endeavour of six Opposition parties. I ask the Government Members sitting opposite to consider the approach we are taking this afternoon. It is normally the Opposition’s job to harry and harass the Government, and even to expose and embarrass them, when they get the opportunity to do so. This afternoon we have laid aside those conventions and are not engaging in what is the normal practice in this place.

Instead, we are adopting a different approach. To use an American phrase, we are “reaching out” and trying to find a consensus with Government Members, because on this occasion our desire to see this country make a bigger contribution to the humanitarian effort that is required to face this crisis is greater than our desire to score political points. I ask the Government Members here to reflect on that and consider an appropriate response.

There are now six Conservative Members in attendance, and fewer than 30 have participated over the past four hours. I make that observation not to judge, but to ask them to reflect on whether that is an adequate level of participation and attendance, given the seriousness of the debate. That matters, because when the Division bells ring at 7 o’clock, if 300 of their number come here from their offices and other places in the Palace to vote down the motion in the Lobby, having heard neither the content of the debate, nor the tone with which it has been argued, that will do a disservice to this debate and show contempt for the point we are putting forward. That will reflect very badly on the Government, so I urge Conservative Members not to do that.

There has been much talk about the scale of this crisis, but I still think that many have not quite grasped just what we are dealing with. Since the civil war began in Syria, half the population of 23 million people have had their houses destroyed. Four million of those people are now exiled from their homeland. They are joined by 2.5 million from Iraq, 1.5 million from South Sudan, and many millions of others from other conflicts in the region. There are 9 million people in holding patterns in refugee camps in the middle east. It does not take a mathematician to know that 20,000 can be nothing but a start to tackling that problem, rather than the end point. That is why the motion asks the Government to review that figure, take time and come back in four weeks with a plan to expand it.

Much has been said about the situation in the camps and refugees in Europe; clearly, there is a relationship between the two. The Government are right to consider the question of funding for the camps, because those organising them point to a shortage of funds. There can be no doubt that deteriorating conditions in the camps would be one incentive for people to make the journey into Europe. However, let us not pretend for a moment that well-funded refugee camps in the middle east will be the answer to the crisis that we are facing by itself, because there is a much bigger factor at play that relates to the efficacy of those refugee camps—that is, many of the people who went to them have nowhere to return to. The conflicts that created their situation show no sign of abating. In fact, it is arguable that in some areas, such as Syria, it is going to get worse before it gets better. The homes in which they lived no longer exist. Those communities—those villages and towns—are no longer there. People are now beginning to realise that if they cannot go east they will have to consider going west. That is the powerful driver now at play among the refugee populations in the middle east. Unless we seriously think that the answer to that is to build refugee camps that will hold people for a generation, we need to do an awful lot more thinking about where these people will move on to from the refugee camps.

A lot of people have already taken this decision for themselves. We might well ask what drives a person to take the risks and put themselves and their families into the conditions that we have seen. Why would you even think about getting on a dodgy boat run by a criminal gang where you probably have a one in 20 chance of you and your children drowning en route? Why would you think about being locked into a container and driven for thousands of miles across a continent knowing that you could suffocate in the process? The answer is simple: because the terror in front is not as great as the terror behind. That is why people are driven to take these incredible steps. It is disgraceful for us to get into a situation where our response to the people who have flown that terror and tried to protect their families is to say, “We will not even recognise you in our policy. You stop there, you turn round, and you go back.” As the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) said, that is not an adequate response to the situation. We need a policy that addresses the refugee problem in the round—the people in the camps and the people not in the camps who have now migrated to our continent.

Some Conservative Back Benchers have talked as though the game is to try to prevent the crisis from happening in Europe by containing it in the middle east. I have to say to them that the crisis is already upon us in Europe. It is not only the third of a million people who crossed the Mediterranean this year, but the many hundreds of thousands in the previous few years, that have led us to a situation where we have over 1 million refugees in European Union states looking for a home. It is simply not good enough to turn our back on our European partners and say that we will do nothing about that. We do need to do something about it. I cannot believe that the Prime Minister of this country will go to next week’s meeting of European premiers and say that this country will make no contribution to the plans that Jean-Claude Juncker announced this morning for 120,000 or more permanent resettlements of refugees already within Europe. We have to do something. As I have said, we are not here on this occasion to chastise or berate the Government, but to ask them to take a month to think about this problem and to then come back and lay before this House proper plans to deal with the whole situation.

[Mr MacNeil]

I heard from the Danish ambassador this lunchtime that last year Denmark—a country the size of Scotland—took 13,000 refugees, 4,000 of whom were from Syria. In the context of what the UK is doing, that shows we could do an awful lot more.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree completely with my hon. Friend. It is worth noting that we are talking about accepting the equivalent of 0.01% of our population as refugees in the face of this crisis, while 25% of Lebanon’s residents are refugees.

My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned Alan Kurdi. That image moved the nation’s heart last weekend and has led to a public change of attitude in this country, which is welcome. I concur with my hon. Friend. Is our response to the people who saw that image on their television screens and in their newspapers to say that if that child had not drowned and had survived that journey, he would not be welcome here? Surely we cannot say such a thing with any decency or absence of shame.

I appeal to the Government to think about the manner in which this debate has been conducted and to reflect on and come back with expanded plans. I think that in doing so they will be commended warmly by the people of this country. I think that all of us have been surprised and humbled by the attitude of ordinary people up and down this country. As of the weekend, in just one council ward in my constituency of Edinburgh East, 27 people—probably the equivalent of more than 100 in the constituency as a whole—have rung up to say that they would house a refugee family in their own home, and that was before anybody even asked them to do that. Imagine what the response would be if the Government, local government, the Churches, political leaders and civic leaders said, “Let us rally as a nation and do something to help these people who are in such dire need.” I think that tens of thousands of our citizens would say that we welcome refugees to our country, city and home.