Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I, too, on behalf of the SNP group, put on record our sincere thanks to Humza Yousaf for his public service over the months and years. I wish him, Nadia and the rest of his family all the best in their future.

Let me also observe that fewer people in Scotland will see our proceedings today as Scottish Television is currently blacked out because of a strike by TV journalists. I implore the management of STV to get back around the table with the National Union of Journalists, improve its pay offer and try to settle this dispute.

The Budget that was approved a few months ago also contains forward planning assumptions on income and expenditure over the next three to five years. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of those assumptions on the Scottish public finances?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Let me be clear: we are talking about the administration of work permits for people from overseas who wish to work in Scotland on a temporary basis. Just about everyone thinks it would be better administered in Scotland, but the Secretary of State insists that it should be centralised by his Government in Westminster. His argument would be plausible if the UK demonstrated that it is managing the migration service well but, given the catastrophe that is the UK immigration system, when will he wake up and realise this would be better done in Scotland, by the people who live there?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 13th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I think we should be clear: the Lord Advocate’s statement on Monday is a game changer. It removes one of the major obstacles to a pilot drug consumption facility, which is designed to prevent overdoses. The Secretary of State has been equivocal in his responses so far, so let me give him another chance to get on the right side of history. Will he actually say that he will support and work with the Scottish Government to see this pilot project through?

Scotland: General Election and Constitutional Future

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am sorry; I think I have to move on. I am not sure—[Interruption.] Am I okay taking some more interventions, Mr Speaker?

[Mr Speaker]

It is up to you, is the short answer.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am aiming for a time limit, Mr Speaker, but I give way.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 5th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

And I always thought that the Templars were too powerful, and that is why their power was taken away.

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

It has been five days since the Prime Minister announced an England-wide lockdown and the major U-turn regarding the furlough scheme, and all week we have been trying to clarify whether furlough support will be in place just when England is locked down, or whether it will be available beyond 2 December if devolved Administrations are required to take similar action. On Monday, the Prime Minister suggested that it would be available to devolved national Governments, only to have a series of Ministers deny this as the week progressed. It is bizarre that such a simple question still does not have a clear answer. Can the Leader of the House confirm whether the Chancellor’s statement that will follow will clear up the ambiguity? In either event, can we have a debate on how to improve the capacity of devolved Administrations to deal with the covid pandemic and prepare for recovery, including by their relationship with the UK Treasury?

Following the rather shambolic way in which the lockdown in England was leaked last weekend, the Government have much to learn about how they communicate. Can I raise the specific matter of how they communicate with Members of Parliament? There is an increasing tendency for Ministers to provide online briefings to Members, and this is welcome, but often the notice of such briefings is insufficient to allow Members to participate. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Ministers improve their communication with Members, including using Parliamentary Private Secretaries to reach out to their Opposition counterparts?

Finally, I return again to the question of remote voting. The latest changes to proxy voting are welcome, and they can only have come about because the Government accept the logic of not requiring Members to queue up physically to vote. If that is the case, why not complete the circle and simply switch the remote voting system back on? That way, MPs can exercise their own discretion on behalf of their constituents, rather than have to delegate their vote to others.

[Mr Speaker]

I do apologise that no picture was put up of the SNP spokesperson when the line went down—the sound quality was good, although the screen is just a blank at the moment—but I will ask the Leader of the House to respond.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us head to the SNP spokesperson in Scotland.

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

[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

You need to switch yourself on, Tommy. Unmute yourself. If the Leader of the House had worked in a textile mill, he would be getting this.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 17th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Just to say, we do like virtual from Somerset.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is good to be here, Mr Speaker, after so many months of absence to discuss matters with the Leader of the House in person.

I begin with your very welcome statement, Mr Speaker, about what happened last night. The Leader of the House ought to be a little less nonchalant in his approach. What we presented to the public and the world last night was quite an unedifying spectacle, to be honest. The conga line going through this House involving Members, many of whom clearly had some difficulty with social distancing, was not a good example to set. When we had the remote voting system, it did not fail; it worked perfectly well on every occasion it was put to the test. It is a system that was fit for purpose, and as he well knows, the Procedure Committee has recommended that whilst the pandemic persists we should go back to that form of voting, which is not only secure but safe and allows people to vote without coming into proximity of one another. I hope that when we discuss these matters next Wednesday at the debate he has announced on proxy voting, we will be able to consider alternatives as well, and I hope we will be able to take some action on this prior to the present arrangements running out at the beginning of November.



Secondly, I invite the Leader of the House to comment on the resignation yesterday of Lord Keen, the Advocate General for Scotland, who reached a point where he found it impossible to continue to serve in the Government because of their intention to proceed with breaking international law. Does he think he will be successful in finding a qualified Law Officer in Scotland who will be prepared to countenance breaking the law in the future?

Finally, I want to ask the Leader of the House about the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employment income support scheme, both of which we will discuss in Backbench Business debates this afternoon. Members across the House who will be participating in those very well-subscribed debates look to the Government to bring forward proposals for what will happen after 31 October, when many businesses will have to remain closed by Government order. If that is the case, it seems to me that the public purse has to assist them in getting to the other side of this pandemic. It is not enough to simply close down the scheme and say, “That’s it.”

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 16th July 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Good morning, Mr Speaker. Those who observe these Thursday morning exchanges will know that I have tried, over the past few weeks, to get a debate on the fiscal framework within which the devolved Administrations are constrained. It was not designed to deal with a global pandemic and it is hindering the Scottish Government’s ability to respond. As I have made clear consistently, this is not an argument about the amount of money but about what can be done with it. The Leader of the House has consistently evaded my questions, referring instead to the sums involved. I think that I now know the reason for that evasion: it seems that, far from enhancing the competence of the Scottish Government, the Tory Cabinet is now determined to constrain it further.

This week, there has been a three-pronged attack on devolution. An announcement on state aid made it clear that Westminster will overrule Holyrood when it comes to providing support for our businesses to recover from this crisis, and it was followed by a statement on the so-called shared prosperity fund, which made it clear that the Scottish Government will have no control over whatever funding replaces EU structural funds. The biggest assault will be announced here shortly: a Government press release tells us that the UK will seek to override and set aside decisions by the Scottish Parliament if they feel those decisions affect UK trade. Were this already in force, it could have overturned decisions on free university tuition, smoking bans or minimum alcohol pricing.

This is a major attack on devolution, taking power away from Scotland, but the details are unclear, so I have three specific questions for the Leader of the House. Is it true that the Government will establish an unelected quango to override the decisions of the Scottish Parliament? Do the UK Government intend to force this on the devolved Administrations if they do not consent? Will these measures require new legislation, and if so, when will this be introduced, and what will happen if it cannot be passed before the end of the transition period? I would appreciate straight answers to these questions, perhaps this time without personal references to my appearance or demeanour.

Finally, since this may be our last business statement before recess, may I take this opportunity to wish you a good summer break, Mr Speaker? I am sorry we were unable to get you up to the Edinburgh Festival fringe this year as planned, but I hope we can do so in 2021.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you, Tommy.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Wednesday 20th May 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go to the SNP spokesperson, who has up to two minutes.

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

Let me take up where I left off 25 minutes ago. I have still not had an answer on whether the Leader of the House believes his proposals for Parliament’s return are compatible with the equalities legislation of the United Kingdom, and I would like him to comment on that matter. I also have two further points, Mr Speaker.

First, we are told that Public Health England will again inspect the building during recess and advise on whether and how business can be conducted safely. What happens if Public Health England says that that cannot happen? Do the Government then intend to override the public health advice given by their own agency? Would it not have been more sensible to make these decisions after rather than before determining whether they can be implemented safely, or is this a case of wishful thinking taking the place of evidence-based policy? If the advice is that the number of hon. Members must be restricted, on what basis will the Government determine who can attend and who cannot?

Finally, I turn to the question of remote voting. While everyone can see that online participation in debates is not ideal, although it is better than no participation at all, that is not the case with online voting. The process is simple and secure. This is not an abstract or theoretical question: the system is there. It works. Why on earth switch it off when there is no need to do so? It is accepted that voting cannot be the same as it used to be, with hon. Members crammed into Lobbies, queuing to give their name to a Clerk. I know that a physical vote has been trialled; indeed, I have seen the pictures, and I think once the public see how that is proposed, we will be in danger of exposing this Parliament to even greater ridicule. So why is the Leader prepared to go to any lengths, it seems, no matter how ridiculous, not to continue with the system that is already in place and that works?

Hybrid Proceedings (Extension of Temporary Orders)

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I begin by acknowledging the efforts of our staff in digital services and elsewhere. They have worked tirelessly—[Inaudible.] But let us not pretend that these things are ideal, or that we have made the fullest use of the technology available to us.

As I have said before—[Inaudible]—this gives Parliament the opportunity for Members to join remotely, if they can. The entire enterprise is centred on a meeting in the House of Commons Chamber, which means that whether we like it or not there is a division between those who are present and those who are not. This creates two classes of Members and it disadvantages those who join remotely. This is, of course, compounded by the fact that the final link in the digital chain is a domestic broadband connection that often fails, leaving Members unable to participate fully or at all. The way around this would be to take proceedings wholly online and to have a virtual meeting, as has happened in many other legislatures, including the national Parliament in Scotland. This creates a level playing field with everyone getting the same access, so I cannot understand why there is such resistance even to trying it on a pilot basis while we have the technology in situ.

The fact that things are not working as well as they might should provide an impetus for improvement, innovation and development. Sadly, though, there are some who experience schadenfreude at the imperfections of the current system. Their conclusion is to abandon it altogether. The constant insistence that these measures are only temporary and the hankering after getting back to how things used to be undermine the efforts of those who are trying to live in the 21st century.

I, too, hope that the public health emergency is temporary, but I want to see what part of these necessary arrangements can be used to improve our procedures in the long term. One of these is the process of voting. It seems that we have now perfected the technology to allow Members to vote in a manner that is safe, simple and secure, yet there are those who insist that we must be allowed to vote in the way that they always have, by queueing in a Lobby corridor and manually being counted by a Clerk. They want to do this no matter if it puts themselves, their colleagues and their staff at unnecessary risk. They think they are defending the right to vote, but in fact they are making a fetish out of a 19th century tradition rather than a democratic principle.

I say let us look at this through the other end of the telescope. If electronic voting works, why can it not be available to Members even when the emergency is over? Providing they sign in to the Estate, why not vote from their offices? Why not group votes together at the end of a session, making it quicker so that MPs have more time to discuss their constituents’ concerns rather than idling in corridors.

We should also change how we hold the Government to account. Today, our business comprises two statements, one urgent question and one debate, but all about the same thing. This is the way things used to be: different Departments doing different things, a multitude of concerns and each with their allotted slot. But everything has now changed. Now there is only one issue. All Departments are focused on the pandemic. Everything we do and say from now is conditioned by that reality, and it is time that we had a more ambitious approach to reforming how we discuss these things.

Finally, I note that we are being asked to agree this extension for one week, and I see later on the Order Paper that the Government intend to go ahead with the Whitsun recess.  I ask the Government to consider the wisdom of this and how it will look to the public. If Ministers are encouraging people to go back to work, is this really the best time for MPs to have a holiday?

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that we have a lot of staff here who have been working under a lot of pressure, and that we should take them into consideration when we make statements.

Debate interrupted.

Business of the House

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 9th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

There is always a degree of excitement in starting any new job, and I feel I will have to have an ongoing challenge of curbing my enthusiasm for this one, but let me begin by paying tribute and a word of thanks to my friend and colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who preceded me in this role and who for a long shift—four and a half years—stood here every Thursday to represent my party in his own inimitable style. I intend to pick up where he left off, and while the style may be different I assure Members that the message will be the same.

Let me also say that I very much look forward to a weekly verbal joust with the Leader of the House, and I only hope that we do not have a spoilsport Prime Minister who will dash my expectations by an imminent reshuffle and changing that position.

Turning to the business statement itself, I have to observe that, given the times we are in, it does seem a little self-indulgent to be spending six days debating what is essentially a mission statement by the Government rather than any specific legislative proposals. I understand that the Queen’s Speech debate is important, but is it not time to get on to matters of substance? Even for a Government bathing in the afterglow of an election victory that does seem a little excessive.

There are many things we ought to be discussing that are not in this business statement, and let me offer three this morning. The first is the Government’s proposed departmental reorganisation. If this House is to have the role of scrutiny of the Executive, it is clearly important that we understand what the shape and structure of the Executive actually is. This House ought to be kept up to date on the proposals being made for changes in Government Departments so that we can consider what changes we might need to make to our agenda and procedures in order to adequately hold them to account. Will the Leader of the House therefore please update us on what the obstacles to the current reorganisation are, when they might be resolved and when we can expect an announcement?

Secondly, given the events of the last seven days, we can see that there is a very precarious military and political situation in the middle east. Not only that, but we can see how compromised this country is in trying to influence those events. Should not the Government be bringing forward an urgent debate on these matters so that this House can consider how better we can influence these events?

Thirdly, and finally, when are the Government going to hold a debate recognising the consequences of the 12 December general election, which for the first time has created a situation within this island where the two principal countries have a different political mandate? Are the Government going to bring forward proposals in order to acknowledge Scottish public opinion and to accommodate Scottish political representation? If they do not, and if they do not recognise that their mandate ends at the Scottish border then—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Then—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sorry, but one of us is going to have to give way. I am being very generous as it is the hon. Gentleman’s first outing, but please come to a conclusion; you are meant to take two minutes, but you are on three.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

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

[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.

Privileges

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I, too, know what was said, and I will be the judge of whether something stretches beyond or remains within the advice that Mr Speaker gave. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am listening carefully. At the moment, we have not stepped outside the limits, and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) is coming towards the end of his speech. We all know that there are limits that we should not go beyond. To mention someone in passing is one thing, but I do not want to get into an argument about the weakness of examples. It is purely about privilege, and we certainly have not stepped outside those limits.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have been keeping an eye on you carefully to make sure that I do not stray beyond the bounds or limitations that were set. I shall conclude simply by saying that I have drawn my own opinions from what has happened in this case as to the character of Mr Cummings.

Perhaps the truth is rather more mundane. Perhaps he is, after all, just a posh boy from a privileged background who has a sense of entitlement that means he does not think he has to account to his peers for his actions. I fear that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is correct. If we agree the motion, as we should, at Mr Cummings’s next dinner party it will be worn as a badge of honour, and he will continue in contempt of the House, because there are people of his class who regard democratic institutions such as this in precisely that way.

Trade Union Bill

Debate between Lindsay Hoyle and Tommy Sheppard

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Wednesday 27th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If we are all brief, nearly everybody will get in.

[Tommy Sheppard]

At every stage of this Bill I have asked what great calamity there is in our land’s industrial relations that requires us to bring forward new primary legislation. I have yet to receive an answer, because of course there is none. This proposal is unique among many that we have considered in this House, because it is not a proposal to change public policy as a result of a problem that has been identified in society; the proposal before the House is motivated purely by the ideology of factions inside the Conservative party that have scores to settle, and whose antipathy towards the trade unions is manifest.

Some Conservative Members—they are not in their place at the moment—do not share that view, but overall that is where the centre of political gravity lies in the party of government. It is setting itself an attitude that will inform public policy on trade unions that is not shared by almost any other Government in Europe, or in the advanced capitalist world. Why are the Government going so far out on a limb to set themselves apart from everyone else? I accept that the Bill is now slightly less bad than it was on Second Reading, but we should be under no doubt that this is still very much an anti-trade union Bill.

This Bill is designed to curtail the expression, capacity and effectiveness of free trade unions in our country, and I must speculate about whether this is a genuine change of heart on behalf of the Government, or whether other factors may be involved in their consideration of how many fronts they can fight on at once. I wonder whether the proximity of 23 June and the referendum that will happen then have persuaded the Government that they should try not to engage in too large a conflict with the trade unions of this land, because they need their support in order to secure the Government’s position of staying in the EU. That is why we all want to see the words written down in black and white, rather than accept the spoken words of Ministers from the Dispatch Box at this time.

I am glad to say that the situation is different in Scotland. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) explained, the Scottish Government are committed to working in partnership with the trade unions of Scotland to try to build our economy towards prosperity. We believe that trade unions are a vital component of civil society. If my party is re-elected next week, we are pledged to do everything we can within the law to compromise the provisions of this Bill and to prevent them from frustrating the operation of free trade unions.

I shall engage with two further issues under consideration. The first is e-ballots. When the Government first announced their attitude to e-balloting, it sounded very much like an analogue Government in an digital age and that they were scared of the possibility of e-balloting. It is a matter of some irony, is it not, that it takes such a contemporary, modern and forward-looking institution as the House of Lords to try to persuade the Government of the error of their ways? I accept what the Minister said and I accept the Government’s position that they have moved slightly on this issue. They can no longer defend the indefensible, which would be to say that they would not allow electronic balloting in a society where it is now commonplace and the norm for most of our citizens.

I see you looking at me, Mr Deputy Speaker, so I shall try to be as quick as I can. We are concerned when the Minister tries to give himself a get-out clause. If he had come up with an amendment saying that e-balloting would go ahead unless it could be shown that there were clear and demonstrable problems for its introduction and roll-out, we might have had more sympathy with him. What he is trying to achieve, however, is to give himself a get-out clause to prevent this from happening in the future. In a post-referendum situation, he might not be so well disposed to favouring the trade unions.

The Minister also provided what I think is a thin defence when he spoke about this being a statutory matter. It is statutory only in the sense that trade unions operate within the framework of legislation—but so do charities, private companies and indeed political parties. As I say, I find that to be a very thin defence.

Finally, I want to make a point about the cap on facility time. I have witnessed some bizarre debates in this Chamber, but frankly, this one borders on the surreal. We are being asked to pass legislation to try to prevent something that the Minister accepts we do not even know exists. This is fantasy legislation and fantasy law-making. I think we should reject the proposal for a facility time cap, support the Lords amendments, reject the Government’s attempts to weaken them and, if we get the chance, finally vote against this anti-trade union legislation.