Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Grant Shapps]

I feel I have been generous in allowing interventions and it is right to complete my segment so that others can get on and speak.

We are mindful of and thankful for the contribution of public service workers in this country, but where unions insist on disproportionate and sometimes plain unsafe levels of industrial action without informing the NHS, for example, and others, we must take the necessary steps to protect the public.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Can the Secretary of State tell the House how many people died in the care of the national health service during the recent periods of industrial unrest who would not have died had the provisions of this Bill been in force at the time?

[Grant Shapps]

The problem, as people will recognise, is that as we do not have a nationally agreed level of coverage—particularly in the ambulance service—it is difficult to know or predict what would have happened if the Army had not stepped in. I know from talking to colleagues and officials that one of the problems was that, because of the late notice and the randomised trust-by-trust agreements, they have been unable to put in a national framework that would mean that it would not matter if you lived in Islington North or somewhere else; you would still get coverage on strike days. We said in our manifesto, and I repeat now, that it is not fair to let trade union leaders undermine the livelihoods of others, and nor is it fair for them to put lives and livelihoods at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I ask myself what problem so afflicts the British state that its Government see fit to bring forward a major piece of primary legislation. Is it really the case that militant pickets are preventing people from getting life-saving treatment? Is it the case that callous trade unionists are refusing to negotiate life-and-limb emergency cover, and that people are dying as a consequence? The answer to all those questions is no. In fact, we know of countless stories in which trade unionists have left their picket-line protests to make sure that people do not die. When I asked the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to say how many lives would be saved by this legislation, he refused to answer, perhaps because the answer is none.

So why is this Bill being introduced? I think the answer is quite simple. We are approaching the fag end of this Tory Government. Their poll ratings are in the toilet, their members are disillusioned and their Back-Bench MPs are increasingly despairing about their own survival. In a desperate attempt to revive their fortunes, they are trying to resurrect the strategy of the Thatcherites a generation ago. They are trying to monster ordinary working people who are fighting for their rights. They are trying to pretend that ordinary working people are other, that they are somehow against the public interest and are therefore not deserving of public support, but it will not work this time, because they have gone too far and there are too many people involved. There is not a family in this land who do not know someone caught up in this dispute and who do not recognise the justice of their cause, so the Government will not be able to do it this time round.

[Hannah Bardell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we speak, firefighters who ran into Grenfell are suffering and dying from cancer, and it is workers like them who will be prevented from protesting and striking? That continues to be a disgrace.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, I do. Across the public sector we see people who, in recent years, saved us from the trials of the pandemic. These are people who should be venerated, not demonised. They should be paid, not punished.

The international comparisons made in this debate are so spurious when we look at them. Not a single country in Europe has legislation like this. The minimum standards everywhere else are negotiated. There is no other country in which a person can be sacked for going on strike if their employer says they cannot, as proposed in this Bill.

The proposals in relation to Scotland and the devolved Administrations are the most pernicious. Is it because the Government are jealous or frustrated at the fact that the Government in Scotland take a different view—that, rather than demonise trade unions, they will sit down with them, respect them and try, within the constraints, to get a negotiated deal? Are the UK Government so furious with the Scottish Government for doing that that they now see the need to export, across the border, a conflict in our industrial relations? That is what is coming, and it is a slap in the face to everyone who supports devolution. This Bill proposes that, in devolved services such as transport, health and education, the parameters for operation will not be set by the elected Parliament in Edinburgh but by this place, even if the parameters do not fit the circumstances. People in Scotland will reject these proposals, as they reject the other attempts to erode the limited power they have. And they will call for complete control of industrial relations in Scotland—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. Not everyone is going to get in. If Members take interventions, more people will not get in.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 29th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Lee Rowley]

My hon. Friend is an absolute champion of the nuclear industry. I believe that this proposal would make the UK third in the world. We are working hard to see what can be done and I will certainly pass on her keenness for progress to be made.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

7. What steps he is taking to monitor the environmental performance of holders of existing Contracts for Difference in the context of new standards agreed at COP 26.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)]

The contracts for difference scheme is a flagship scheme that has contributed to our fivefold increase in renewables since 2010. High environmental performance is a prerequisite for contracts for difference applications, and the next CFD round will require even more ambition from applicants.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I, like many people, have difficulty understanding how burning trees on an industrial scale and pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere can be any part of a low-carbon solution, or indeed why the British taxpayer subsidises private companies to do this. Given the Glasgow declaration and the new COP26 standards, is it not time to review whether the British taxpayer should remain the world’s largest subsidiser of tree burning and, in particular, whether contracts for difference on biomass awarded before 2015 would now be awarded were they to meet the new standards and targets?

[Paul Scully]

As a condition of receiving payment under the contracts for difference scheme, generators must demonstrate that they meet our biomass sustainability criteria, irrespective of where that biomass is sourced. There is no evidence that deforestation has occurred in the areas from where UK electricity generators source their biomass, but we must make sure biomass is sourced from areas that are managed consistently with sustainable forest management practices.

Gas Prices and Energy Suppliers

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 23rd September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. For example, the last Labour Government did absolutely nothing to drive nuclear power, which is a fundamental ingredient of security of energy supply.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The figure of £139 a year has been floated in the press as the increase in the energy price cap this year, but that refers only to the variable rate and does not take into account the changes in bills that people will face if they move from one tariff to another—often against their will in the current circumstances. Will the Secretary of State consider asking the regulator to direct energy suppliers to limit the price increase to any individual customer to a reasonable amount over the coming year?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

As I have said, we have a supplier of last resort process, and it would be wrong of me here at the Dispatch Box to interfere in how it works. It has worked effectively over the past two years. As I have said repeatedly to the House, the energy price cap does give some succour, because consumers prices could be exorbitant without the cap. The price cap gives support, and we continue to support the warm home discount for the vulnerable end of the market.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Kelly Tolhurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am happy to discuss particular issues in his constituency. I believe that the new banking framework and the increase in remuneration that postmasters will be receiving as part of that framework will make a significant impact for postmasters. But he is right to say that we must not stop there. I am working hard, with the Post Office and the National Federation of SubPostmasters, to make sure that we have a post office network that is fit, relevant and viable.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

T6. Scotland has 35% of the total European carbon capture and storage capacity; it has much of the infrastructure already in place; and it has in my constituency the world-leading research group Scottish Carbon Capture & Storage. Will the Secretary of State press the Chancellor to seriously increase the amount of investment in the next Budget that goes into the industry, so that it can upscale and go into commercial production?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman is right: carbon capture, usage and storage is going to be crucial to our meeting our net zero carbon target. We are committed to supporting its deployment in the 2020s. The Government are already funding programmes in this policy area worth more than £500 million, and we will have a useful dialogue with colleagues in the Treasury to encourage the development of the technology.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman knows, I hope, that Bombardier is a company close to my heart. I speak regularly to him and his colleagues and to the company, and I will do anything I can to ensure that company’s prosperity.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

13. What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on fiscal support for businesses based in Scotland to prepare for the UK leaving the EU without a deal.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

I have regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The best outcome for Scotland is to deliver the deal that we have negotiated with the EU. That will provide the certainty that Scottish businesses need and protect jobs and prosperity.

[Tommy Sheppard]

A recent report by the Fraser of Allander Institute found that three quarters of Scottish businesses felt that they did not have adequate information to prepare for Brexit. Given that, do the Government now regret rejecting the Scottish National party’s proposal for a £750 million small business support scheme to help them prepare for the eventuality of Brexit?

[Greg Clark]

Advice and support is available to businesses right across the UK, but it remains the case that the best certainty that business can have is to know that the agreement that has been reached with the European Union, which rules out no deal and involves a substantial transition period, will be approved next week in the House of Commons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support that.

Draft Timeshare, Holiday Products, Resale and Exchange Contracts (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 21st November 2018 General Committees

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I am aware that our purpose is to try to deal with the administrative burden placed on Government by the process of Brexit, and that we are basically trying to rededicate ourselves to the 2010 regulations in this area. I am also aware that in these Committees we do not seek to amend the regulations before us and that no one is here to have a big debate about timeshare policy. Notwithstanding all of the above, I want to take this opportunity to put on record, as we reconfirm the regulations, concern about their adequacy and to ask the Minister to review them in the months ahead.

As has been said, there are around 600,000 people with timeshare contracts in the UK. A great many of them entered into those contracts in the ’80s and ’90s while on holiday in their middle age. They are now at retirement age and many of them are facing quite a number of problems dealing with these contracts. I have become involved, as many Members have, through casework when people have come to me with a problem and asked me to intervene. I am thoroughly convinced that the regulations need to be updated on a number of fronts.

I am the sponsor of an early-day motion in the House, which has 55 cross-party signatories so far, calling for reform of the regulations. I ask the Minister to consider five points. First, will she extend the cooling-off period from 14 to 28 days, because many people are still sold timeshares while on holiday? The holiday may well last 14 days, so they do not properly get the opportunity to consider or, crucially, to take independent advice on the contract until they get back to this country.

Secondly, will she include in the regulations a requirement for a break clause in contracts so that in a proper, efficient and timeous manner, people are able to give notice and get out of a contract? In my view, there should be a break clause after five years, or a period of time. If the timeshare company’s product is as good as it believes, it should not have a problem with that.

Thirdly, will the Minister deal with the fact that many of these contracts last in perpetuity? People are hounded for their contract obligations, even in death, as the obligations pass to their estate. We ought to have a situation, as with most contracts, whereby the commitment ends with the death of either of the contracting parties. Fourthly, will she try to regulate the fees that are charged to ensure that they go up in line with inflation, but not in a manner that would be considered usurious or exploitative and seeking to make profits for the timeshare companies, particularly as contracts are sold on from one company to another? Finally, perhaps we ought to look at having an ombudsman in this area so that complaints can be independently adjudicated.

I appreciate that these are not matters we can decide today but I ask the Minister to consider whether, even within the existing regulations, there is administrative action that could be taken on those fronts. If not, would she consider the possibility of amending the regulations at a future date? If she is able to do that, I would offer no resistance to the regulations being approved today, and I would not seek to divide the House when it comes to their approval at a later date.

Fireworks

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I congratulate the Petitions Committee on bringing this debate before us today.

I have the great privilege of representing the city of Edinburgh, the capital city of Scotland, which is second to none when it comes to the organisation of large-scale public fireworks displays. Like the mover of the debate, the hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), I am a big fan. I love fireworks, particularly the large displays.

Our biggest display, of course, is not on bonfire night nor indeed at new year, but in August every year at the culmination of the world’s largest arts festival: a fantastic firework display using the backdrop of Edinburgh castle, which is really quite spectacular. The majesty and power of that display, and the excitement and thrill of it, provide entertainment to audiences in excess of 100,000 people each year. I welcome it as a highlight of the cultural calendar, but that display is executed by highly trained pyrotechnic engineers. It is regulated completely from a health and safety point of view, and complete precautions are taken to ensure that the display can be conducted in a safe way that brings no harm to animals or to the many people who enjoy it.

When I then look at the situation governing the private use of fireworks, none of that really applies. Yes, we have the Fireworks Regulations 2004, but let us be honest: if someone is over 18 and they do it before 11 o’clock at night, they can let off as many fireworks as they want for as long as they want, irrespective of the inconvenience it causes to their neighbours or to animals living locally. That is something that we must look at again.

We had a particular problem in my constituency in November last year. I suppose we should wait a few more years and be careful of making predictions, but it seems to me that the problem is increasing. One of the people who signed the petition sent me an email at the time, saying:

“I'm all for organised professional displays. But I don’t think members of the public, with no fire safety training should be in charge of explosives.

My father was a firefighter and I used to dread him being on shift on fireworks night, due the abuse and assaults our fire crews receive, this included having fireworks aimed at them as they tried to put out, out of control bonfires.”

She also says:

“We have a beautiful, gentle German Shepherd who is terrified of the fireworks. I’ve spent the evening trying to calm him down having had 5 hours of fireworks being set off around us. As I write this email to you the odd firework continues to go off—it’s now 10.45 at night.”

That person lives in Brunstane in my constituency, where there was no particular problem. In the Lochend area of my constituency, there was a big problem, which resulted in a major Police Scotland investigation. In an eyewitness statement, Sam Thomson, one of the residents affected in Lochend, says:

“I saw two groups of young people of various ages standing at either end of the street firing fireworks at each other like they were guns—they were holding the wooden launching sticks, lighting them and pointing them at each other.

I saw one young child being hit in the head with a firework. Fortunately it didn’t explode—if it had, it could have caused very serious burns.

I saw kids firing fireworks at passing cars and windows in my block broken by stray fireworks. I felt sick with worry—it felt like my home was under attack, in the middle of a warzone.”

We need to respond to people who find themselves in that situation. I have spoken with Police Scotland in my constituency; although it is taking action, it is constantly frustrated by the fact that the regulations are not sufficient.

We have a particular problem in Scotland, because there are two sets of competences on controlling firework use. The Westminster Government have the authority to regulate the sale and possession of fireworks, and the Scottish Government in Holyrood have the responsibility for regulating the use of fireworks. The Fireworks (Scotland) Regulations 2004, which parallel those in Britain, are of a similar nature. They regulate the times at which fireworks can be used, they say that users have to be over 18, and there is a regulation on the strength of the firework, but there is nothing that says, “You need permission to have a firework display in the first place.”

I believe we need to look at going down the route of saying, “If you want to let off fireworks in public, you have to have a licence to do so.” It is unclear to me how we would do that in Scotland without close co-operation, and perhaps an adjustment of the balance of regulation, between the Scottish and UK Governments.

I will give an example. Suppose that the Scottish Government were to say, “Yes, we want to move toward a licensing regime where you can let fireworks off in a public place only if you have a licence.” The police officers I spoke to told me that they saw people over 18 walking around with rucksacks they knew to be full of fireworks, to engage in the activity that has been described, but there was nothing they could do to apprehend them, because no offence was being committed.

Of course, that would still be the case even if the Scottish Government tried to bring in a licence, because the sale and possession of fireworks would be regulated by Westminster. It seems to me that we might need to review that aspect of the devolution settlement to prevent public concern falling through the gaps in the regulatory network as competences overlap.

The time has come to look at going toward a licensing route. I am not saying we must do it now, but we need to investigate it, look at the facts and evidence, and prepare the case carefully. I am also mindful that some people will say, “It’s not the fireworks that are at fault; it is the people misusing them.” It is true that some of the people who have been apprehended for those offences relating to last November are some of the same people who commit other offences against the community, such as riding off-road motorbikes through estates. I accept that that is true, but at the same time we need to look at the regulations, because we should not make these things available for people to use.

We have to be careful that we are not killjoys. If we moved towards a situation where public displays of fireworks were licensed, we are not saying there should not be fireworks or that people should not enjoy them. We are saying, “If you want to enjoy fireworks, do it properly.” That means that we can regulate and check that the people who are organising the display have the required competence and training, that it is being done properly and that public safety and animal welfare are being taken into account.

There is a lot of work to be done, so I very much welcome the debate. The Scottish Government have now said they will review the regulations that they are operating under, which I very much welcome. However, if, as part of that review, it is determined that something in the UK regulations prevents things from being improved by the Scottish Government, will the Minister commit to reviewing the relationship between the two Governments, in terms of the balance of responsibility in this matter, and if necessary to amending the legislation to allow the Scottish Government the competence to move forward in this area? It seems that the more coherence we have on our approach to public policy, the better the result we will be able to get for our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

2. When the Government plans to make a decision on the timetable for the development of Hinkley Point C.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

4. When the Government plans to make a decision on the timetable for the development of Hinkley Point C.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)]

I said on 28 July that the Government would carefully consider all the component parts of the Hinkley Point C proposed project before reaching a decision on whether to agree to the proposed contract for difference. We have been doing just that, and as the Prime Minister told the House last Wednesday, a decision will be taken this month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Clark]

As I said to the hon. Lady in my answer, we are looking at all components of the deal and will make our decision before the end of the month. However, I think it is a responsible act on the part of the Government to consider our energy supplies for the future in the long term. I know the Scottish Government have turned their face against new nuclear. We regard it as an important part of a diverse energy mix that gives resilience to UK consumers.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Given that the Brexit vote has thrown the energy sector into further uncertainty and given that we know that energy from renewable sources will be cheaper than nuclear by the time Hinkley is completed, is it not now time for the UK Government to follow Scotland’s example, end this unreasonable love affair with nuclear energy and embrace cheaper, safer and more plentiful alternatives?

[Greg Clark]

Sir Winston Churchill said that in energy, “diversity and diversity alone” was the foundation for security. I think those were wise words, and I think we are wise to have a range of energy sources now and in the future—including, of course, renewables.