Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 30th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am hearing a lot of good stuff from the Government Benches about the clean, green future—the green industrial revolution that this country is embarked on. I am delighted that Tees valley will be the UK’s first hydrogen transport hub, and I look forward to joining my hon. Friend there before too long.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

  The Prime Minister will know that next May there are elections to the Scottish Parliament, and I am sure he will agree that the question of how Scotland is governed will be central to that campaign. I know that he is a keen student of the democratic principle, so may I ask him this: if the Conservative party and other Unionist parties are successful in that election in securing a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, would he regard that as a mandate for the Union? A simple yes or no would suffice.

[The Prime Minister]

I am a keen student of democratic principles, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, and I recall that there was a referendum in 2014 in which the people of Scotland—the people of our country—voted overwhelmingly, or by a substantial majority, to keep the Union. It was a once-in-a-generation event, as the then leaders of the Scottish National party acknowledged. I think they were right then, and we should stick with that.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who gave a thoughtful and forceful speech. There have been some excellent speeches so far. I particularly want to mention my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) and my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), who made excellent speeches both in favour of the Union and in making the case against some of the amendments in front of us today.

On Monday evening, I voted to give this Bill its Second Reading, because I support the broad aims of the legislation. I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak on the detail of the Bill, particularly on clause 46. However, I do have reservations about certain aspects of the Bill, which I shall turn to in a moment.

The Bill is necessary to safeguard the Union and ensure that businesses in all parts of the UK can continue to trade seamlessly across the United Kingdom. It is important that Derbyshire hill farmers can continue to sell lamb to Scotland, that supermarkets in Wales can continue to stock sweets made in New Mills, and that construction sites across the country can continue to use the high-quality limestone quarried out of the hills around Buxton and Hope.

The UK’s internal market is centuries old and a cornerstone of our Union and our economic success. The Bill helps to provide certainty to businesses that, when we leave the transition period, the internal market will be safe and our high food hygiene and animal welfare standards will be maintained.

Clause 46 is a vital part of the Bill that will give the Government the power to spend money in areas previously administered by the European Union, such as infrastructure, economic development, culture and sport, as well as aspects of education, training and international exchanges. This is essential to allow the Government to properly serve all parts of our United Kingdom. I have previously talked in this place at length about how successive Governments of all parties have failed to properly invest in certain parts of the country, including, of course, in the High Peak over the past few decades. The clauses in front of us are part of remedying those past mistakes.

As I have said, it was for those reasons that I absolutely supported the core thrust of this Bill and voted for it on Second Reading, but I am uncomfortable with an element of the Bill, which is why the Committee stage is so important. I firmly believe that we must fully deliver on the 2016 referendum result and that we must take a hard-headed approach to negotiations with the EU to secure the best possible long-term trade deal. Brinksmanship and preparing for the worst are, of course, a key part of that. In my view, it is also essential that we secure that trade deal and deliver on our promises in a way that is in line with our values. Any breach of our commitments must be considered only as an absolute last resort, and even then only after considered debate, scrutiny and oversight.

As this Bill progresses through the House, I hope that the Government will listen carefully and take the opportunity to improve on it. I am grateful to the Lord Chancellor, the Attorney General, No. 10’s trade negotiating team, and the Minister herself, who is now in her place, for meeting me and others to discuss our concerns. I hope that we can make those improvements.

We have a tendency in this place to spend far too much of our time speculating on what might have been and on events that are outside of our control. Perhaps that is because it is more comforting than confronting the hard choices in front of us, but that is exactly what me must do to deliver on our promises and safeguard the future of the United Kingdom.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I must say that it is astonishing and perhaps a little bit frightening that here we are, elected representatives in a democratic country, meeting to give serious consideration to proposals that threaten the peace in Northern Ireland, pave the way for the breaking of international treaties and represent the undermining of the devolution settlement, which has been a fundamental part of our constitution for more than two decades. It speaks volumes, I think, about the chaos and confusion that shroud the current Government that these proposals have even seen the light of day.

My concern is with what these proposals represent for the devolution settlement. I have to caution Government Members, because there have been a few gripes that, “Oh, the SNP will always oppose this.” This is not a matter of the Scottish National party taking umbrage at these proposals. When the Government make them, they offend and affront not me or my colleagues but the ordinary people of Scotland, who, on 11 September 1997, voted by a majority of 74.3% to say yes to a Scottish Parliament and yes to devolution. If that vote took place today, those figures would be higher still, with up to 90% agreeing with either partial or complete autonomy of decision making in Scotland. Those are the people that the Government need to justify these proposals to.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alun Cairns]

I am listening closely to the hon. Gentleman’s argument. How would he reconcile his position with, say, a Scottish local authority seeking additional support from the UK Government? Under the Bill, the UK Government could respond to the democratic call from that community.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I was going on to make this point, which answers that question. Rather than have the funds taken to London and have London set the priorities for all parts of the United Kingdom and then disburse funds to a local authority or to anyone else in Scotland if it fits London’s particular priorities, why not take the money, divide it up and devolve it in the terms of increased capital allocations to the national Governments within the United Kingdom? Why not simply do that? Scottish local authorities would then be able to approach the Scottish Government, who would have more money and more capacity to build the bridges that have been referred to previously and to deliver on the priorities of the people who live in Scotland. If we do not do that, what is being said is that the determination made in Whitehall as to what the priorities should be is more important and takes precedence over the determination made in Scotland. That, my friends, is a power grab.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If someone is living in a deprived constituency that needs additional help and support and the UK Government feel that they can respond, does he think that the person in that community cares whether the money comes directly from the UK Government or from the Scottish Government, bearing in mind that democratic processes would have set the priorities at the most local level?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I think that people living in Scotland care that the priorities for spending on infrastructure in Scotland are determined by them and the representatives they elect, rather than by a Conservative majority Government who do not have a mandate in Scotland. That whole point considers that we even agree with the narrative that the proposals in clause 46 are simply a matter of replacing the allocation of structural funds, and that they are all about the shared prosperity fund. Actually, there is nothing in this Bill that qualifies it in that regard.

In fact, the Bill gives this place the power to take funding decisions about all manner of policy areas of Scotland, most of which are already within the devolution settlement and are the responsibility of the Scottish Parliament. What, therefore, is being proposed, as far as I know, is that this place would be able to determine the spending priorities on health, education, transport and a whole range of other matters, and it would have the ability, through these provisions, to overturn any decisions of the Scottish Parliament. That is also a power grab.

I have wondered why these sledgehammers are being assembled to crack these very small nuts. Why is it that the devolution settlement is such an irritant to the current Government that they see the need to have this legislation and to roll back on the provisions of devolution? I have searched myself, and I cannot find a reasonable explanation save for one: the demise of the Conservative party in Scotland. A once great party is now reduced to a rump of six Members of Parliament, only one of whom has been in this Chamber for more than three years. That lack of experience and that lack of representation of the Conservative tradition in Scottish civic society in this place and in this Government are truly creating problems for them, but the situation is also creating big problems for the people of Scotland, because it is leading to ill-judged and ill-considered proposals, and I believe that the Government will rue the day that they were presented.

Let me finish by saying that there will be a reckoning to all of this. I know that the Government will railroad this through. They have an 80-seat majority, and the lobby fodder will go through and support it—most of them unaware of the nuances of the devolution settlement and perhaps not even caring about it. However, there will be consequences to that action, and the consequence will be that the people of Scotland will see clearly the contempt in which they are held by this Government. They will take umbrage at those decisions, and they will get their chance to express their view in a few short months’ time.

I end by referring to the comments from the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty) at the very beginning of this debate. They were quite interesting, because he and others on the Labour Benches have made the point that they do not support Scottish independence or the SNP, but here is the conundrum that the House now has to face: it seems the intentions of the Government are such that the only way to protect the limited devolution and political capacity we have had in Scotland for 23 years is to take for ourselves the political power that comes with being an independent country and make sure that those powers are retained. That is why many people who used to be represented on the Labour Benches are now realising that the only way to defend the gains made through history is to have complete devolution, complete autonomy, become an independent nation state and secure the political capacity to make our own decisions, so that they will never again be subject to the whims and aspirations of Tories in No. 10.

[Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.

This is one of the more difficult speeches I have had to deliver in my short time in the House, and that is not to say that I am conflicted; far from it—I will be supporting the Government and voting against the amendment. Rather my difficult is trying to understand the strident objection to the concept of more money coming to every part of this United Kingdom. In trying to understand this point of view, I have tried to distil the essence of the Bill, specifically the provisions in clauses 46 and 47, and the importance of the Bill to maintaining our internal market and by extension our Union. Article 6 of the Union with Ireland Act 1800 states that

“his Majesty’s subjects of Ireland shall have the same privileges and be on the same footing as his Majesty’s subjects of Great Britain.”

Explicitly stated in the Act that created our Union is the idea that all four home nations will be treated equally and fairly and on an equal footing. That principle has operated seamlessly for over 200 years, yet right now, because of the calculated actions of the European Union, that bond is in jeopardy.

I want hon. Members to consider what is at stake here: the very essence of who we are. We will be allowing a supranational entity to exercise power over a part of our nation and fellow UK citizens to be treated differently and potentially cutting them off from their own country’s markets. Step back and reflect for a moment: there are Members of this Parliament seriously arguing that we should allow that to happen if no deal is reached with the EU.

This will not come as a surprise to many in my constituency, or in towns such as Darlington, Accrington, Bury or Bishop Auckland, where they gave the Labour party its marching orders in December. Many of the faces that were straining every sinew to frustrate the 2016 referendum result are still on the Opposition Benches. In fact, the architect of Labour’s second referendum pledge is now the leader of its party. What better signal to send to people in seats such as mine that Labour does not share their values and does not care about their opinions, except for the fact I can only see four Labour Members in the Chamber—and one of them is leaving. The contempt that shows for red wall voters is clear. The Labour party does not take this seriously, does not want a sensible solution to Brexit, does not care about people in the north and midlands.

Of course, they are not on their own in their endeavours. The nationalist parties are salivating at the prospect of a scenario that separates a part of the United Kingdom from the rest. It is after all their raison d’être. It is a petty, divisive attitude that leads to the kind of double-think where they simultaneously carp on about a fictitious power grab while openly admitting they would hand over more powers to Brussels, including powers over our coastal waters and fisheries. So-called civic nationalism is a bit like clean coal: adding a friendly adjective does not make it any the less toxic or any more in need of phasing out.

The clauses being debated today have a distinct significance to communities such a mine. The forgotten towns of the north and midlands voted so overwhelmingly to leave the EU because it simply was not working for them. The UK would send vast sums of money to Brussels, which would then send some of it back, with instructions on what to build, what to fund and where to put a sign thanking them for their largesse. It is a bit like being mugged and then being forced to wear a T-shirt of your assailant.

That money never reached communities like mine, not in any meaningful sense. By taking charge of our finances, by building a shared prosperity fund, we will make sure that more of our money is spent in our communities, helping our people. I want people in Heywood, Middleton, Bamford, Castleton and Norden to have the same opportunities as people in London, Bristol and Cambridge. This Bill does that, in addition to the £2.5 billion for city and growth deals across the whole UK already on the table.

It genuinely saddens me that some people in this place, some of whom I have come to think of as friends and some of whom I greatly respect, are still fighting this battle. As well intentioned as they may be, I think history will find them on the wrong side of this debate, and I would like to quote to them a letter sent to me by my constituent, Prasana MacDonald from Middleton. She says: “Mr Barnier broke his word in good faith for all concerned. We should be a laughing stock in the eyes of good countries who will wonder what has happened to the British nation, in fact, placing ourselves in a position where we can be at the beck and call whenever they choose to do so. It is hardly attractive for any country wanting to do business with us. We will also be in a weaker position, negotiating with the wider world whilst tied to the EU’s apron strings.”

5 pm

Hon. Members should not underestimate the depth of feeling on this. In December, those who stood against the settled will of the British public reaped the whirlwind. The eyes of the nation that put extraordinary trust in this party, and this Government, are still watching. I will simply close by asking hon. Members to consider two questions when they vote tonight. First, which agreement is most important to them, the withdrawal agreement or the Good Friday agreement? Secondly, which union is more important to them, the European Union or the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? The choice should be clear.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

I know that my hon. Friend is a working mother as well as someone who is committed to improving social mobility. She is also an effective champion for the excellent schools in her constituency of Sevenoaks. She is right: we all need to do more to ensure that children can be in appropriate environments, learning, growing and developing. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is utterly committed to that. One or two people in the trade union movement have perhaps not been as constructive as they might be, but I hope that they heed the wise words of my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell).

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

It is clear that, while sharing the same objective, the nations of the United Kingdom have taken differing approaches to dealing with the pandemic. To enable restart and recovery, the devolved national Administrations may require additional powers under the devolution settlement, particularly with regard to the economy. If the Scottish Parliament seeks such powers, will the UK facilitate that, or will it restrict its ability to act?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and to Ministers and officials in the Scottish Government for their work in helping us to co-ordinate a response to the coronavirus. The hon. Gentleman is right that because of different situations, geographies and considerations, at different times the devolved Administrations have fine-tuned or tailored their policies as appropriate. However, when it comes to the economy, one thing is clear: the strength of the United Kingdom, the strength of the UK Exchequer and the strength of Her Majesty’s Treasury has underpinned the economic resilience of the whole United Kingdom. We know that if Scotland were independent, as the hon. Gentleman fervently and honestly believes that it should be, Scotland would have the largest budget deficit of any country in Europe. It is only in the interests of the Scottish people to maintain our Union, and that is why we need to maintain the power of the Treasury to support Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English citizens.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I absolutely disagree with the hon. Gentleman. Finance is critical, but this is about more than just finance. The UK will be hosting COP26 this year in partnership with Italy and, as I am sure he is aware, this will be happening in Glasgow. Tackling climate change is about so much more than just finance; it cuts right across the work that we do in the Department for International Development.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

3. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of funding allocated to her Department.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)]

My apologies: I am short on voice today, about which many in the House will no doubt be very relieved. The Government’s 2019 spending review allocated sufficient funding to ensure that the UK can deliver on our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance in 2020-21. Thanks to this Government’s focus on a strong economy, we can deliver on this commitment, improving the lives of millions in developing countries—for example, by giving more than 14 million children access to a decent education, immunising 56 million children and supporting 52 million to access clean water and better sanitation in the past two years alone.[Official Report, 4 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 8MC.]

[Tommy Sheppard]

I asked that question because in 2013 the Secretary of State tweeted an article that questioned the 0.7% of GDP target and, more recently, she circulated an article by the former Development Secretary saying that the waste of cash on

“vanity projects in far-flung lands”

had kept her awake at night. Can the Secretary of State confirm today that she has changed her mind on this matter and is now committed to the 0.7% target?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am proud to say that the UK is now the third highest recipient of foreign investment in the world, but Northern Ireland could get even more than it currently does if, as my hon. Friend rightly says, people took their responsibilities and got Stormont up and running again.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Q8. In the twilight of the last Parliament both the Scottish Affairs and Health Select Committees produced reports on the drugs crisis. Both reports drew on international evidence and recommended a change in the law to allow vulnerable addicts to be able to consume substances in secure facilities under medical supervision. I know this is a complex and controversial area and I am not expecting the Prime Minister to make policy on the hoof, but I want to ask him whether he will consider, on a pilot basis, the establishment of overdose prevention centres in order to gather evidence as to whether that could help prevent deaths in this country, as it has in other countries.

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising a very important issue and a difficult problem. The question is how do we, as it were, introduce consumption rooms without encouraging consumption; that is the challenge we face. As he knows, we are having a drugs summit this year; it will be held in Scotland, and we will be announcing a date shortly.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

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

[Oliver Dowden]

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

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

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

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)]

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

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

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

[Tommy Sheppard]

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

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

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

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

[Tommy Sheppard]

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

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

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

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

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

[Tommy Sheppard]

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

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

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

[Tommy Sheppard]

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

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

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

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

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

[Sir Hugo Swire]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

No, I am in the middle of this point.

[Tommy Sheppard]

rose—

[Andrew Percy]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Percy]

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

[Tommy Sheppard]

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

[Andrew Percy]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

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

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

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

[Oliver Dowden]

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

Preparations for Leaving the European Union

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

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

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

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

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

[Michael Gove]

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

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

Preparations for Leaving the EU

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

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

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

Brexit Readiness: Operation Yellowhammer

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

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

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Michael Gove]

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

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