Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

May I associate myself and the Scottish National party with the Secretary of State’s comments about the late Jimmy Hood?

We are more than halfway through consideration in Committee of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and, in particular, its effect on devolution. I think that the people of Scotland need clarity during this process. The Secretary of State knows that there is widespread concern throughout the House, and in his own party, about the measures in clause 11. He has indicated that there will be amendments, so may I ask him this? Will the Government table amendments to clause 11, yes or no?

[David Mundell]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s second question is shorter.

[Tommy Sheppard]

May I ask the Secretary of State when that will happen?

[David Mundell]

The answer is that it will happen on Report. We have been very clear about this. The Committee stage is about listening and adapting to issues that have been raised; we have listened to my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire, and we will table amendments to clause 11.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Monday 4th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

I will come to that. That is going to happen anyway—by legislative consent motion.

Clause 11 preserves the current devolution settlement. Holyrood will not be stopped doing anything that it can do now, and nor will it automatically become able to do anything that our current EU membership stops it doing. This is simple and easy to understand, and it provides a solid basis for the talks currently taking place over which EU powers will be devolved.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstands what is happening. At the minute, the EU has legislative competence in 111 devolved areas, to ensure compatibility with the treaty on European Union. After Brexit, that will not be the case; what is being proposed is that the UK Parliament should be given legislative competence over these devolved areas that it currently does not have. That is a material change and constraint on devolution.

[Mr Jack]

That is correct—that is what we are negotiating about. The 111 powers are already devolved at implementation level. That exists at the moment. The question is about where the frameworks sit in respect of the powers that come back from the EU. We have to look at our internal market and how we would better run our country.

On issues such as food standards, it makes complete sense for us to have one framework for the United Kingdom, so that everyone can participate in the trade deals that we do. If we had different rules and regulations in different parts of the United Kingdom, our overseas trade agreements and internal market would fall apart.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I was going to reassure the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr), who is no longer in the Chamber, that, given the lateness of the hour, I can do nothing other than be reasonable and mild mannered in my presentation. He seemed fearful that SNP Members would go berserk and worried that we were putting our case with too much passion. Let me try to put this as reasonably as I can.

I want to agree with Members who have talked about the positive cross-party nature of what is happening. There are three parties on the Opposition side of the House that differ quite significantly on our preferred constitutional outcome or endgame for Scotland, but we are united in trying to defend the gains of devolution that have been made during the past 20 years. Indeed, I think that some of the Scottish Tories might feel that way too, given the discussions we have had in the Scottish Affairs Committee. They seem too timorous to exercise that conviction by going through the Lobby with us tonight, but perhaps they will be persuaded in the fullness of time.

By way of context, we need to remember two things. One is how the interplay between the referendums of 2014 and 2016 in Scotland affects this debate. I was on the losing side in 2014—I lost the Scottish independence campaign—and I accept that result. However, it is important in understanding why Scotland voted to remain in the United Kingdom to look at some of the assurances that were given by the people who won that campaign, because that affects this debate. I am going to talk not about the obvious one, which is what was said about EU membership itself, but about two other things.

First, all parties that campaigned for a no vote in the 2014 referendum went out of their way to stress that there was no threat to the devolution settlement, and that they would defend and extend it. The other assurance given was that should Scotland vote to remain in a political Union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland, this was not a matter of one country being subsumed into a much larger neighbour, but the creation of a partnership of equals—a multinational yet unitary state—with the views of Scotland therefore respected in any future debates. I am now calling to collect from this Government on both their respect for and commitment to devolution because, as far as I can see, the way in which clause 11 is currently written means that it recognises neither of those points. It is regrettable that at this relatively advanced stage of our discussions on the Bill, we still do not have any agreement whatsoever about some basic things.

The other factor we need to remember by way of context is of course the debate about devolution itself. I was heavily involved in the campaign that led to the creation of the Scottish Parliament, arguing for yes, yes in 1997. I was not in the House when Members debated the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998, but I observed the proceedings and we can read the transcripts. We know that Parliament, led by the late Donald Dewar, clearly took a maximalist position. It basically said that everything should be devolved unless there was a case for its not being so, which is why the 1998 Act lists not the powers that are devolved, but the powers that are reserved.

If we had not been in the European Union when Parliament was debating the Act, how many of the 111 areas of responsibility would have been reserved and how many would have been devolved to the Scottish Government? The truth is that practically all of them would have been devolved without question, because there would have been no compelling case for reserving them. I think that people misunderstand the nature of the debate when they talk about the transfer of competences from the EU to the UK following Brexit.

Let us be quite clear that the reason why the European Union currently has some legislative competence in devolved areas is to ensure compliance with the treaty on European Union. That is what this is about. If Brexit goes ahead and we come out of the European Union, that, de facto, will not be required, so whatever the UK Government say about taking on these areas of competence, it will not be about complying with the terms of the treaty on European Union. The only thing it can be about, given that we already have a single economy in the United Kingdom, is convergence on policy. The transfer raises the possibility that we will move from compliance with international agreements to compliance with domestic policy. That is what I mean by a power grab, because it represents a severe potential constraint on the ability of the Scottish Parliament to legislate and act in its devolved areas.

Ministers will say, “That’s not the intention. This is a drop-off point for the powers so that we can then decide the best way for them to go to their final resting place.” I have to say to them that we are politicians, not psychics. We have to deal with what is written in the Bill that they have brought before us, not their intentions for what might happen as they go towards their endgame. What is written in the Bill is most clearly not what is being argued for by Ministers. If that were the case, we would have a schedule by now outlining which of the 111 powers can go straight to the devolved authorities on exit day, which of them definitely need to be reserved in the context of the 1998 Act, and which of them need further exploration through some sort of process, but we have heard nothing about a single one of them.

I say to Ministers that, even from a public relations point of view, would it not have been sensible to at least chuck a few of these powers the way of the devolved Administrations? No. 9 on the list is about blood safety. What is it about the Scottish health service and blood transfusion service that they do not trust? Why on earth would blood safety need to be reserved to the UK? Energy efficiency is another power on the list. Is it the end of the world if Scotland pioneers aspects of efficient energy use and perhaps leads the way in the UK? How is that a threat to the Union? Why do Ministers need to keep those powers? There are other examples that illustrate the ridiculousness of arguing that there should be even a temporary drop-off of these powers at Westminster. Such powers should clearly go to the devolved Administrations.

I am left wondering why this is being done. The obvious first answer is the phenomenal degree of administrative competence involved. I think that there is malintent on the part of some Conservative Members, but probably not on the part of its Front Benchers. However, I think Ministers have got themselves into a situation in which, because they have been incapable of producing a plan, they simply have no option but to say, “Trust us for now; we’ll do the best thing in the end.” It is very difficult for this Parliament to accept those assurances.

I think there is another red herring with the idea that a further reason why these powers need to be retained and examined further is that there might otherwise be interference with the United Kingdom’s ability to strut the post-Brexit globe in its ambition for “Empire 2.0”. There is a fearfulness that people in Scotland or Wales might act like the Wallonians and try to frustrate the creation of an international trade agreement. How ridiculous is that? Would it really matter if the Scottish Government introduced a policy that said, “We don’t wish to have genetically modified food in our food chain”? How is that a threat to an international trade agreement? All that would need to be done would be simply to specify that that was what people would need to deal with in Scotland, and that anybody wishing to sign the agreement would, quite reasonably, be able to do so.

The only way that that could become a threat to post-Brexit deals would be if there was a suggestion that the Scottish Government and the Welsh Assembly should take to themselves a power to veto a future UK international trade agreement, but no such power is being discussed. It is ridiculous that we should not by now be discussing which powers are going where, rather than arguing that nothing can be done apart from a power grab by the Westminster Government.

Finally, the common frameworks that we need for these 111 areas are going to be entirely different, depending on the individual area. In some cases, it might just be a simple matter of agencies north and south of the border talking to each other and sharing best practice. There are probably very few areas that actually require a full-blown statutory regulatory framework across the United Kingdom.

[Chris Skidmore]

indicated assent.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (Mr Robin Walker)]

indicated assent.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The Ministers are nodding their heads. If that is the case, why have they not identified them? Why not bring forward proposals for dealing with the joint arrangements? I do not attribute malintent to those on the Government Front Bench, but there are people within the Conservative party—I see that the Scottish Tories have gone home—[Interruption.] I am sorry; they have left the hon. Member for Gordon (Colin Clark) as the lone representative. [Interruption.] Two of yer! I withdraw the remark; only 80% of them have gone home.

Conservative Members talk about the process we are engaged in. We are engaged in a process of considering amendments to a Bill. I say to the Scottish Conservatives that they should think again about going through the Lobby with the Government tonight, because if they do so, they will give the Government succour, rather than putting pressure on them to come forward and make agreements and changes. If that happens, it will provide sustenance to those Conservative Members who never believed in devolution in the first place, and who will use Brexit as an opportunity to roll it back and take power to the centre.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Q9. Does the First Secretary agree with the Lord Speaker’s committee that the House of Lords should be reduced to 600 and that the term should be limited to 15 years? Does he not feel the slightest sense of embarrassment that the crisis of credibility in the undemocratic upper Chamber has become so acute that its Members are themselves begging for reform while the elected Government refuse to act?

[Damian Green]

When the hon. Gentleman says that all Members of the House of Lords are begging for reform, he may not necessarily be representing the entire range of views in another place, but I am happy to assure him that the Government are looking very carefully at the proposal of the Burns committee. We will, of course, respond in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Cabinet Office is supposedly co-ordinating this country’s exit from the European Union, so it really ought to know this stuff. The Minister has not answered the question. Will she clarify whether that is because she does not think that Parliament is entitled to the information about how many staff are working on it and how much it costs, or is it because the process is such a shambles that she is unable to provide that information?

[Caroline Nokes]

We have already created 3,000 new roles, 2,000 of which have been filled. As I have said, further roles will be created and, specifically, the Cabinet Office is working most closely with those Departments most affected.

House of Lords Reform: Lord Speaker’s Committee

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on reform of the House of Lords.

It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Howarth, for what I hope will be a scintillating debate. I say at the outset that none of what I am about to say should be taken as a slight or criticism on any individual Member of the upper House. I have, in my limited time in this place, worked with many of them in all-party groups and on various campaigns where we share the same objectives, and I have found them, to a man and woman, to be people of integrity and ability and to exude a commitment to public service.

That aside, the institution of the House of Lords is fast becoming a national embarrassment. It is something we urgently need to address. The House of Lords is the largest legislative assembly anywhere in the world, with the sole exception of the People’s Republic of China. It is an institution where no one is elected by the wider citizenry, and it is accountable to no one. It is staggeringly unrepresentative of the population at large: only 26% of its Members are women; 44% of its Members live in London and the south-east of England; and 56% of its Members are older than 70 years of age. That is an institution that in no way reflects contemporary society. It is also an expensive institution, costing almost £100 million for every year that it operates, £20 million of which goes on the expenses and stipends of the Members who serve in that Chamber.

We are fast approaching a situation where the legitimacy and credibility of the House of Lords will be in crisis. Unless we do something about it, that crisis of credibility will extend to us as well by implication.

The Parliament Act 1911 first established that the House of Commons, the elected Chamber of this Parliament, should have primacy over the House of Lords. The preamble of that Act noted that the intention was to introduce

“a Second Chamber constituted on a popular instead of hereditary basis, but such substitution cannot be immediately brought into operation”.

For the 106 years since the passage of that Act, we have argued about how to make the upper House a popular and democratic institution. For most of that time, the argument has been led by this Chamber—elected Members representing the people—which has argued for shining the flashlight of democracy into the darker recesses of our Parliament. What we have today, however, is something quite remarkable. We have a situation where the Government of the day have said publicly that they will not countenance any reform of the upper House; they do not have the time or inclination to consider those arguments.

In frustration, Members of the upper House themselves have got together to beg the case for reform. That is a remarkable volte-face from the arguments we have had for over 100 years. I hope that the Minister, when he concludes, feels just the slightest sense of embarrassment at the situation. Here we are contemplating reform of the House of Lords not because of any motion or suggestion from an elected Member of the House of Commons but because the House of Lords is asking us to take action to try to salvage its credibility and reform its institution.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his contribution. Does he not think that one of the main reasons why many Members of the House of Commons are reluctant to push reform of the House of Lords is that they want to end up there? They see it is quite a cushy retirement number, rather than seeing any practical function that a second Chamber might offer. We should be proud of the Scottish National party’s long-standing tradition of not taking seats in the House of Lords.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I agree. It is inconsistent for someone to say they wish to abolish an institution but then prop it up by serving in it and trying to enhance its credibility. That, however, is a political contradiction that others will have to wrestle with. I am glad to say it is not one my own party faces.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I have been following the hon. Gentleman’s arguments and facts carefully, and he is making an extremely powerful case. I have no intention of going to the House of Lords—nor will I be invited, I guess. There is another case for not reforming the House of Lords. Some of us believe it is an affront to democracy and should be abolished. Reforming it gives it greater credibility. Does he not agree that there is a danger in reform and that abolition is the better solution?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I do indeed, although the way I would put it is that I wish the reforms to be so extensive that they are tantamount to abolition. Starting with a clean sheet of paper would probably be the best way to go forward. I will come to arguments for the alternative later.

As I read the report and read between the lines, I can almost sense the authors’ exasperation at the situation they are in: their remit has been necessarily constrained to a very narrow one about the size of the House of Lords. They are not able to take into account other matters, looking at the wider context of the institution. I also sense—it is mentioned several times—their frustration at having to search for ways other than legislative and statutory reform to try to achieve some sort of change. I applaud their ingenuity in finding ways within existing statutes and by using procedures such as the code of conduct to set out how they may be able to achieve some of their suggested changes without reference to primary legislation. None of that removes the need for us as an elected Chamber to look at legislative reform. It is an abrogation of political responsibility by the Government, as well as a kick in the teeth for public opinion, that they refuse to countenance bringing forward legislative reform.

The report is necessarily limited, but I would describe it as extremely small baby steps on the road to reform. To give an idea of just how limited they are, one of the key suggestions is to bring in a fixed term of 15 years for Members to serve in the upper House. The suggestion is to phase that in, and it would not be fully implemented until 2042. That’s right—2042. I doubt whether I will be around to see what happens in 2042. To understand just how modest the suggestion is, NASA intends to put a human being on Mars by 2042. We seem to be incapable of suggesting that we can bring in fixed-term appointments for the House of Lords before, as a species, we are capable of colonising other planets. That puts it somewhat in perspective.

Given that the Committee found ways, without reference to legislation, to suggest reform, we should embrace its suggestions and perhaps be a little more ambitious about their application. In considering the report, I suggest to its authors and the upper House that, if they have found ways to bring in fixed-term appointments, why 15 years? On what possible grounds is it okay for someone first to be appointed rather than elected and secondly to serve without sanction or accountability for one and a half decades? Why not cut that in half and make it seven years? Then we could accelerate the process of moving to fixed-term appointments much more quickly.

The Committee suggested through various procedures to reduce steadily the size of the Chamber by appointing one new peer for every two who die, resign or otherwise leave the upper House. If we can have two out, one in, why not have one out, none in? Why not have a moratorium on appointments until the House begins to shrink to a more acceptable level?

We should also be concerned about the things that the report, by its own admission, does not say, and the problems that it does not address—indeed, it recognises that its limited suggestions will exacerbate some of the other problems. Consider, for example, the hereditary peers. Not only are 92 people who are appointed to make the laws of our land not elected by anybody, but the only basis for their appointment is accident of birth. They are not even the aristocracy—they are the progeny of aristocracy from centuries past. That is such an anachronism that it is an affront to every democratic ideal that we must surely espouse. A rather sordid deal was done between the Blair Government and the then Tory Leader of the House of Lords—against, by the way, the wishes of the then leader of the Conservative party—to protect the 92 hereditary peers. That was seen as an interim step, yet every attempt to follow through and complete the abolition of hereditary peers has been blocked by the institution itself and those who support it.

[David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that next year my private Member’s Bill, the House of Lords (Exclusion of Hereditary Peers) Bill, will have its Second Reading. The Government could accept that as part of the deal to reduce the size of the House of Lords immediately.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed, and it is regrettable that an individual Member has to use the procedures of the House to pursue such an objective when it is so glaringly obvious that the Government should act on this issue to improve our democratic system. When he responds to the debate, perhaps the Minister will explain why the Government see fit to take no action whatever on Lords reform.

Hereditary peers are an anachronism and an affront to democracy, but under proposals in the report, which would reduce the size of the House of Lords from more than 800 Members to below 600, they are untouched. That means that their influence will increase as a proportion of the upper Chamber. Rather than tackle the problem, this tinkering will make it worse and give hereditary peers even more influence over the rest of us. We must do something urgently to tackle that democratic affront.

The report also acknowledges the situation of the Lords Spiritual, which is not to be reformed in any way, shape or form. I have many colleagues and friends who are active in the Church of England and I mean them no disrespect, but it is ridiculous in our multicultural, multi-faith society that, if any spiritual leaders are to be appointed anywhere in our legislature, that should be the preserve of just one faith and one Church in this country. That is an affront to people of other faiths and of none, and it is urgently in need of reform. I say that knowing that many people in the Church of England would agree with me and seek such reform themselves, yet the report says nothing about the issue. Indeed, it admits that the influence of the Lords Spiritual in the upper Chamber will increase under the proposals, rather than be reduced, because their number as a proportion of the upper House will increase.

The most glaringly obvious omission in the report, which its authors acknowledge, is the fact that we have not even begun to debate the method of constitution and selection of the upper Chamber. I believe in a bicameral system. I think there is a need for an upper revising Chamber, although the arguments for it need to be made. One argument most often made is not an argument for an upper House; it is an argument about the inadequacy of the primary Chamber. It suggests that we need the House of Lords because the way the House of Commons operates means that it is often capable of getting things wrong and making bad draft legislation, so everybody needs a second look and it must all be revised. That is an argument for improving our procedures in the House of Commons and considering how we originate, deliberate on and make legislation; it is not in itself a justification for a second Chamber.

I believe that there should be a revising Chamber as that has some merit in a democratic system and our parliamentary institutions. However, a fundamental tenet of my belief is that those who make laws over others should be accountable to those who serve under those laws. The governors must be appointed by the governed, otherwise they lose respect, credibility and legitimacy. If we are to consider a new upper Chamber by 2042, surely we must advance the argument that it should be an elected Chamber that is representative of the citizenry of the country. When devising a new Chamber we should take the opportunity to build in procedures that will overcome the current inadequacies and democratic deficits. We must ensure proper representation of women in the Chamber, and of the age range and ethnic mix in the country. We also need a proper geographic spread to represent the regions and nations of the United Kingdom. That is an argument whose time has come. It is something that we need to advance, and if we do so I think that many Members of the upper Chamber will be willing to join that cause.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister ever so gently whether he will reconsider his position, take off the blinkers, realise the degree of public concern about this issue, and commit the Government—not next week or month, perhaps not even next year, but before the end of this parliamentary term—to bringing forward the reforms that are so urgent and necessary. We are now at a crisis point. A report published by the Electoral Reform Society last week contained an extensive survey of public opinion in this country. It showed that only 10% of those polled agree with the House of Lords remaining unchanged as it is today. Fully 62% now believe that the upper Chamber should be elected. That number is increasing, and if we do not act it will increase further, and the political crisis in our institutions will continue. It is time to act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised that point. My favourite Prime Minister is David Lloyd George, a strong Welshman who was responsible for the “People’s Budget” in 1909, and who in 1911 pushed through reforms. However, he came unstuck on the issue of Lords and patronage in the 1920s, with similar issues to those that came a century or so later. There is a need for more clarity about the appointments process. I will come on to some of the suggestions in the report, but I think the process should be strengthened and there should be greater transparency. We should make sure that there is fair and transparent way to appoint Members in all parties, as well as independents and Cross Benchers.

I welcome the report produced by the Lord Speaker’s Committee, which proposes to reduce the number of peers to 600. It advocates that any new peers should have to sign an undertaking to serve a 15-year term before retiring from the House, requiring real commitment from them. It recommends a two out, one in system for life peers to get the number down from 800 to 600. After that, there would be a one out, one in system. Finally, it proposes a democratic link through the allocation of new peers to each party according to the average between their vote share and Commons seat share at the most recent election; it also proposes keeping 134 independent Cross Benchers, reflecting the current proportion of Cross Benchers who sit in the House of Lords. Those people are not bound by party loyalty, but are there to serve their country, and provide a valuable, independent voice.

Those are all sensible suggestions. The report proposes the implementation of meaningful reform without the loss of the beneficial aspects currently supplied by the Lords. It is important that any reforms should also respect the Parliament Act 1911 and ensure that the reformed House of Lords does not undermine the supremacy of the House of Commons, which I fear a fully elected upper House just might do. It is important to respect that principle, which has underpinned our parliamentary democracy for the past century; it is just as relevant now as it was in 1911 that those who have been directly elected and who have constituency links can have the final say on laws, and make sure that they are pushed through to reflect their constituents’ views.

I agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East on one point: hereditary peers and Lords Spiritual. I am all for tradition, but as a democrat I cannot justifiably defend the continuation of such peers in the Lords, should any reforms be enacted. I would therefore push for the reforms to go further, with current hereditary peers allowed to complete their term, but an eventual phasing out of hereditary peers from the House of Lords.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman wants to push things further, but that can be done only through legislation—not the mechanisms suggested in the report. Would he support petitioning the Government for such legislation?

[Luke Graham]

Yes, I would. I am coming to my point about that. House of Lords reform is always another decade away, but when we complete our current constitutional obligations through Brexit—which I think the hon. Gentleman will agree is challenge enough—I hope we can turn our attention to the House of Lords. Then people will not have to wait another decade before reform is allowed in that most respected other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Skidmore]

Well, we had our chance in the House of Commons to drive reform—[Interruption.] I know the hon. Gentleman was not there at the time, but Labour Members voted with Members of another party to block the programme motion. I do not want to revisit the details, but they show that we had the opportunity to introduce a partially elected Chamber. The coalition Government—this is now in the annals of constitutional history—attempted to introduce an elected Chamber, but that was not possible, so we have learnt that the best way forward is to work with the Lords to look at what is possible and achieve change within a realistic timetable.

That is why we welcome the work of the Lord Speaker’s Committee, which was chaired by Lord Burns. As Members are aware, in December 2016 the House of Lords passed a motion stating that its size should be reduced. The Government welcome the fact that the House of Lords had that debate and passed that motion. It is absolutely vital that the House of Lords recognised that its size should be reduced and that methods for how that might be achieved should be explored.

Following the motion, the Lord Speaker established a Committee, chaired by Lord Burns, to identify practical and politically viable options for reducing the size of the House that would not require primary legislation. Just as important as the point about consensus is the point about primary legislation. Achieving this viable change that allows us to reduce the numbers in the House of Lords over a period of time—I will look at the detail in a moment—is about the art of the possible and ensuring that we can begin the process that is needed.

The Government thank Lord Burns and his cross-party Committee for their work. It met 22 times and took evidence from more than 60 Members of the other place. They clearly put a great deal of work and effort into the report. Its key recommendations include a reduction in the size of the House of Lords to 600 Members, which would then become a cap. To reach the target of 600, there should be a guiding principle of two out, one in. When the target of 600 had been reached, all vacancies would be allocated on a one-out, one-in system. Vacancies should be overseen by the House of Lords Appointments Commission and allocated to each of the parties according to a mean average of their percentage share of the seats in the House of Commons and their percentage share of the national vote in the most recent general election. It also recommended fixed-term membership of the House of 15 years for new appointments, enforced by the House of Lords code of conduct.

The Government will consider the recommendations carefully. The report is incredibly detailed, and I encourage all hon. Members of both Houses who have not read the report to read through its pages.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am keen to press the Minister on one point. The report’s introduction makes it clear that for the non-legislative reforms to work, they will require the consent of the Prime Minister of the day for the appointments they make to the upper House, both in terms of the number and the proportion across the parties. Is he in a position to say on behalf of the current Government and Prime Minister whether they will try to achieve those objectives or seek to frustrate them?

[Chris Skidmore]

Following on from my key point about consensus, the history of Lords reform shows us that if proposals are to be effective and stand any chance of succeeding, they will need to command a consensus across the House of Lords. The Government want to listen closely to what peers have to say in response to the report. I believe that before the Government set out their position, it is important to test the mood of the House of Lords on the proposals to see whether a consensus will emerge.

On the question asked by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich, the Government will make time for a debate in the Lords, and I can say today that it will take place before Christmas. I hope this debate provides material for the Lords to consider. It has been incredibly timely, given that the Lords will debate this issue in the other place before Christmas. The Government look forward to that debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I do not want to repeat the points that I made earlier. I thank all Members for their contributions to the debate, including the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) in particular, and the fact that he will support campaigning for the Government to provide time for legislative reform. We will obviously not go as far with reform as I might like, but the fact that he says there should be some is useful.

I thank the right hon. Member for Delyn (David Hanson) and appreciate his efforts to get the hereditary principle addressed. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out, where his proposal lies on the Order Paper at the moment means that is unlikely to be successful, which underlines the need for a rather better response than we heard from the Minister about making Government time available to debate reform of the upper House. He says that the Government are not in favour of comprehensive reform, but I am struggling to understand which reforms they are in favour of and what time they will make available. The airing of issues today should be regarded as the beginning of the debate in this parliamentary Session. After the upper House has its debate, I hope that the Government will reflect on the need for the Commons to have a proper, considered discussion that will lead to legislative reform of the upper House. If we fail to act, I fear that we will increasingly lose credibility in the eyes of the wider electorate, for whom the time for reform is now.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on reform of the House of Lords.

Proportional Representation

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 30th October 2017 Westminster Hall

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I will not give way just yet. I know that it has become fashionable in this country to play down referendums and call for them to be rerun, but it seems a very odd and conflicted scenario that those who say that they seek a so-called fairer voting system are unable to accept the result of the last referendum on this very issue.

[Paul Blomfield]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

rose—

[Steve Double]

I will give way in a minute.

“Ah,” some people will cry, “that was about the alternative vote, AV. This is about proportional representation—a very different thing altogether.” The fact remains, however, that the referendum result was not only a rejection of AV, but a massive endorsement of our current voting system.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Will the hon. Gentleman clarify whether he thinks that the 2011 alternative vote referendum gave people a choice between first past the post and proportional representation?

[Steve Double]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Clearly, it did not, but people argued at the time that it was a step towards proportional representation. It was a clear choice about changing our current system, and there was an overwhelming vote in favour of keeping the system that we have. If we want to make votes count, we surely have to respect the votes that were cast in that referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I am grateful to the Electoral Reform Society for the information that it provided to all Members in advance of the debate, and particularly pleased to have received so many representations from my constituents. However, I do not think that Members should forget that we had a full test of public opinion on first past the post just six years ago. That was a national poll—[Interruption.] Let me continue. That national poll was held in 2011, on the same day as many local elections.

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

The turnout was just 42%, but in terms of local elections that was fairly respectable. Many would say, “Ah, but of course that was about AV, not about some system that is infinitely more complicated. If we presented that, we might have found the silver bullet. People would have voted for it.” We can rake over the coals of referendums and say, “What does this mean and what does that mean?”, but I think a two-to-one result said something very clearly: that no matter what our thoughts may be on the different forms of PR, first past the post was still the favoured means of electing Members to constituencies in this country.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am keen to clarify something. The hon. Gentleman said that first past the post was the victor over the various forms of PR. Does he really believe that the 2011 referendum offered people a choice between first past the post and proportional representation? Does he actually believe that?

[Craig Mackinlay]

The choice, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, was between first past the post and an AV system. My point is that there was a choice to change what we have, which was rejected by two to one. I would take a lot of persuading to say that had some other, infinitely more academic, proper PR system been offered the result would have been much different. I will not say that first past the post is a system without flaws. Under various academic analyses, one can come up with a different alternative that might be better. However, I am minded of what Churchill once said about democracy: that it is the worst form of government, but it is better than all the others. That is probably true of first past the post as well. It has the benefit of being understandable and easily completed. It has a defined geographical area, which to me is the most powerful point: we maintain a clear link between those who elect and the elected representative.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

May I begin, as others have, by congratulating those who organised this petition—Make Votes Matter and other organisations? It is no mean feat to get 100,000 signatures on a petition to this place, and I very much hope that this is the start of the next phase of a push for reform of our voting system in this country. As the events of the next few years unravel and we go through Brexit, we will see constitutional upheaval anyway. In the midst of that, we can seize the opportunity to try to improve our democratic system.

The Scottish National party supports the petitioners. Indeed, we have long argued for proportional representation. We have tried to give it effect in our own national Parliament, and for as long as we are represented in a Union Parliament we will press the case for reform here as well. Ironically, we do that even though we are probably the greatest beneficiaries of the current system’s distortion. We had what now looks like a freak result in 2015 when we achieved 95% of the seats on 50% of the vote. That is not a good system; I know that, and we know it as a party. If the price of having a fair voting system in this country is that I and some of my colleagues do not get to return to this place, to my mind that is a price worth paying. I think that all of us should discuss this from the point of view of political principle rather than of what is good for our individual party.

The simple proposition we are debating is whether the parties in Westminster should be represented in proportion to the votes they receive at an election. That is such an overwhelmingly reasonable and correct proposition, it is difficult to argue against it. No wonder, therefore, that in opinion polling a vast majority of people say that they agree with that proposition. That is also why those who disagree with the proposition do not argue its opposite. I have not heard anyone say, “We think that political parties in Westminster should not have representation in line with the votes that were cast for them in the election.” Instead of that we get treated to, “Well, nothing’s really perfect. We know you mean well, but here is a whole series of technical obfuscations that takes us away from the debate in principle and get into a situation that confuses the electorate.” We need to return to principle and try to ensure that we focus on that debate.

I want to deal briefly with three of the arguments that have been put against this idea. The first is the proposition that proportional representation somehow does not lead to stable government, and that first past the post does. I do not want to repeat the arguments that have been made about the experience of recent elections, but I do want to say that there is a confusion between the majority Government of one party and majority Government. A coalition Government are a majority Government in that they have to have a majority of Members of Parliament supporting them in order to get anything through. In fact, despite many of the criticisms I would have of them, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government from 2010 to 2015 were remarkably stable and were able to put their programme through. People are confused, and to argue that the important thing about the system is that it should deliver a majority for one party, rather than a Government that have the majority of the electorate behind them, seems a misguided and indefensible position.

There has also been a suggestion that PR will lead to a system where electors actually lose power because it will be handed to political managers in the parties and deals will be done in smoke-filled rooms, or whatever their 21st-century equivalent is. That is not really the case either, is it? The truth is that if there is a proportional system people will be obliged to form Governments and will only be able to do so only if they have the support of the majority of people who took part in the election. That seems absolutely fundamentally democratic, rather than the current system where the Conservative party and its junior coalition partner formed a Government with just 43% of the vote.

The third and final point I want to address is this idea that proportional representation somehow weakens the constituency link. That is nonsense. Government Members have said, “We all, as MPs, try to represent people without fear or favour. It doesn’t matter whether they voted for us or not.” Of course that is true and I genuinely believe we all do that, but I do not think that the electors who come to our door believe that that is the case. In many ways, I think they would rather have someone who they believed would be more empathetic to their case because that person might agree with the difficulty that they are in. For example, if someone has an immigration problem, are they likely to seek support from an elected representative who has made public statements about the need for tighter immigration controls and crackdowns? Perhaps that would put them off. However, if, say, in Edinburgh, we had an STV system in which five MPs were elected but where each represented the whole city on an STV basis, an elector would have the opportunity to go to any one of them with a particular case. That would enhance and widen the constituency link, because people would be more likely to seek help from their Member of Parliament.

Fourteen million people did not vote on 8 June this year, and we all need to be aware of that and more concerned about it than we appear to be. I believe that one reason why people did not vote was our electoral system; let me illustrate that with an example. Suspend disbelief and imagine that I am Conservative supporter in Newcastle upon Tyne. I am 58 years old—which I am—and all my life, I have argued in support of the Conservative party, and I have gone out and voted Conservative. I have participated in 10 general elections and have never once been able to vote for someone who would be elected to represent my views. What is worse, the party that I support has said that they are not at all concerned and has offered compensation by saying, “Well, at the other end of the country it happens in reverse, so don’t worry.” But I am not sure that a barrister or a banker in the home counties will have the Conservative approach to the north-east that I am arguing for. An activist might put up with that level of frustration, but many of our fellow citizens have just given up on the process.

[Mr Jayawardena]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will not because I am very short of time. People simply do not see the point of voting in elections and decline to do so, so we have to see changing the electoral system as part of a process of democratic renewal in the governance of these islands that will address people being alienated from the system. If we do not do that, I really fear for the future of these institutions in which we all participate.

For a final minute, let me address the issue of the 2011 referendum. Twice I asked those who talked about it today to confirm whether they thought it was a referendum on PR and at least they had the good grace to concede that it was not. We have never had a referendum on proportional representation in this country. I do not know what went on in the coalition talks or why the Liberal Democrats got themselves into the position of agreeing to the referendum on AV. It was a policy that they did not agree with and it blocked the debate for the rest of that Parliament, and probably until now, but that is history. It is certainly not the case that the 2011 referendum should be taken as an endorsement of anything. I make the observation that many of the biggest changes in our franchise and in our democratic voting system have not been because of referendums. We did not have a referendum on giving women the vote or on lowering the age of majority to 21 and then to 18. Parliament decided that it was the right thing to do, so there is not even any need for a referendum.

The experience of operating PR in Scotland is very positive, not just for local government, but for our national Parliament. There is wide support among people in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament’s existence—even the Conservative party has come around to being an advocate for it. There is much more support for the Scottish Parliament now than there was when it was set up. That is partly because of some things it has done and partly because people feel that the body genuinely represents the plurality of opinion in Scotland. That gives it a safety net and the credibility that it needs to get on and act on their behalf, and we could do with that safety net and that big dose of credibility in this Parliament as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s important question, which gets to the heart of the issue—in marked contrast to the pantomime stuff we had earlier. I can absolutely confirm that. A UK framework does not mean the UK imposes a framework; it means agreement is reached between the UK Government and the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Four times the Secretary of State has been asked to name a single power that will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and four times he has declined to answer. I see little point in asking him a fifth time, but let me ask him this: when will the Government publish a schedule setting out which powers will be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and which will not? [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) really should not walk across the line of sight.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Mundell]

If the hon. Gentleman had not prefaced his question with those initial remarks, he would have asked a sensible question. I have set out that there is a dialogue ongoing with the Scottish Government in relation to the 111 powers. I set that out in much more detail at the Committee for which he was present yesterday, so I will not repeat what I said, but I am hopeful that, in early course, we will be able to publish exactly that sort of list.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The right hon. Gentleman’s refusal to name a single power, or even to set a timetable for saying when he will do so, can lead us to only one conclusion: that there are forces in his Government that do not want to see any powers devolved at all. How does that sit with his Department’s responsibility to protect the devolution settlement?

[David Mundell]

I have rarely heard such complete and utter nonsense. I will be judged by the Scotland Office’s record on devolution, and that means implementing the Calman commission in full, implementing the Scotland Act 2016 in full and taking forward the return of powers from Brussels, with a presumption of devolution. We will deliver, and the people of Scotland will see that we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

It is important that we mark this centenary next year, and recognise the role that women have played in this House and in public life. I want young women and women to be able to see this House as a place they actively want to come to—that they want to contribute to their society and respond to the needs of constituents and make a real difference to people’s lives. That is what I am in it for, that is why I have encouraged more women to come into this House, and I am pleased to say that we have more women on our Benches than ever before.

Finally, all of us in this House should have due care and attention for the way in which we refer to other people and should show women in public life the respect they deserve.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Q11. Yesterday, the Scottish Parliament voted by 91 votes to 28 to ban fracking in Scotland. May I ask the Prime Minister why she would not consider following Scotland’s lead and introduce a moratorium in the rest of the United Kingdom in order to carry out a full evaluation of the health and environmental consequences of this controversial technology, and in order for the public to be consulted?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an issue on which the hon. Gentleman and I are simply going to disagree. I think that shale gas has the potential to power economic growth in this country and to support thousands of jobs in the oil and gas industries and in other sectors. It will provide a new domestic energy source. We have more than 50 years’ drilling experience in the UK, and one of the best records in the world for economic development while protecting our environment. The shale wealth fund is going to provide up to £1 billion of additional resources to local communities, and local councils are going to be able to retain 100% of the business rates they collect from shale gas developments. We will be bringing forward further proposals in relation to this during this Parliament. This is an important potential new source of energy, and it is right that we should use it and take the benefits from it for our economy, for jobs and for people’s futures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 11th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

A lot of us are concerned about the shenanigans going on here and would prefer it if the Government gave a straightforward commitment to transferring relevant powers to the devolved Administrations instead of foutering around. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when referring to UK-wide arrangements after Brexit, he is talking about co-decision between the UK Government and the devolved Governments—or does he mean that this Government will tell the others what to do?

[Damian Green]

No, the spirit and letter of the devolution settlement is that there are areas of responsibility for this Parliament and the Westminster Government, and areas of responsibility for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We have said that these have to be UK-wide frameworks. I think the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government accept that we do not want to break up the UK single market, but that there are responsibilities that will remain with Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

From that question, Mr Speaker, you would not think that since 2007 the SNP Government in Scotland have been responsible for public sector pay and that a public sector pay cap has applied for most of that time. As far as I am aware, the SNP Government have not lifted the public sector pay freeze in Scotland; they have announced a consultation.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

May I put on record the fact that the Scottish women’s football team will play an important European championship match tonight? I wish them all the best in their endeavours.

I do not think the Secretary of State fully appreciates the sense of grievance about the pay cap among hard-working public sector workers in Scotland. The Scottish Government have declared their intention to review and end the pay cap; will he argue in the United Kingdom Government for the same policy?

[David Mundell]

May I first welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new place? When the new SNP leader at Westminster said that he was reluctant, I did not realise that he was going to be reluctant to do Scottish questions, or that he was going to downgrade them.

I am clear that hard decisions have to be taken on public sector pay. If the Scottish Government, in their responsibilities, are saying that they are going to increase public sector pay, they have to identify where the funds are coming from.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I thank the Secretary of State for his kind words, but he and I will get on a lot better in this process if he does me the courtesy of answering the question. I asked him to state his intention to argue within Cabinet and the British Government to end the pay cap in Scotland so that workers in the public sector there will get the same rate of pay for the job, whether they work for the Scottish Government or for his Government.

[David Mundell]

I think I did answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Government have struck the right balance on pay and ensuring continued employment. We see that in Scotland, where we have the lowest unemployment figures on record. It is better that more people are in work in the public sector than that we had changed the public sector pay cap in previous years.

UK Elections: Abuse and Intimidation

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 12th July 2017 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I appreciate that we are short of time and I know that we will discuss this issue again in the main Chamber next week, so I will try to keep my remarks brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) on securing this important debate, and I associate my party with the sentiments that he expressed.

I and many of my colleagues have been subjected to exactly the type of activity that the hon. Gentleman described. Indeed, someone was recently convicted for making a threat against me. Like others, I am extremely concerned that it seems that the majority of the perpetrators of such abuse are male and the majority of the targets are female Members—or at least the greatest intensity of threats is directed towards them. That should be a cause for extreme concern for everyone.

We should be absolutely clear that we are not talking about a bit of political banter. We are not talking about the rough and tumble of political debate, or even about satirising or caricaturing another person’s point of view; we are talking about vile abuse—dehumanising people and sometimes inciting violence against them. That sort of activity should not be deemed acceptable in any democratic society.

We are also, I hope, not suggesting that there is anything special that needs to be protected about Members of Parliament; we are arguing about abuse that should be tackled no matter who in society suffers from it. In that sense, I agree with the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). This issue cannot be taken in isolation from general debates in society, or from the general portrayals in the media of certain people in society. I will not say exactly what the link is, but to say that there is not an association or a link would be extremely problematic.

[Martin Whitfield (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

We are very short of time, but I will if the hon. Gentleman is quick.

[Martin Whitfield]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree with a senior Scottish National party politician that now is the time for people to sign up to a code of conduct, and now is the time to ban anonymous social media accounts?

[Tommy Sheppard]

Yes. I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about my colleague Alyn Smith MEP—a member of the SNP national executive—who called for that. I was going to deal with that point at the end of my remarks.

We need to consider the wider political factors at play and whether there is anything we can do to try to change the political discourse in our country through the way we operate politics. As elected Members of Parliament, we have a special responsibility to take a lead on that. There are undoubtedly a lot of people with a legitimate sense of grievance about the lot that they have received in society, for one reason or another. They feel alienated from the political process and unable to express their point of view.

Of course, that has always been the case; the difference is that, whereas those people had to go to extreme lengths to vent their anger before, it is now remarkably easy. All they need to do is switch on their phone and they can instantly and anonymously direct the most vile abuse to whomever they want. But that does not mean that we should not look at the underlying reasons for that alienation and disaffection and see whether there is stuff that we can do, through our education system or by improving political discourse generally, to try to minimise that. I do not say that to excuse people’s behaviour in any way; I am simply trying to find some explanation for it, so that we might begin the long-term process of trying to prevent it.

I caution colleagues very much against trying to make this a party political matter. Every Member of this House—albeit some much more than others—has been subjected to some sort of abuse. It crosses all political parties, and it is not a matter that one political party experiences more than any other. I understand that sometimes, people who offer such abuse identify themselves as a political opponent, or a supporter of a political opponent, of the person to whom the abuse is directed, but that does not mean that the abuse is sanctioned by a political party or that such people speak for a political party. Therefore, if we are to tackle this issue properly, we must do so on a cross-party basis, and we certainly could agree a voluntary code of conduct among the political parties that states what is acceptable and what is not.