Public Order Act 2023

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Tommy Sheppard

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Security (Tom Tugendhat)]

It feels slightly churlish for a Conservative to get in the way of a family dispute between the SNP and Labour, but if I may answer on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, I will begin by giving a little praise and thanks to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain). As a serving police officer, she did a huge amount for her community and our country. It is wonderful to have her voice in this Chamber. I must, however, disagree with the points she made.

A lot of the aspects of these debates have been focused on the nature of protest. The reality is that this is not a debate about the nature of protest. It is not a debate about the right of free citizens to associate on the streets to call for or against Government policies. It is not a debate about the ability of individuals, from anywhere across these islands, to protest about whether their fellow citizens should or should not be allowed to do things. It is not even a debate about whether we in this House should or should not encourage, or dissuade fellow citizens from certain actions. No, this is a debate about whether or not a small minority of people should be allowed to use disruption as protest: to use disruption as a way of stopping others from conducting their lives—

[Tommy Sheppard]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Tugendhat]

I won’t, thank you. As the hon. Gentleman spoke for as much time as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly), I am sure he will give me the few moments I have to close.

This is about whether a few people can use disruption, instead of allowing many to associate, to express their views and to just go about their business as they have every right to do. It is absolutely essential that we stick to that point because that is exactly why the then Scottish Justice Secretary Keith Brown—I am still rather a fan of his, actually, but I know I am probably unique in that in this Chamber—supported it. He welcomed it and agreed it. As a former royal marine, he knows about order and discipline, so I am delighted that he did so. He welcomed it because he knows that protest is absolutely legitimate, but disruption and the use of disruption to silence others, to stop people going about their business and to dissuade others from expressing their views is not.

That is really quite something, but I suppose the main point of the debate is not really about protest at all, is it? Here, I am slightly drawn to the hon. Member for Croydon—the one opposite me, the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), rather than the one who sits next to me, the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire, my right hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). She pointed out correctly that this is really—

Middle East

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Tommy Sheppard

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

On behalf of my party, I applaud the Back Benchers who have secured today’s debate. We now know from one of the Conservative contributions earlier that we will be asked on Wednesday to vote on whether or not to go to war in Syria. It is timely and appropriate that in a week in which such a proposition is being put, we should consider the wider historical and political perspectives in the region.

It was less than 100 years ago when the then colonial powers carved up the lands that were once controlled by the Ottoman empire and created the map of the middle east and the territories that we see today. I have to say, on reflection, that some of those decisions were arbitrary and that some did not take into account the territorial and ethnic identifications of the people who lived there. Most importantly, those powers certainly did not consult the people who were to be governed by these arrangements and nor did they have at their heart the democratic and secular principles to which I think we all aspire.

Those arrangements have not served us well in the last century. They have been the source, I believe, of much of the insecurity in that region. If we are to have a wider debate and a wider strategy, this country needs to be concerned not to repeat the mistakes of the past and to ensure that it sees a future in which people will be consulted on their own government. There is probably widespread agreement in this Chamber on the type of political arrangements we would like to see in that part of the world. We believe that they should be democratic and that people should be allowed to elect those who govern them. We would also agree that we want them to be secular or, if not entirely secular, at least to be states that will tolerate religious freedom and allow religious expression.

In pursuing those objectives, I believe that we have to be both consistent and coherent in our foreign policy. It is fair to say that that consistency and coherence have been absent from the foreign policies of this country under successive Governments. I want to pick up on three examples in respect of which more work is required.

The first is the situation with the Kurds. Many have applauded the peshmerga, and we and other western countries are coming to their assistance and providing them with the resources they need in the current war that they are waging. We will need to consider and support demands for Kurdish autonomy in the north of Syria, and we will also need to consider, I think, whether the time has come to recognise that there should be a national state of Kurdistan, which would not just bring confidence to the Kurdish people but might end up providing more security in the region in the longer term.

[Tom Tugendhat]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the very policies that Her Majesty’s Government and our allies have pursued in the region. On the possibility of a Kurdistan, the hon. Gentleman has elucidated some interesting arguments. The only narrow point I would make is that the creation of a Kurdish state, if that were to happen, would cause such unrest in the region that it might be something best considered in due course rather than at a time when the region is already inflamed.

[Tommy Sheppard]

My point is that it must be on the agenda, and that we cannot have a situation whereby we appear to be allying with the Kurdish forces in Syria and Iraq, using them in many ways as a proxy, yet at the same time denying their aspirations.

That brings us, I am afraid, to the situation with Turkey. I regard the recent Turkish elections, in which President Erdogan strengthened his position in the country, to be a retrograde step. This country needs, I think, to have a serious dialogue with the Turkish Government and to bring our other allies into that dialogue as well—and we need to say that the way in which they regard the Kurds is not acceptable and will not lead to the longer-term peace we want to see in the region.

The second aspect of Saudi Arabia has been mentioned already. It is a state that, frankly, is barely beyond the medieval in how it treats many of its people. I, for one, am dumbfounded at the continuing closeness of the Foreign Office with the Government of Saudi Arabia and our continuing desire to arm them, even in a situation where there is now credible evidence that the Saudi royal air force is using British-supplied weapons against the civilian population in neighbouring Yemen—contrary to this country’s rules relating to arms supply. I think we have seriously to question what our attitude should be to the Saudi Government and what their role would be in preparing a lasting settlement in the area.

My third and final point, relating to the need for consistency and coherence, is the Israel-Palestine question, which has in many ways been overlooked in the last few years. The situation there is getting worse than it has ever been before. The violence is reaching very intense levels, and, as was pointed out earlier by, I think, the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), the disparity in that violence is really quite marked. The number of casualties on the two sides is entirely unequal, and many aspects of the reaction of the Israeli defence forces are disproportionate and, indeed, could be considered unlawful. We cannot continue to ignore the situation in Palestine, in the occupied territories and the green zone.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I am not sure whether I will be given extra time, but I will take the intervention anyway.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman forgive me if I make a very short comment on the Israel-Palestine question? He has raised some excellent points, and is advancing an extremely fluent argument encompassing most of the middle east. What has struck me over the past four or five years—and I wonder whether it has struck him as well—is that since the so-called Arab spring, the question of Israel has not been mentioned on the Arab streets. The question is not whether or not Israel is legitimate or illegitimate; it relates to the governance of the Arab countries themselves. Is it not incumbent on us to focus on that question of governance—of which the hon. Gentleman himself has just spoken so fluently—rather than sending ourselves down a rabbit hole and talking about the Israel-Palestine question, which is, let’s face it, distinct from the question of governance in the region?

[Tommy Sheppard]

It is distinct, but it is not possible to consider a lasting peace in the middle east without addressing the situation there, which I think is being brushed under the carpet at the moment.

In the occupied territories, the Israeli Government are sponsoring and supporting both the development of new settlements and the demolition of Palestinian homes and properties, which is creating a situation that is close to the annexation of those occupied territories by the state of Israel. That may be Israel’s intention, but if it pursues the same path, the viability of a separate Palestinian state will not be there, and hence the two-state solution will not be there. If the Israeli Government intend to continue their present policies, the Israeli Government should be challenged to say what they consider to be the longer-term conditions for a settlement of the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis in that part of the world. Meanwhile, millions of Palestinian refugees are still being held in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, in a sort of holding pattern, and are being denied any hope or any prospect of a place that they can call home.

I must say in all seriousness that one of the things that this country could do—acting in concert with other western countries—is try to take a fresh initiative on the question of Israel-Palestine, and be seen to try to advocate the human rights of Palestinians and the requirement for a lasting and balanced peace in the area. I think that that would, single-handedly, do a great deal to undermine and counter much of the mythology that is being put about on the issue of Daesh, and the suggestion that this is a conflict between the west and Islam. We should be seen to take new action on Palestine, but at present no one is talking, and no talks are planned for the future. I know from correspondence with the Minister that he is sympathetic to much of what I have just said, but this seems to be the policy that dare not speak its name. The United Kingdom cannot continue to be silent on what is happening in that part of the world.

Let me now say something about Syria, which is the main event that we are discussing. I must make it clear that the Scottish National party understands the threat that Daesh poses to our way of life, and that we sympathise absolutely with the requirement for international action to undermine and eradicate that organisation. We are, however, anxious not to do something in the short term that would make things worse in the medium and the long term. That is why we remain unconvinced about the need for air strikes, which, it is proposed, should take place not with a ground strategy to follow, but in isolation.

Aerial bombardment in isolation means rearranging the piles of rubble, and it invariably results in some innocent casualties as collateral damage. It creates more refugees, and, above all, it plays into the narrative of Daesh that the crusaders are coming to deny the Muslim people their way of life. Unless there are forces on the ground, all that air strikes do is destroy territory rather than controlling it. Unless the air strikes are linked with a proper ground campaign, we think it irrelevant to make the Royal Air Force the 13th air force in the skies over Syria. For 15 months the Americans have been bombing these positions almost daily, yet the situation on the ground in Syria has not changed by one inch, and, if anything, Daesh is stronger than it was 15 months ago.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I would rather press on, if my hon. Friend does not mind.

At this point in time, all MPs are equal. I can vote on everything the Leader of the House can vote on in this Chamber. If the proposals go through, from tonight onwards I will be denied the opportunity to vote on behalf of the people who elected me on matters that may affect them. That is wrong. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not believe it, look at proposed Standing Order No. 83N(4). It describes not just a process of creating an additional layer of consent, but a process of vetoing the opinions of some Members of this House. It says quite clearly that if the consent is not given, then the matter goes no further and the Bill “shall not pass”.

What is being described is a process that will work like this: a piece of proposed legislation will come before the House and in the middle of our proceedings there will come a point where the representatives of the people of Scotland will be asked to leave the room and take no further part in the discussion.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I will press on, I am afraid. I have already given way.

If, in the process of your discussion without us, you decide that the proposed legislation will not pass any further, we get no further say in the matter. That is exactly what is wrong with these proposals.

There is another point on which there has been much comment. Who decides whether a matter is of relevance to our constituents? It has been proposed that we have this invidious role for the Speaker, pushing him into what can only be a legal conundrum. I ask the Leader of the House: what happens if there is a disagreement? What happens if the people who elected me in Edinburgh believe that something is being discussed in this House that is relevant to them and they should have a right to vote on it? They will have no opportunity but to seek redress in the courts through the process of judicial review. Is that really the conundrum in which we wish to place the Speaker? I hope not.

As remarked upon, why should this apply only to Members of the House of Commons? I would love to see the House of Lords abolished, but it exists at the moment, and is it not remarkable that of all the constitutional imperfections in our system, we are discussing this one, rather than the fact that most Members of Parliament are not even elected in the first place? Conservative Members will say that those Members do not represent territorial or geographic interests. It is part of their collective self-delusion that they do. From the Marquess of Lothian to the Lords of Springburn, Bearsden and Glenscorrodale, they believe they represent the communities in which they operate, yet there is no suggestion that we limit their powers to debate and vote on legislation. Why just pick on us? The answer can only be: this is payback for the general election, when the SNP won convincingly in Scotland and the Conservative party won only 14% of the vote.

I know it is in your manifesto, but just because it is in your manifesto does not make it right—

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Tom Tugendhat and Tommy Sheppard

Thursday 18th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard]

I point out to the hon. Lady that 16-year-olds can marry without their parents’ consent in Scotland. I think that trying to draw a comparison to cigarettes and alcohol is mischievous, to be honest. I think that having the right to vote is an awful lot less dangerous than the consumption of cigarettes or alcohol. We should look for the widest possible and most generous interpretation.

We live in a changing world, and I think that this House needs to be aware of the world the way it is. There have been particular changes that relate to this debate over the past decade. There has been an information explosion in this country. People are more connected, aware and engaged than ever. Sixteen-year-olds are far more aware of what is going on in this world and in this country than many of their parents are. To say that they do not have the right to make up their minds on things, frankly, is to treat them with disrespect.

As I said earlier this week, we should be making our policy on the basis of evidence, and we are indeed fortunate in this case, as in some others, to have direct evidence of what happens when we lower the voting age to 16, and this is because of the experience of the Scottish referendum. We saw a remarkable thing. Despite concerns that young people would not be interested in voting, we saw a 97% registration rate among 16 and 17-year-olds and a 75% turnout. The turnout was slightly lower than average, but it was higher than some other age cohorts. That dismisses completely the idea that if they are given the opportunity, young people will not want to get engaged.

[Tom Tugendhat]

Will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on his economic argument, which I find extremely interesting? If he is saying that as soon as someone is economically viable, they have the right to vote, does he recognise that the duke’s boy who inherits millions of acres of land and starts paying tax at the age of three should be enfranchised, whereas the post office worker’s boy who does not pay tax until he is earning should not have the right to vote until that point?

[Tommy Sheppard]

I would not enfranchise him, but I would certainly be happy to take the money. I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) for addressing what I believe to be the elephant in the room. She let the cat out of the bag by expressing her concern about what 16 and 17-year-olds might do if they had the right to vote. I think there are probably too many people in this Chamber whose attitude towards whether to allow young people the right to vote is determined by their perception of how young people might exercise that vote.

Again, I refer to the experience of the Scottish referendum and ask hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to put caution to one side. Two years out from the Scottish referendum date of 18 September, the attitude profile of 16 and 17-year-olds in Scotland was significantly different from how it ended up on the day of the vote. Quite simply, an awful lot of people changed their minds during the referendum campaign, because they applied their intellect and their thought. They listened to the arguments and made up their minds. To my mind, that vindicates not only the democratic process but the decision to allow young people to have the vote in the first place.