Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 10th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)]

It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). I hope that other Members listened to his contribution and what he had to say, because I share his concerns about using domestic legislation in this Bill to deviate from Foreign Office policy. That is the clear concern that many of us have.

In an exchange with the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) when we explored this matter in Committee, we talked about what the actual foreign policy is. The Bill, as it is currently constructed, clearly conflates Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories and the Golan Heights, yet the UK Government’s guidance on overseas business risk states:

“The UK has a clear position on Israeli settlements: The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Gaza and the Golan Heights have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Settlements are illegal under international law, constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

The concern we have is that the Bill is less than subtle as a change, if not to direct policy then certainly in emphasis. Equating Israel and the occupied territories is unique in any legislation, let alone in a statement, and it questions the UK’s long-established, cross-party support for a two-state solution based on 1967 borders.

As a party, we believe that the Bill is also an assault on Westminster’s devolution settlements, not just for the Scottish Parliament but for the Welsh Senedd. The legislation undermines devolution and restricts the ability of public bodies to make their own moral judgment on matters of human rights and climate consciousness.

I heard the Secretary of State argue that public bodies should not deviate from foreign policy. As we have discovered in this debate and in all the debates we have had, in 1981, City of Glasgow District Council—a Labour-led local authority—gave Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city of Glasgow. It also encouraged the boycotting of South African goods and services, but Foreign Office policy at the time was not to support sanctions on the apartheid South African regime, so the question again is: could Glasgow District Council in 1981 have awarded Nelson Mandela the freedom of the city of Glasgow, and would it have been allowed to encourage the boycott of South African goods and services, under this Bill? If the Bill had been in place then, the answer to that question would be no.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is doing a great job of putting on record the SNP’s opposition to this foul piece of legislation. Does he think it is particularly distasteful and grotesque that the Bill is coming at this time and that the UK Government’s only legislative response to what is happening in the middle east is to try to bring forward proposals to stifle criticism of Israel, when it is clear and there is so much evidence that Israel stands facing charges of breaching international law and breaching the Geneva convention? Surely most right-minded people in this country who believe in decency and fairness will think that this is the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[Chris Stephens]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think many Members have a concern about whether it is appropriate to proceed with the Bill at this moment in time. Other Members may wish to state that when they get the opportunity to speak.

The Bill extends to devolved Governments and local authorities in the devolved nations; because procurement and investment by public bodies are not reserved matters, it would appear to breach the Sewel convention if the devolved legislatures do not agree. I note that the Scottish Parliament has not provided legislative consent to the Bill.

We are also concerned that public bodies will not be able to make decisions about environmental protections. For example, Friends of the Earth has said that the Bill will

“prevent public bodies from divesting from fossil fuel, as well as diverting their money away from inadvertently funding human rights abuses abroad, such as modern slavery in corporate supply chains.”

Labour rights would also not be allowed to be considered. Poor workers’ rights are not restricted to any one region of the world—we see them from China to Colombia, from Bangladesh to Angola, from Cambodia to Qatar and from Mexico to Romania—and, according to the World Economic Forum, the abuse of workers’ rights around the world reached a record high in 2022. I believe that when public bodies make funding arrangements for procurement or anything else, they should be allowed to consider labour rights. Our concern is that the Bill does not allow that to happen.

I want to make it clear—as I have at every stage of the Bill—that the Scottish National party is concerned that antisemitism is on the rise around the world. We must not look away, and we must call it out whenever we see it. Antisemitism is a truly global and iniquitous poison. The Bill does not address the very epidemic of rising antisemitism that the Government claim they want to tackle. We are also concerned that the Government have ignored the evidence and concerns that many organisations have put forward about the Bill. The Balfour Project, the trade union Unison—of which I am proud to be a member—the Union of Jewish Students and Jews for Justice for Palestinians have all provided good evidence on their concerns about the Bill, but I am afraid they have not been taken on board by the Government when we have considered these matters.

The Government have rejected sensible amendments. Some of us have real concerns about clause 3 and very real concerns about clause 4. I never thought I would ever say it, and I am having to say again that I seek the removal of clause 4. The Government rejected amendments to protect devolution and other public bodies, and amendments to ensure compatibility with human rights. The changing of foreign policy, the impinging on the rights of devolved institutions and other public bodies, the ignoring of the evidence and the rejecting of sensible amendments are the key reasons why the Bill does not deserve a Third Reading.

Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 3rd July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt).

Like many others, I think this is a sordid and grubby little Bill that takes away many of the political freedoms that we have enjoyed for decades in this country. It follows, of course, similar pieces of legislation from the Government over the past few years. They have sought to restrict our freedom to dissent and protest, but this Bill goes further, as others have already remarked upon. For the first time that I can remember, the Bill seeks to criminalise thought as well as deeds. That takes it into a whole new dimension and is reason enough for it to be thrown out by this House tonight.

We live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Humanity faces many challenges, some of them existential in nature. I would argue that this is a time in our public discourse and public life when we need more moral judgments and ethical considerations, not fewer as the Bill tries to suggest. In fact, the Bill does not actually outlaw local authorities and public authorities taking ethical and moral judgments; it simply outlaws them taking ones that the Government disagree with. The Government are trying to tape to themselves not just the legitimacy of being the elected political Administration of the country, but the role of arbiter and mouthpiece for all of civil society. That is quite ridiculous.

As others have said, many people elect their public officials to represent their point of view, and they have a right to do so. If we constrain the ability of the representative, we also constrain the ability of the people. It is in the field of pension policy that this is most ridiculous. Like others, I am, since the age of 60, in receipt of a local government pension. That is because I paid into a savings fund for the years in which I worked in local government. It is my money and that of my fellow pensioners. What right do this Government have to tell me what I can and cannot do with my own money?

The Government have sought to place the question of Israel right at the heart of this legislation and of their argument. It is fundamentally based on a flawed premise: that criticism of the Israeli Government or of Israeli state policies is in itself antisemitic. That is wrong. We in this House should never get ourselves into the position of thinking that we have to choose between defending the human and political rights of Palestinians in the middle east, and fighting antisemitism on the streets of our own country and throughout the world. We can and we must do both.

I had the privilege to attend last week a meeting called by Yachad, a Jewish organisation, in this House. I heard Michael Sfard, a distinguished human rights lawyer from Israel, speak on the situation. He gave a concise picture of what is happening in Israel today and described the actions of the current Israeli Government—the most right-wing, anti-Palestinian Government that Israel has ever had. He described how two projects are under way in that area of the world at the moment: the first is the de jure annexation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories into the state of Israel, and the second is the changing of constitutional law inside the state of Israel to allow that to happen. That is what has provoked mass demonstrations by the ordinary Israeli public on the streets of Israel, where hundreds of thousands of people are turning up to protest.

That is what has led to a situation in which the current Government of Israel has opinion poll ratings down at 20%. If there were an election today, they would be thrown out of office by a landslide. Yet in the context of what is happening on the streets of the middle east at the moment, and of even the American Administration trying to put distance between themselves and President Netanyahu, what is the policy of the UK Government? Their policy—an outlier in the international community—is to welcome the Israeli Administration with open arms. No one would be more pleased or gain more succour from the passing of such legislation than the current Israeli Administration, and no one would be more crestfallen about its passing than those of progressive liberal opinion inside the state of Israel, who do not want that to happen. The choice that we need to make is whether we will stand with the people of Israel and of Palestine in protecting their human and political rights against a very right-wing anti-Palestinian Administration, or give succour—almost alone in the world in doing so—to that Administration.

I have already run out of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me finish with this. We have to ask ourselves why the Bill comes at this particular time, in the middle of all the crises in the world and the domestic economic crises right here on our own doorstep. Why this piece of legislation at this particular time? I think the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge) hit the nail on the head: this is a grubby measure by the governing party to try to embarrass His Majesty’s Opposition for party political advantage. It is sordid, bad politics. It will not help Jewish communities in this country and it will not help to find a solution in the middle east for all the people who live there.

Sharing Economy: Short-term Letting

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 16th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Like many other aspects of our online lives, this started as a good idea: take a list of people who want short-term accommodation and use the internet to match it with a list of people who can provide it. Unfortunately, what we see today has become a grotesque distortion of the original idea. As has been mentioned, the vast majority of properties that are offered as short-term lets are not spare rooms in somebody’s house: they are whole properties being offered on a commercial basis. That is regrettable, because the process has become a driver for the removal of accommodation from the private rented sector into the short-term-let market, mainly catering for leisure uses. It has resulted in appalling consequences for the local housing market. Now, in effect, we have operators operating unlicensed hotels, but rather than the accommodation being in one building it is spread throughout an entire community in a pepper-pot fashion.

This is a problem throughout Scotland, but it affects some parts more than others. The highlands in particular has a very great problem, but probably the biggest problem of all is in our capital city, Edinburgh, the city I am proud to represent in this House. In 2019, fully one third of all the Airbnb listings in Scotland were in Edinburgh. In some of the wards, particularly those in the city centre, one fifth of all accommodation is listed on Airbnb. By the way, that is just Airbnb; there are other operators, so the scale of the penetration of short-term lets in Edinburgh city centre is probably even greater than that.

By the end of the previous decade, the situation had reached crisis proportions, which is why the city authorities, working with the Scottish Government, decided to act. I will say something about that in a moment, but first let me describe some of the consequences of the process for my local community. With this penetration of up to one in five properties being available for short-term lets has come a hollowing out of the local community, particularly in some of our historic areas, which we want to see thrive. It is impossible for people to get to know their neighbours if they change every week. The people who come—there used to be people who lived there on a permanent basis—no longer send their kids to local schools. They do not even use the local shops, because they tend to arrive and get an out-of-town supermarket delivery to the door. They play no role in building the local economy or in community cohesion. As a double whammy, they provide a great deal of disturbance and inconvenience to the people who are left to live there.

I repeatedly have casework on this issue. Just this week a local councillor, Finlay McFarlane, brought to me the case of a resident who has lived off the Royal Mile for more than 20 years. She is currently finishing her PhD thesis but is unable to do so because most of her block is now short-term lets, with people coming in to have parties, on week nights as well as at weekends, with the constant confusion, noise and disturbance that results. In her words, it has become “almost uninhabitable”. That is a common problem.

As well as the loss of homes, there is another consequence for a city such as mine that relies a lot on tourism and where tourism is very important. A number of bona fide hotel operators have come to me and pointed out that people are running unlicensed hotels on a commercial basis, without having health and safety standards, without meeting all the other requirements and without paying taxes. Hotel operators are being undercut as accommodation providers by people using the short-term-let sector. It is, then, grossly unfair in distorting the tourism market as well.

As has been referenced, we are trying to do something about this in Scotland. The law changed last year: from 1 March, the law has come in to create a new framework for the operation of short-term lets in Scotland, of which my own city is determined to take advantage. The key thing is to bring in a licensing framework, with the local authority being the licensing body. In order to operate a let on a short-term basis, one will require a licence. That will be the law from 1 October this year for anybody trying to enter the market as a new operator, and by 2024 it will be a requirement for everybody operating a short-term let to have such a licence, and it will be unlawful if they do not have it.

There is another important component to the legislation in Scotland. That is the ability of local authorities to ask for permission to designate a short-term-let control area within their boundary, where there is a particular need for housing stress or where there is a particular problem of abuse. The City of Edinburgh Council has taken the unusual step of asking the Scottish Government to designate the entire city as a control area. The council took that decision, with every party on the local authority supporting it, and after an extensive consultation involving 5,600 responses where more than 88% of respondents said that that was what they wanted. The Scottish Government have agreed to that. What that means is that, in order to let a property that is not currently let on a short-term basis, a person will require not just a licence, but planning permission. They will have to apply for and get a change-of-use planning consent as a condition of getting the licence if they are in a control area.

That is what will happen in Edinburgh, but it will take some time. It is important, as with other matters, that planning decisions are consistent with the local development plan, which means that they have to be evidenced and backed up, so we do need to make amendments and get them bedded in. I am confident that, in the years ahead, my city will be able to get control of this. If these measures do not work, I can assure Members that there is an appetite for going further and making sure that we get other measures that do work.

In conclusion, I shall reiterate what colleagues have said on a cross-party basis. This is not a matter of saying that there should not be short-term lets, or trying to do down people who want to rent out a spare room—far from it. It is simply saying that if people wish to do this on a commercial basis, then they have to operate on a level playing field, with the same obligations and the same consequences as anybody else who tries to run a business. They have to take cognisance and be respectful of the local community and the conditions in which they are trying to make that money. I hope the situation in Edinburgh and in Scotland will improve dramatically, and I commend these measures to the UK Government, because they may want to consider following Scotland’s lead and doing this in other parts of the UK where it is so urgently needed.

Levelling Up

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

This is somewhat underwhelming, is it not? Not so much a dead cat as a damp squib. This might have been an opportunity to bring forward proposals for the modernisation of government in these islands, to devolve further powers and competence to the national Administrations, and to do something about the asymmetric and centralised mess that is the government of England, but, no, what we are promised is that in eight years’ time we will get a better bus service. It is, frankly, insulting given the amount of political capital that the Government have invested in this. This is a Government who have broken trust with the British people, and getting it back will require people and policies of substance, rather than glib soundbites and photo opportunities for Ministers in hard hats and hi-viz vests. The statement literally has nothing in it for the people I represent in this House, but we will watch with interest as this con is perpetrated on the people of the north of England.

Meanwhile, in Scotland we have another Brexit betrayal: the replacement funds for the EU structural funds are falling £900 million short, and control is being centralised to Whitehall. That is what we are receiving from this Government, and that is why more and more people are turning to the option of political independence for their country.

My central question is this: how does this square with the rest of the Government’s policies? We have a chronic and increasing problem with inequality in Britain, yet everything this Government do seems to make it worse: the decision to cut universal credit and the below-inflation increases in other benefits are driving the gap between rich and poor even higher; so, too, is the decision to increase basic rate taxes and not to increase taxes for those who can most afford them; and so, too, is the Government’s inaction and unwillingness to do anything about the cost of living and spiralling energy bills. So my question, Secretary of State, is this: given all of that—given the Government’s policy in the round—is this not just a piece of meaningless window dressing?

[Michael Gove]

The short answer is no. The longer answer is this: we work in partnership with the Scottish Government, and we recognise their devolved responsibilities, but people in Scotland pay their taxes to have two Governments working together for them, and that is what we have done. The levelling-up fund has ensured that there has been investment in North Ayrshire, in Edinburgh and in Aberdeen, to help communities and councils led by Scottish nationalist councillors, and that has been backed by SNP MPs. The UK shared prosperity fund has also guaranteed funds going to Scotland, ensuring that Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and Cornwall receive every bit as much outside the EU as they ever did within it, but with our control of that funding, not the European Union’s.

Today, we have announced additional funding for an innovation accelerator in Glasgow. In Glasgow University and the University of Strathclyde, Glasgow has two of the United Kingdom’s leading research universities. We are supporting and backing them. I explained to the First Minister last night how important it was that we worked together, and we will seek to work together.

When it comes to inequality, the Scottish Government have presided over growing inequality in education outcomes in schools in Scotland. We want to work with them to reverse that. When it comes to devolution, rather than devolving more powers to local government in Scotland, as we are doing in England, the Scottish Government have centralised powers. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has been eloquent in complaining about that. Again, that is a devolved matter, but if the critique from the hon. Gentleman is to carry force, it is vital that he recognises the beam in his own eye before pointing out the mote in others.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 15th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Jenrick]

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. One of the great successes and few silver linings during the pandemic has been the fact that, working with charities and councils across the country, we have helped to bring in more than 90% of those people who are sleeping rough on our streets. That is something we should all be proud of and has undoubtedly saved hundreds, if not thousands of lives, but that is just the beginning. I am now working with the homelessness Minister—my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall)—and Dame Louise Casey on a long-term plan to give those people the accommodation they need to move on and restart their lives. That begins with working with local councils and bringing forward more than 6,000 new homes.

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

The Secretary of State’s answers to the hon. Members for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and for Blaydon (Liz Twist) are entirely unsatisfactory. He accepts that he acted unlawfully in overruling a local authority to grant planning permission to a wealthy Tory donor, helping him to avoid £40 million in tax. Will the Secretary of State explain to the House how he expects the public to have confidence in planning procedures given his actions, and why he thinks it is appropriate for him to remain in post while a police investigation into his behaviour is ongoing?

[Robert Jenrick]

I am happy to clarify a number of those points, the vast majority of which were factually incorrect. I understand that a Labour Member of the House of Lords did make an allegation to the police. That was swiftly assessed by members of the Metropolitan police, and they informed me that there were no criminal matters to investigate and they had no intention of taking it further. I would welcome the hon. Gentleman withdrawing that suggestion.

I entirely stand behind the decision that I made. I made it with an open mind, because we want to see more homes built in this country and in particular in our capital city. This development would have led to 1,500 homes and 250 affordable homes. I remind the House that this contentious decision came to my desk as Secretary of State because the local council had failed to determine it in accordance with the law.

Deaths of Homeless People

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 20th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I recognise the need for concerted action across the board. When I look at the numbers, I see that we have not done enough and that we need to do more. That is what the rough-sleeping strategy is all about and that is what a number of things I have spoken to the House about this morning are profoundly all about. I want rough sleeping to be a thing of the past. There are clear lessons that we can apply and learn from. I will continue to reflect on and review the data as it emerges. As I said, we have provided an initial £100 million for the rough-sleeping strategy. I intend to have annual reviews so that, where further steps and measures are needed, we can take action to ensure we are making a difference.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

My question is about violent assaults on rough sleepers. I am sure that most Members—indeed, most right-minded people—have been horrified and felt revulsion at the recent attacks on people who are already in an extremely weak and vulnerable position and, in particular, at the fact that some of the perpetrators have filmed their attacks and circulated them on social media as though they were some perverted form of sport or entertainment. What further action can the Minister take on this front? Will he ensure, for instance, that the relevant statutory agencies have drawn up plans to identify the potential threat and to offer protection against it for vulnerable homeless people?

[James Brokenshire]

Such examples are utterly repugnant and will, I know, be absolutely condemned by everyone in the House. We are talking about some of the most vulnerable people who are out on the streets, and the fact that they can be preyed upon and the purpose is somehow to provide entertainment is disgusting. We are working with the Home Office, which is taking steps to bring together police and crime commissioners to deal with the policing aspects. We need to look at the issue on a number of fronts to ensure that action is taken. The rough-sleeping strategy refers to the number of assaults and the greater propensity to victimise those who are out on the streets. That is unacceptable, which is why we will continue to work with the Home Office.

Local Government Reform: Greater London

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Thank you, Mr Hosie. I have debated matters of English local government in this room on several occasions, and I remark now, as I remarked then, that I quite often feel as though I have gatecrashed someone else’s party. On this occasion, I feel as though people have got the wrong date for the party; I have never been to a debate in this Chamber that has been so sparsely attended, and it feels really weird to be called to reply to the debate when only the mover of the motion, the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), has spoken. I am grateful to him for giving me the opportunity to make some remarks.

Although I may not have been invited to the party, I sense that the music is very similar to that which we hear north of the border. Some of people’s concerns and desires for reform of local government administration in London and, indeed, throughout England are motivated by feelings very similar to those that drove the cause for Scottish devolution and that are now driving the cause for Scottish independence. They are feelings of remoteness, of not being in charge of the place in which you live, and of not having a shared sense of identity with others who live in that place. I am therefore sympathetic to such debates, and I would say that they are actually all part of one grand debate about how we reform the antiquated structure that is the United Kingdom, in order to create governance on these islands that is more fit for the 21st century.

That said, there is a world of difference between the devolution of legislative authority to a nation within a political union, and the decentralisation of administration within the largest country of that political union, which is England. I want to speak as an observer in the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Please stay within the context of the debate, which is rather narrow.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The Minister’s intervention was perhaps tangential, but I do not mind replying to it. Of course, I cannot speak on behalf of the Scottish Government, but from what I observe, over the last 11 years they have driven the idea of putting power in the hands of local communities, through their work in the highlands and islands of Scotland; through their work to relax controls on local authorities; and, in particular, through their work on the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 and the community land fund, which gives local communities the ability to get together, without reference to their local authority, and take over derelict parts of land or buildings to bring them into community use. There is lots of good stuff going on in Scotland.

I will not prolong matters, because this is not the most subscribed debate that I have taken part in, but let me make three brief observations for the record. The first is that I believe, just as I believe that governance of Scotland should be a matter for the people who live there, that the governance of London should be a matter for those who live there—that principle needs to be established. I remember the dangers of doing things without popular consent. I was a London councillor in Hackney from 1986-1993—I represented the Defoe ward in Stoke Newington—and even then, in the mid-1980s, there was a genuine sense of grievance among many people about the fact that the borough of Stoke Newington had been abolished 20 years before. They identified much more with that area, as the hon. Member for Romford said, than with the new borough council that was created in 1964.

I understand the need for local identity, and I think it is vital that, as the debate continues, attempts are made to engage with the people of London about the various options that are available for the governance of this great city. I know not what the plans of the Mayor, the GLA, or the London boroughs are, but I hope and would welcome any initiatives that look towards engaging the public through a “People’s Assembly” or through a commission that will look at particular structures for the future.

Secondly, we ought to define the principles on which reform should take place as well as the criteria and the objectives that we are trying to achieve. Central to that must be the notion of equality and fairness across this great city. To that end, I think we ought to address the elephant in the room that no one has yet talked about: the City of London Corporation, which operates almost like a reverse-Bantustan in the City and commands a great and disproportionate amount of power and wealth in the capital. Any reform that does not look at how that can be distributed more fairly across the city is probably not worth undertaking.

My final point, which refers to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Romford, is that in these debates—I think that this is true in Scotland, England, and throughout every advanced democracy—it is important to make a distinction between democratic political control by communities and the administration of services. Too often, we get the two confused. That means, for example, that we end up saying, “It’s impossible to run a certain service on too local a level, and therefore we won’t bother letting local people have control of that”, or, “We won’t bother decentralising and setting up structures that allow people to govern a local area, because they cannot control or manage a service on that basis; it’s completely uneconomic.”

In a model whereby an agency provides a service in a public interest framework across a wider area, however—the police are an apt example—but within which local communities and local councils are able to act as the client for that service and to say what they want from the agency, there is a way of giving people democratic control over what is happening in their area without them having to be the managers of the individual service. The same is true for pretty much any major service. In fact, the same is now true for a lot of back-room services, such as information technology or administration, which would probably be much better organised on a larger scale to service a wide range of authorities beneath them that command and direct what needs to be done.

If we do that, we begin to open new possibilities for new, much more localised and decentralised structures that relate to local communities. Such structures would allow people to get much more involved than they are, and at the same time to retain services in a public interest framework and in public ownership. If we were to do that—London might be the place to start—we could play catch-up with much of the rest of Europe, where we can find much more democratic local decision making and, crucially, much greater levels of participation in local affairs and elections than we have in this country. At the end of the day, that is the thing that we all need to address: no matter where we are in the United Kingdom, it is rare for the majority of people to take part in an election for their local council. That is surely something that we need to change.

I am glad that this debate is getting things started—I hope—and next time perhaps we can attract a few more people, in particular Members of Parliament from the capital city, to engage in it. We can take matters forward at that point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I hope that the hon. Lady will welcome the fall in housing waiting lists under this Government. I say to her very clearly that steps have been taken under this Government to respond to this challenge. I remind her again of the £9 billion that has been committed to affordable homes, with the change that that will bring to so many people in actually creating the vision of a home and making that a reality. That is this Government’s intent, and it is something that we will deliver.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

4. What steps he is taking to provide people who have recently been granted asylum with support for housing and community integration.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nigel Adams)]

On 8 June, the Department announced £1.75 million to help new refugees by funding 35 offices in 19 areas of England with some of the highest numbers of asylum seekers. This will support people granted asylum into housing, learning and work. The Department is very keen to share this learning widely, including with the devolved Administrations.

[Tommy Sheppard]

The Government’s consultation report, “Integrated Communities”, said that the Government will

“work with civil society and others to increase the integration support available to those recognised as refugees after arrival in the UK.”

What specific measures are being taken to ensure that newly recognised refugees get the same support as resettled refugees?

[Nigel Adams]

Funding for the pilot programmes is drawn from the controlling migration fund, which has no remit to finance the devolved Administrations, as funding is devolved in this area. The pilot programmes are now recruiting staff and getting their programmes up and running. The pilots will run for two years. They are funded in the first year by my Department and in the second year by the council itself.

Grenfell Tower

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 16th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The east end of Edinburgh is a very long way away from North Kensington, but in this debate today I want to place on record, on behalf of the people whom I represent, our solidarity with the victims of Grenfell and our support for their campaign to get the answers as to why this happened to them. I say that not just because we are motivated by a sense of outrage that this could happen, or a sense of empathy for the victims, but because we have a direct material interest in making sure that this never happens again. That is why this inquiry is not just a matter for the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, nor indeed for London or for England, but a matter of concern for the entire United Kingdom.

I want to see the fullest possible inquiry, and I want to see an inquiry that is not scared to investigate—without fear or favour—and to take on some of the vested powerful interests that are no doubt at play in this debate. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has decided that she will appoint independent advisers to assist the chair, but, like others, I am somewhat bemused that it has taken so many months of campaigning, 150,000 people to sign a petition, and a parliamentary debate for this most reasonable of requests to be met. I hope that that does not give us an indication of how the Government will deal with the inquiry as it goes forward. We need more Government intervention and we need it to be swifter and to have greater force.

I know that the Minister’s hands were not on this decision or on the delay in appointing these people, but what is vital now is that these independent advisers have the confidence of the people who were most affected by this disaster. Therefore, I would like to secure a commitment from him that there will be consultation with the victims of Grenfell in determining who should take up the position of these advisers.

On the point about rehousing, it beggars belief that people are still living in hotels and temporary accommodation almost a year after the disaster. Frankly, it undermines all the declarations of commitment and concern that have come from the Government. The Government must intervene. I want to hear from the Minister that he will set a deadline by which Kensington and Chelsea Council have to provide a report on the rehousing of every person affected. If that deadline is not met, the Government should take the council into special measures and make this a national responsibility. Unless that happens, there is no guarantee that this will not drag on and on. The matter is of course compounded by historical context. I agree with the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) when he remarks that it is clear that public administration in this area has been conducted for too long on behalf of the well-off and the content, and it has ignored people at the other end of the scale. That must change and it must change quickly.

Yorkshire Devolution

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Thank you very much, Mr Pritchard. I rise to speak on behalf of the SNP in the debate, and I have to say that I feel like I have gatecrashed someone else’s party to some extent. However, Standing Orders dictate that I say something, so I very much wish to. We do not have a dog in this fight—of course, if it came to a vote, we would probably be prohibited from exercising our judgment under the current Standing Orders anyway. None the less, we do watch the debates in Yorkshire and elsewhere in England with great interest.

To some extent, there is a similarity between the campaign we had to achieve a devolved national Parliament in Scotland—and our campaign to go further and have devolution so complete that we have independent control of that Parliament—and the campaign for English devolution, inasmuch as they are about changing the constitutional basis of the governance of these islands. In terms of the political ambition that drives this debate, there is much that we share and very much support.

People often talk about devolution and the English regions in the same breath, but they are not the same thing. I want to make one important point of difference. The campaign for the establishment and extension of the Scottish Parliament is not about the decentralisation of public administration within a common political framework. It is about allowing the creation and evolution of a different political framework, which will allow a different set of choices to be made, whether that be within the United Kingdom or without the United Kingdom. That is slightly different from the campaign for English regional government.

However, we very much support the idea of devolution and decentralisation within England. We only have to look at a motorway map of the United Kingdom or the inter-city rail network map to see that, for far too long, strategic thinking and planning in the United Kingdom has been dominated by a desire to make the periphery connect to the centre, rather than the creation of sustainable regions of the country that can interconnect and achieve a much greater benefit. The debate is part of breaking that down, and we very much welcome it.

There ought to be some sort of national English plan. For far too long, central Government has ducked this question and, just because it is too difficult or there is not support in some areas, they have been unable to come up with a strategic plan into which these things could locate. I hope the Minister will say that that is somewhere on the horizon, because in the absence of that plan, the city deal, city region and city Mayor proposal is about pushing something ahead in an area where little resistance is expected. What seems to have happened in this instance is that resistance has come about both within the proposed city region area and in neighbouring areas.

Without wishing to take sides or make any particular prescription, it seems to me that surely the only thing Government can now do, given the level of dissent registered to their plan, is to press the pause button, bring people together and have a proper consultation about how decentralisation can go forward in Yorkshire on a basis on which all participants can agree. If it is pushed through without that consent and agreement, it will be ill-fated and will not work.