Amesbury Incident

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point. He will know that the Russian disinformation campaign has already begun. As soon as this news was made public yesterday, we saw that, certainly on social media. For that reason and many more, it is important that, as more evidence of what happened emerges, the UK, together with our international allies, presents that to the public and makes it very clear and very factual.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I thank the Home Secretary for advance sight of his statement. As others have said, our immediate thoughts are with Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess, whom we wish a very speedy and full recovery. They are completely innocent victims in this whole affair. I endorse the statements that have been made about our support for the emergency services; we can only wonder about the concern that they themselves must feel for their own personal safety when they cope with matters of this kind.

I particularly welcome the Home Secretary’s statement in two regards. First, it is important to reassure the public that there is no generalised threat to the wider community and dampen down irresponsible speculation that might be to the contrary. I also welcome the fact that he draws a distinction between the Russian people and the Russian state, particularly at this time. We should try hard to make sure that that message resonates within Russia itself, particularly given the events that are happening there at the moment.

I wish to press the Home Secretary in two respects. First, he says that people will naturally be concerned to understand the link, if any, between this incident and the Skripal case. Is it possible for him to identify whether the Novichok in this instance is from the same batch as was used in the Skripal case, or will that not be possible, and will he therefore not be able to say whether there is a direct link? Secondly, he has updated the House on the expulsion of diplomats, but, of course, there was a great range of other measures discussed as well in response to the incident on 4 March. If he is not able to do this now, can he say when he will be in a position to update the House on other matters, particularly with regard to the seizure of Russian state assets and to improving checks at our borders?

[Sajid Javid]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. Again, he has made a number of important points. I join him in commending the work of the emergency services; their response has been absolutely exceptional both back in March and, from what we have seen, in the past few days. He is also right to emphasise the distinction between the Russian people and the Russian state. Our quarrel is with the Russian state, not with the Russian people. In the World cup so far, the Russian people’s response and welcome to British fans and to the British team has been very nice to see, which emphasises the point that he has made.

The hon. Gentleman asked two questions: one about the nerve agent and the second about Russian action. On the nerve agent, scientists from Porton Down are absolutely clear that this is the exact same type of nerve agent from the Novichok family of nerve agents that was used in the March attack, so we are very clear on that. He asked specifically about the batch. We cannot attribute this to the same batch at this point, but scientists will be looking into that. I have been told that that may not even be possible because of a number of factors, but we cannot rule out, of course, that it was from the same batch. Although we are comfortable that it is the exact same nerve agent, we cannot at this point say that it is from the exact same batch.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about any further action against Russia. I think that I said in the statement that, as we continue with the investigation and as evidence emerges, we will respond accordingly.

Grenfell Tower Inquiry

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 14th May 2018 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the Scottish National party, which is the third party in this Chamber and the principal party in Scotland, but I think I speak on behalf of the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland when I place on the record our support for the Grenfell campaigners in trying to get to the bottom of what was visited upon them.

We watched in horror at the scenes unfolding on our television screens on 14 June last year, conscious of the unimaginable terrors that were being visited upon the people trapped inside Grenfell Tower. In the months that have passed since then, that sense of horror has given way to a sense of solidarity, and a desire to stand with the people of Grenfell as they try to get the answers to questions that they so richly deserve. I associate my party and myself with the comments of the hon. Member for Kensington (Emma Dent Coad), and I take her advice about how it is very easy in a debate on this matter—indeed, we have witnessed people doing this—to get platitudinous in describing the campaigners. I do want to make one point, though. I have observed how the Grenfell campaigners have prosecuted their case, and it seems to me that they have a level of integrity that is head and shoulders above those from whom they are seeking redress, and that is highly commendable.

In the aftermath of the tragedy, most hon. Members here who also represent urban constituencies were concerned about another question as well. Could it happen again and could it happen in their area? That preoccupied many of us. In my own city of Edinburgh, there are 44 high-rise tower blocks managed by the local authority and another 80 in the private sector. I commend the work of the officers of the city council and the fire service, who very swiftly did a review. It was not a desk review but an inspection on the ground, and it concluded that the materials that had been used in the Grenfell cladding were not in use in my city, for which I am grateful.

I am grateful also that the Scottish Government have undertaken a review of safety regulations in tower blocks, trying to improve on the 2005 fire regulations, which are already more stringent than those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot be satisfied, however, that it will not happen again—that would be complacent—until we know the outcome of this inquiry, until the questions about how and why this happened, and what needs to be done to ensure it does not happen again, are put in the public sphere. That is why I support those campaigners in fighting for the widest and most effective inquiry possible.

I want to address the points that the petitioners have made. A lot of people have talked about the welcome news that the Prime Minister has decided to widen the leadership of the inquiry process and appoint advisers. Like others, however, I am bemused that it has taken months of campaigning, parliamentary debates and 150,000 people signing an e-petition to grant what is surely the most reasonable request in these circumstances. I say to Government Ministers—I invite them to respond—that it is critical who these appointees are. It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that whoever is put in the position to advise and support the chair of this inquiry not only must have empathy with the survivors of Grenfell and the relatives of those who paid the ultimate price in this tragedy, to understand and know what those people are going through, but must have the confidence of the Grenfell community. If the Government allow the inquiry to go ahead without those leading it having the confidence of the people at the centre of this matter, it will be stillborn and we will repeat the circuitous history of previous inquiries in this country. We have been down that path before. This is an opportunity to get it right.

The petitioners’ second point is about what is happening right now to the people who survived. I find it unbelievable that nearly a year later there are so many people languishing in temporary accommodation, who have not yet been given a proper, permanent roof over their heads after undergoing this horror. I just do not understand it. I say to those who mentioned the unfortunate term “political football”, I am not making a political football of this, but to pretend that this can be divorced from policy and political considerations is naivety bordering on the irresponsible. Questions have to be asked of the people who are in charge of public administration in Kensington and Chelsea about what is happening.

The historical context is apt here. It is no coincidence that Kensington and Chelsea has always been one of the boroughs in the country with the lowest proportion of public housing. I will put this in words that the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) might agree with. I do not want to make this a party political football, but let us put it this way. It is clear that the majority of people who have the fortune to live in Kensington and Chelsea are relatively well off and content. Public administration in the borough is being executed by, and in the interests of, those people, who are well off and relatively content. The needs of those who are at the other end of this unequal society are not being adequately listened to and put into public policy. I cannot see any other reason why these people would have not been rehoused almost a year later.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) mentioned the right to buy, which is not irrelevant either. I do not condemn or criticise the people who bought their council house over the last 20 years, but I condemn the people who sold it to them, because they did so without any regard for the consequences of that policy. The consequence of it now is that there is not enough housing to go around. When a catastrophe such as this happens, the public authority is unable to respond to it. That is not good enough.

I wondered just how difficult rehousing those people would be, even if we had to rely on the public sector. I have asked colleagues, “Why don’t they just buy some houses in the private sector?” That is what local authorities used to do. It was explained to me how difficult and expensive it all was. I checked, therefore, on the way to this debate. It is true that some of the house prices in Kensington and Chelsea border on the obscene. There are dozens of places available to buy in excess of £20 million. But I put into the filter on rightmove.co.uk this question: how many family-sized properties—two bedrooms or greater—are there today in Kensington and Chelsea on the market at a price tag of less than £1 million, which is a reasonable price for central London? The answer is that today in Kensington and Chelsea there are 512 properties on sale, which could house these families, so I suggest that the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea goes and buys some of those houses and moves these people into them.

The question, however, is for Ministers, because this has been going on for nearly a year. We need to hear that Ministers are prepared to set a deadline on the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, by which time it must provide a plan for the permanent rehousing of every one of the Grenfell survivors. If that deadline is not met, it is incumbent on the Government to take the matter into their own hands and ensure that this is delivered. They can no longer hide behind the inadequate excuse of leaving it to the local authority.

The petitioners’ final point is about the need to listen to the inquiry’s conclusions. I do not want to pre-empt them, but I seek assurances from the Minister in two regards. First, if the inquiry demonstrates that there is a need to change policy on housing provision, financing and regulation in this country, will he commit to bringing forward legislation to enact those recommendations? Secondly, if the inquiry finds, as many suspect it will, that the real problem is not in the original construction of the tower block, but in the re-cladding that took place between 2014 and 2016, and the decisions that were made, which arguably put price above the health, safety and wellbeing of individuals, then I want an assurance from the Government that those responsible will face the consequences of their actions, and that they will be charged and subject to criminal proceedings, if it is relevant to do so. I hope the Government will give us those assurances.

To conclude, the one good thing in all this is that, because of the experience that these people have been through, we have an organised community that is sceptical and critical, and which will keep an eye on this inquiry, and come back to us in this place and get our support anytime that they need it. Not only do they speak for the people of Grenfell; the actions they are taking to ensure that this inquiry works will benefit all the people of this country.

Health, Social Care and Security

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

It is good to be back.

It was 10 minutes past 8 in the evening on Friday 19 May when I realised the election campaign was going to get a whole lot more interesting than I thought it would be when it was called. I was sitting in a room in a public school outside Guildford, taking part in BBC Radio 4’s “Any Questions?” programme. The first question from the audience was whether the Government were taking the support of pensioners for granted with the pronouncements they had made a few days earlier on the funding of pensions and social care. Listeners to the radio will not have heard this, of course, but in that room I could tell that the audience did not need to wait for the panel to pronounce before they made up their minds on that question. The sense of indignation and outrage was palpable. In that moment, I knew that if that was the feeling of those small “c” conservative voters in the heart of Tory Surrey, the electorate were most certainly on manoeuvres in this election and that the outcome would be a lot more unpredictable than any of us had imagined.

Of course, the policy of making people pay for their social care to the point of their own impoverishment was quickly qualified and taken off the table but, as we all know, perception is everything in politics, and the damage was done. That ill-fated policy was one of the reasons that a Government with a majority went into an election and lost it. We are promised in the Gracious Speech that there will be a review of social care and, presumably, its funding. I am concerned that the thinking behind that ill-fated policy is still alive and well on the Conservative Benches, and that it may yet come forward as ruminations continue on public policy in this area, so I will spend this brief time dismissing that thinking and saying that it should not form part of our thinking.

There is a perfectly coherent and legitimate point of view on the political right that says that the funding of public services should be transferred from the state to the individual. It is wrong and I disagree with it, but I understand the point of view. To my mind, that point of view is invalidated and becomes incoherent and unjust when we say that it will be applied only to people who contract debilitating and incurable diseases, because we are then talking about the epitome of double jeopardy. We are talking about people who have the misfortune to become ill. We would be saying that they will not only suffer the pain and worry of that, but that they will be forced to fund their own care to the point of losing their savings so that they and their families will become much poorer than they would otherwise be. That seems an outrageous suggestion, and that was what lay behind the indignation of the audience in that room.

We do not know which of us will fall ill and which of us will remain healthy. That is why every civilised society turns for answers to the concept of social insurance, where we all pay in with the hope that we will not need to draw down on the policy, but with the expectation that, if we need to, the care will be there and we will not have to pay for it ourselves by becoming poor. That principle must underpin any review of social care funding. People will throw their hands up, aghast at the potential cost. But the Scottish National party Government in Scotland, with support from other parties, have maintained for 10 years free personal care for the elderly. That service is provided for 77,000 older people in Scotland. To do that across the UK would perhaps cost £7 billion or £8 billion, which is a very large amount of money—1% of our gross national product—but that is the question we are presented with as this review continues.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2017 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

1. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of applying different immigration rules to Scotland and other constituent parts of the UK.

[John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

10. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of applying different immigration rules to Scotland and other constituent parts of the UK.

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Amber Rudd)]

Immigration remains a reserved matter and we will consider the needs of the UK as a whole. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK would complicate the immigration system, harming its integrity, and cause difficulties for employers who need the flexibility to deploy their staff across the UK.

[Tommy Sheppard]

That is a very disappointing response, infused with arrogance and complacency. Many large countries, such as Canada and Australia, have regional variations in their immigration and visa policies in order to take account of diverse and complicated local economic circumstances. Is it not foolhardy for the Government at this very early stage to rule out the prospect of doing that in the regions and nations of the United Kingdom?

[Amber Rudd]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman shares my view that any policy changes should be informed by the facts and by assessments, which is why we consulted the Migration Advisory Committee to look at regional issues, and it was unequivocal in its conclusions. I urge him to look at its report.

Leaving the EU: Security, Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) observed, one of the disadvantages of taking part so late in a debate is that many of the things that I might have wanted to say have already been covered. The other disadvantage, of course, is that there are fewer people left to hear me.

I principally want to make the case for differential arrangements in Scotland in a post-Brexit world. The areas that we are discussing exemplify why that ought to be the case. Policing and law enforcement in Scotland have long been quite separate from that in England and Wales in their structure, administration, budget and legislative framework. The police’s mandate from the criminal justice system predates devolution. Devolution and the establishment of the Scottish Parliament transferred legislative responsibility to a Parliament elected in Scotland, but that process did not set up a separate arrangement for policing and did not establish a separate criminal justice system. No one has suggested that those matters should change post-Brexit, but I hope the Minister will acknowledge that position, and discuss how the arrangements will be different in Scotland and what processes need to happen to make that a reality.

I also want to talk about the general political context in which this debate takes place, as well as some of the criteria that inform public opinion and political dialogue in Scotland. Members of this House, including those who do not represent Scotland, will know only too well that the politics of Scotland is largely influenced by the legacy of the 2014 independence referendum. I do not want to go into that in any detail, but two aspects of that discussion, which ended in September 2014, are relevant to today’s debate.

The first of those relates to the relationship that people in Scotland were to have with the European Union. We were told during that debate not only that the prospectus for an independent Scotland was a bad one, because Scotland’s position within the EU could not be guaranteed, but that if people in Scotland wished to retain their European passports, the best way to do so was to vote to stay within the United Kingdom. Only that, we were told, would guarantee that people would be able to maintain their existing relationship with other European nations. The second thing that was said was about the concept of respect. We were told that if people voted to renew the Union between Scotland, and England, Wales and Northern Ireland, that would be a matter not of opinions and views being subsumed into a much larger neighbour, but of a partnership in which the views of the people of Scotland would be respected and treated equally, albeit in an asymmetric power relationship.

What has just happened with Brexit severely tests both those propositions and the assurances given in that debate. We have yet to see what type of United Kingdom emerges in a post-Brexit world, but clearly many fear a dystopian future in which this country turns its back on the rest of the world, and becomes insular, isolated and riven by sectarian and ethnic division. That may not come to pass—I very much hope that it does not—but clearly the United Kingdom of the future is going to be manifestly different from the one on the ballot paper on 18 September 2014.

The other thing to say is about respect, which is another notion that will be sorely tested. Public opinion, as expressed on 23 June 2016, on the matter of relationships with other European nations is manifestly and palpably different in Scotland from that in England and Wales. That presents all of us with something of a dilemma. Given the muted tones and more thoughtful nature of today’s debate compared with some of the exchanges in recent weeks’ Brexit debates, I hope that we might be able to confront these paradoxes and decide that together we should try to do something positive about them.

That was what the Scottish Government attempted to do in “Scotland’s Place in Europe”, the paper that they published before Christmas. I commend it to any Member who has not read it as it sets out a prospectus for a differential relationship that Scotland would have in a post-Brexit world. It suggests that Scotland should be given the authority and competence to be an associate member of the European economic area, because attitudes in Scotland are different from those in England and Wales, particularly on the freedom of movement of people across borders.

I want to make it absolutely clear—I encourage people to recognise this—that the Scottish Government’s document and the position that they are now campaigning for are not seeking to say that Scotland should be an independent country, or that any part of the UK should remain part of the EU. In that sense, they respect both the 2014 decision and the 2016 decision. They try to square the circle with regard to how opinion north of the border is manifestly different from that in the south. I therefore commend the document to Members; we should explore it.

[Joanna Cherry]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that polling released this afternoon shows widespread support in Scotland for the Scottish Government’s plan to stay in the single market? Indeed, in the early days after the EU referendum, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and Ruth Davidson, the leader of the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland, were demanding that Scotland should remain part of the single market.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Indeed. Members will think that we prepared that exchange, but we did not. It is worth quoting the Secretary of State for Scotland, who said in June last year, just after the Brexit vote:

“My role is to ensure Scotland gets the best possible deal and that deal involves clearly being part of the single market.”

Those are not my words, but the words of the Conservative Secretary of State for Scotland. Of course, he might have changed his mind in the months since then.

The Scottish Government’s document suggests that there are three levels of legislation that should be looked at when considering how we manage Brexit within these islands. I hope that no one would suggest that a constitutional decision of such magnitude as to withdraw this country from its main international association can be done without having any effect on the constitutional arrangements within the county—it is obvious that that will be the case. There will have to be, either as part of the great repeal Bill or in a Scottish Bill, some provision to give new powers to the Scottish Parliament.

The Scottish Government believe that those powers fall into three areas. First, there are some areas in which the Scottish Government already have competence that are going to be repatriated straight from Brussels. We should make sure that they go straight to Holyrood without stopping at Westminster on the way. Secondly, there are areas of additional legislative competence that should be given to the Scottish Government when they are devolved from Brussels, particularly in the field of employment legislation and, indeed, some immigration matters. Thirdly, if we can persuade the United Kingdom Government to consent to and support the idea of arrangements in Scotland being different, but still consistent with leaving the EU, we will need a legislative competence Bill that allows the Scottish Government to form future relationships.

The matters we are discussing in this debate very much fall into the first category I described, albeit perhaps with the exception of security. Criminal justice and law enforcement are areas in which the Scottish Government already have competence, so the repatriation of powers should see that competence expanded.

Will the Minister tell us what dialogue is taking place between Ministers of the Crown here at Westminster and their Scottish counterparts about how the arrangements I have referred to should be made? They will involve matters of great detail that require great expertise, so it would seem rather ridiculous simply to say that this is all a matter for the Department for Exiting the European Union. We need to explore in some detail criminal justice and law enforcement, and how the relationship for the special aspects of Police Scotland in terms of the security system will work following Brexit. That should not be left to the Brexit Department; it should properly be a matter for the Home Department. When he responds, I hope the Minister will set out not only that the Government intend to have that dialogue, but suggestions about how it might take place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I have no doubt that that analysis will continue for some considerable time, although I doubt whether it will continue for two and a half years. I have heard what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and we will certainly continue to consider the position. At this particular stage, however, I believe that giving such detail would compromise the negotiation.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) gave his valedictory contribution, and on behalf of Conservative Members, I would like to wish him well in his future endeavours. He reminded us quite correctly that the United Kingdom is part of the greater European culture, and I am sure that under his direction the Victoria & Albert museum will continue to reflect that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone expressed concern about the use of the European arrest warrant for crimes that he regarded as trivial. The European arrest warrant was radically reformed by the previous coalition Government to offer better protection for British citizens and others who are subject to extradition proceedings. British citizens can no longer be extradited where a case is not trial-ready, where the conduct is not a crime within the United Kingdom or where it is simply not proportionate to extradite. These protections are set out in UK legislation. Concerns about the European arrest warrant were also expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), who raised specifically the Adamescu case. The Minister for Policing and the Fire Service, my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis) has listened and attended carefully to the points raised. Concerns about the use of European arrest warrant were also expressed by the right hon. Member for Leicester East.

The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) raised the issue of the common travel area, which is a matter of concern. The common travel area long predates our membership or Ireland’s membership of the European Union. It goes back to 1923, and the Government have made it very clear that preserving those arrangements is at the forefront of our minds as we approach the negotiations.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) raised the issue of respect for Scotland in the United Kingdom. He referred to what he described as the spectre of a dystopian future, in which the UK turns in on itself. That is not the future that the Government see for the UK outside the EU. In fact, we see a more global Britain, a more outward-looking Britain—a Britain that is not confined by the limits of the EU. He also raised the issue of respect for Scotland and the paper that Scotland has recently issued. He will be aware that in order to address the issue of the impact of Brexit on the devolved Administrations, the Government established the Joint Ministerial Committee for exiting the European Union. That is the forum in which these issues are raised, discussed and debated, and there is a meeting this week. I do not believe any suggestion that there is a lack of respect for Scotland or indeed for any of the devolved Administrations.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Would it not enhance the discussions taking place at the JMC if there were discussions between Ministers in his Department and their counterparts in Scotland in order to prepare some of the detail of these very particular matters?

[Mr Jones]

Discussions will certainly continue, but I must say that I regard it as highly unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any lack of respect for Scotland. I believe that the Government could have done hardly any more to accommodate the concerns of the devolved Administrations.

The debate has been genuinely useful. Both my right hon. Friend the Policing Minister and I have made it clear today that this issue is of the utmost importance to the Government as we prepare to negotiate our exit from the European Union, and that has been reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who has said that co-operation with the EU in the fight against crime and terrorism will be one of the Government’s principal priorities when negotiations begin. We are determined that the United Kingdom will continue to be a leading contributor in the fight against crime and the promotion of security and justice, not only in the United Kingdom and the European Union, but throughout the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered exiting the EU and security, law enforcement and criminal justice.

EU Nationals in the UK

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

I could not agree with the hon. Lady more. That is exactly how these people feel. There have been quotes in the papers from people saying that that is the feeling they have been left with. Many of those who work in our NHS, our schools and our universities can go and work elsewhere, and some of them are highly sought-after individuals. If we do not send a clear message to them, others will.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I agree entirely with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument. May I ask him to comment on one practical consideration? Many people in my constituency are deciding that they wish to apply for citizenship, as one of the options available to them, but they complain that it is very difficult. For example, my constituent Carmen Huesa, who has been here for 19 years, is a Spanish-born senior researcher at the University of Edinburgh. She has said that the application forms are very complicated; that they require information that, because she has been here for two decades, is not available any more; and that the fees are a bit of a barrier. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that while we are sorting out the mess, it would be a statement of intent from the Government if they at least committed to fast-tracking applications for British citizenship from EU citizens who have made their lives in this country, waiving the fees and putting additional support units in the UK Visas and Immigration offices to help with processing?

EU Nationals: UK Residence

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Brokenshire]

I absolutely appreciate and recognise the huge contribution that EU citizens make to our economy and in so many other different ways. They enrich our country. There are difficult challenges to face now as a consequence of the decision that has been taken for the UK to leave the European Union. I have been very clear, as has the Prime Minister, that EU nationals’ rights remain unchanged while we remain a member of the European Union. Clearly, we are working to ensure that the negotiations are successful in giving those guarantees to ensure that those who are here are able to stay.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The Minister keeps evading our inquiries on the whereabouts of his boss. What is so important that the Home Secretary cannot attend this urgent question, which in large part has been occasioned by her comments to the press? Does the Minister understand that many thousands of our fellow citizens are fearful and anxious for their future and that his procrastination serves only to fuel rather than to allay that anxiety?

[James Brokenshire]

I respond to issues relating to migration and our immigration system, so it is entirely appropriate for me to respond to this urgent question. I note and appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s point about uncertainty for European citizens in the UK, as well as for British citizens overseas. That is why I have been clear that there are no immediate changes. I have sought to give that assurance, and it is unfortunate that many contributions have sought to stoke up some of those uncertainties, when the Government have been providing clarity and assurance on the process that will need to take place to give the sort of comfort that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Donald Trump

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 18th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Paul Flynn]

That is right. Petitioners have drawn to our attention how Mr Trump mocked a man for his disability in a cruel way. He described the people of Mexico as rapists and drug abusers. He made degrading remarks about women. More recently he suggested that Muslims not be allowed into his country, which is an extraordinary and extremely dangerous thing to say. We are faced with the most dangerous position between the nations in my lifetime, and I can clearly remember the start of the second world war. In the world today we have al-Qaeda, Daesh and other similar groups, spread throughout a score of countries. They want to divide the world between Christians and Muslims. They have a mad plan that one day there will be a war between Christians and Muslims, and the Muslims will win and will establish a caliphate throughout the world.

The most alarming thing is what is happening with our young people in this country, in my constituency and elsewhere. The groups have an almost irresistible appeal to adolescents. They say, “Come and join us; we can right ancient wrongs. You can take part in a battle. You can have a wife or a husband. You can have a great adventure serving your religion with the possibility of martyrdom followed by eternal bliss.” That is the kind of seduction that has been used by many cults over the years. Sadly, hundreds of our young people are falling for it. If we react to terrorist attacks by joining in wars and battles, the world will be in a very dangerous place. Although we have no right to inform Americans who they should elect as leader, we look forward with some trepidation to a future when difficult decisions have to be taken. Will they be taken by a person who is seen to be impulsive and not well informed, and who has been accused of racist views?

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The hon. Gentleman is coming down on one side of the argument to say that Mr Trump should not be banned from entering this country. Are we not in a unique position here? I cannot think, in my lifetime, of another senior politician in America or anywhere else wishing the Government of their country to deny our citizens in the United Kingdom free international movement because of their religion. If the hon. Gentleman is to take the position that he seems to be taking, may I ask him: what would be an appropriate response by this country to the United States of America to protect the people we represent?

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

Order. A significant number of Members wish to contribute to the debate. I must ask at this stage that any interventions be very brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

We find ourselves in the ridiculous position where some people are so outraged that Donald Trump has suggested that people should be banned simply because of their beliefs that those people want to ban him for his beliefs.

Across the pond, Donald Trump has been waging what might be described as a one-man campaign against political correctness for some time now. As someone who has had their own campaign against political correctness for some time here in this Parliament, nobody will be surprised to hear that I can relate to that. In the race to become the next President, he has been gaining support with a political manner that could be described as “blunt directness”. He is definitely straight-talking and, as a Yorkshireman, I certainly applaud him for that too. In fact, I think that in this country, we could do with rather less political correctness and much more straight-talking across the board, and I think many of our constituents would agree.

We should be absolutely clear that today we are debating whether or not a man who has a chance of becoming the next President of the United States of America should be physically banned from entering the United Kingdom. By anyone’s standards, that is a rather big thing. His offence—to warrant such a call—is to suggest a ban on incoming Muslims to America until, as he puts it,

“our country’s representatives can figure out what the hell is going on.”

It is extremely clear that in the western world we are experiencing very difficult and dangerous times. Violent attacks are becoming all too frequent inside free countries, perpetrated by those who seek to replace freedom with religious conformity. The sickening march of Islamic State is something that all right-thinking people are deeply worried about. It is also clear that one path for terrorists and those who hate our way of living in our western countries is to enter as immigrants and refugees.

Determining what to do about that clear and worrying problem will obviously result in people having differing suggested solutions. Some people—if I may be so bold, in all our constituencies—will agree with Donald Trump’s view and some will disagree. As it happens, I disagree with his view, but whatever people think, surely he should be entitled to have that opinion and to express it, and to give all those people who have that view a voice in the political process.

There was an opinion poll on the matter, which showed that in the United Kingdom, 65% disagreed with Donald Trump and 24% agreed with him. When that was moved into the north of the country, the amount of people who agreed with him went from 24% to 35%. By anybody’s standards, that is a significant body of the population. Lots of people in this room who are always talking about the rights of minorities seem very quiet all of a sudden when people who have a minority opinion have the nerve to express it. What about the rights of those minorities in this country? It is amazing that the people who always preach about tolerance, saying that we should not have any intolerance, are always the very same people who are so intolerant of anybody who happens to have a different opinion from them.

[Tommy Sheppard]

Does the hon. Gentleman think there are any limits on freedom of speech? Would there come a point when someone such as Donald Trump should be banned because the words that he said were just so extreme? Many of us on the Opposition side feel that he is already inciting hatred against the Muslim community, both in this country and across the world.

[Philip Davies]

I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s analysis, but yes, there do need to be some restrictions on free speech. If people are inciting violence or terrorism, that freedom of speech should be restricted and is unacceptable, but we certainly should not go around banning everyone from the country simply for voicing an opinion that the hon. Gentleman happens to disagree with.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mike Penning]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. As I said, we have a responsibility personally, but so do companies. We are working very closely with the banks in particular, but all companies have a responsibility to protect the data they hold, particularly individuals’ personal data.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

12. What timetable she has set for resettlement of Syrian refugees; and whether she plans to increase the number of such refugees that the UK will accept.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Refugees (Richard Harrington)]

The Government have committed to resettling 20,000 Syrian refugees in the lifetime of this Parliament. The Prime Minister has said that we want to see 1,000 brought to the UK by Christmas. We have no plans to increase this number. It is now important that we focus on bringing these vulnerable people to the UK.

[Tommy Sheppard]

In refusing to assist refugees already in Europe, the Secretary of State has given great support to the creation of hotspots to fast-track registration. May I bring to the Government’s attention the recent report from International Rescue? The report says that

“the way hotspots are currently being rolled out is causing chaos, increasing tensions and violence, and leaving more people without basic shelter.”

In the light of that, will the Government stay on the sidelines in respect of helping refugees in Europe?

[Richard Harrington]

The hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that our taking 20,000 refugees on the grounds of vulnerability is only a part of our efforts for refugees. The Government are spending more than £1.1 billion on helping refugees in the countries adjacent to Syria. I think he will agree that our record is second to none in that respect.

Policing

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Andy Burnham]

Civilised society; that is what matters here. If people want a glimpse of what the future might look like, they should have a look at Tiptree in Essex, where residents already have to club together to fund their own private security guards. Is that the kind of society we want, with private security guards roaming the streets in areas where the police have withdrawn? The Government deny it, but that is what is happening on the ground.

This is not just about the loss of capability in community and neighbourhood policing. Forces are talking about disbanding mounted sections and dog sections. The cuts could have serious implications for the police estate, with police station closures all over the country and the police becoming a blue light only service, responding to emergencies and not dealing with crime at a local level.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Today’s motion refers to Scotland, where we have 1,027 more serving police officers on the street than we had in 2007. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree, however, that it is iniquitous and unfair that Police Scotland should be the only force in the United Kingdom to be required to pay VAT on its operations, taking £23 million out of operational expenditure?

[Andy Burnham]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that should be considered, but I am afraid that I am not going to let him or the Scottish National party off the hook. The survey referred to in our motion says that only 30% of officers in Scotland feel that they have sufficient resources to do the job. I accept that that might partly be the responsibility of the Westminster Government, but I am not sure that the changes to the police in Scotland and the move to Police Scotland have resulted in the improvements that we were told would happen.

As I said only a moment ago, the police have spoken about becoming a blue light only service in places. In their briefing for this debate, Lancashire police state:

“We will attend fewer crimes.”

That prompts the question of which crimes. Where is the national public guidance on the crimes that can now safely be de-prioritised? Again, there is none, because the Government would rather pass the cuts and pass the buck down to a local level, leaving the public facing a confusing postcode lottery in policing.

If anyone believes that referring to a postcode lottery is an exaggeration, may I refer the House to the pilot scheme in Leicestershire, where the police attended burglaries only at houses with even numbers, a scheme that the Government claimed worked and that could now be expanded? At what point have we as a society or this Parliament accepted the principle that the police will no longer attend someone’s home if they have been burgled? At what point have we accepted the principle that some victims of crime can be abandoned in this random fashion? We have not, and I do not believe that this House should concede that principle. Policing practice should not be changed in such a way until the Government have provided sound justification for the change.