Ten-Year Drugs Strategy

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Monday 6th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Kit Malthouse]

I recognise the situation that my hon. Friend has posited. Indeed, if we look around the world at the countries that have gone down the path that he eschews, we see a pattern of impact that is not completely desirable—and of course we do not know what the impact of overuse of that particular substance will be in the long term, particularly the impact on young people’s mental health. We currently have no plans to change the status of cannabis, and I hope that my hon. Friend will participate in the promotion of the White Paper when it appears in order to bring about the change in behaviour that both he and I seek.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I had hoped for something better, especially from this Minister, and I think that a great many people will have been disappointed by his statement. Rather than bringing fresh thinking to the problem, he is doubling down on the failed strategies of the past. He knows that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 is not fit for purpose—he has already accepted that it constrains and compromises his ability to deal with this problem—so will he commit himself to an evidence-led review of the legislation?

[Kit Malthouse]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed, and is disappointed in me in particular. I have to say that I am disappointed in him, because while some of us try to remain open-minded on this issue and seek evidence, I am not sure that his position is shifting at all.

As I have said, we are making a significant investment in what is internationally accepted to be the most efficacious way to deal with pernicious addiction to heroin and crack, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that, as he has welcomed it in Scotland. No doubt he has accepted and welcomed what the Scottish Government are doing, and I hope he will accept and welcome what we are doing here, and will not be in denial just because it is us. I hope he will be encouraged by the fact that our plan includes a commitment to build a really strong, world-beating evidence base, drawn from across the world, which will allow us to make drug policy into the future. While we have a 10-year-ambition, this is a journey that we are just starting, and we will learn as we go. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will undertake to learn too.

Human Rights in the UK

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Westminster Hall

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered human rights in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes, I think for the first time. I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce today’s debate.

Over the last few years, particularly since we began our Brexit journey, we have discussed human rights in the United Kingdom and the potential consequences for them were this country to leave the European Union. A number of colleagues, most notably my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), have sought assurances from Ministers that human rights protection in the United Kingdom would not be in any way diminished as a result of that process. By and large, those assurances have been given.

Why, therefore, is it appropriate to discuss this matter again? There are three reasons. First, we have moved on in the Brexit process. We now have a draft political declaration that seeks to define the relationship this country would wish to have with the other 27 members after it leaves the European Union—if, indeed, it does. A number of us noticed a slight change of language in that declaration regarding human rights. No longer is there a clear-cut commitment to embody in domestic legislation the European convention on human rights; instead, there is talk of respect for the framework that the ECHR provides. The other 27 signatories to the political declaration are quite clear in their commitment to the ECHR. That suggests the possibility of some divergence between the United Kingdom and EU member states regarding implementation of the convention.

Secondly, the Government are led by someone who could hardly be described as absolute in her commitment to the current human rights legislative framework in this country. When the Prime Minister was Home Secretary, she sought to undermine the Human Rights Act 1998 by suggesting that it was in some way soft on terrorists. It is also worth noting that when she stood to be leader of the Conservative party, she ruled out repealing the HRA, not as a matter of principle, but because there was, in her words, no majority in Parliament for doing so. One wonders what her position might be were the majority in Parliament to change.

Thirdly, the Conservative party was elected on a manifesto that pledged that the HRA would not be repealed

“while the process of Brexit is underway”.

Who am I to guess whether the Brexit process is nearing the endgame or not? It certainly looks likely that, in 2019, it will get to the final stages, and we may or may not leave the European Union. The question therefore arises: what would the governing party’s policy be on repeal of the HRA once the Brexit process has been completed or at least got to the position of being implemented? For all those reasons, the central purpose of today’s debate is to seek an assurance from the Minister that there will be no attempt to repeal, undermine, weaken or amend the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.

I often feel that our discussions on human rights can become somewhat abstract and go over the heads of the ordinary man or woman in the street. It is important that we state clearly why human rights are so central to everything we believe in. In essence, human rights are an expression of what we mean by civilisation. They define how individuals should act towards one another. They confer respect and dignity on the individual. Crucially, as well as setting standards for the behaviour that we expect from others, they set obligations on how we ought to behave towards others. I would argue that the existence of human rights is central to our wellbeing as a healthy and dynamic society.

It has been rightly suggested that few people ever think about their human rights; they certainly do not feel the need to go to court to have them upheld. I doubt if more than a tiny percentage of the population even know of someone who has gone to court on a human rights matter. That in itself suggests how powerful and useful the legislative framework is. The central point of human rights legislation is not to allow people to seek redress if their rights are infringed, but to protect people in the first place from others doing bad things to them. The fact that there is so little court activity in this field vindicates the view that the system is working.

Of course, there are cases where the system does not work and people feel the need to have their rights upheld. It is interesting to refer to a few of those, so that we, and the public, can understand how central these matters are. Celia Peachey did not think that the Human Rights Act related to her at all. Her mother was killed at the hands of a violent partner. She tried for years to get the police to do something about it, but could not persuade them to intervene. After her mother died, she was able to use the Human Rights Act to secure an inquest, which returned a verdict of unlawful killing and criticised the police for refusing to take action despite her representations.

The Driscolls were an elderly couple who depended on each other for care and support to go about their daily lives. When Mr Driscoll was rehoused in a residential care home, his wife was not allowed to live with him. They used the article in the Human Rights Act on the right to a family life to argue that they should be rehoused together, and they won and were rehoused as a couple. That was of benefit not only to them; they set a precedent, and in such cases it is now normal to consider rehousing elderly couples together.

Members will know of the case of Gary McKinnon, a young man with Asperger’s who allegedly hacked into a National Aeronautics and Space Administration computer database and who was wanted by the United States of America. They tried to have him extradited, which would have led to 60 years’ imprisonment had he been found guilty. He tried to resist that extradition. To her credit, the then Home Secretary said in 2012 that she would not allow his extradition, because, under the Human Rights Act, his rights would be breached were he extradited to stand trial in the US.

There is also the celebrated case of the black cab rapist, John Worboys. Two of his early victims, in 2003 and 2007, went to the police to complain about what had happened to them, and their complaints were not investigated at the time. After the case came to prominence, they used the Human Rights Act to get an inquiry into how the police had dealt with their complaints. It found that they had not done so correctly. The police were reprimanded, and the victims received compensation as a result of that use of the Human Rights Act.

Many people will know of the continuing campaign of the families of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster to seek justice for their loved ones. They have repeatedly used the Human Rights Act over the last 20 years to move their cases forward.

The final example I will give is that of people trying to get redress against public authorities—particularly health authorities, such as the Mid Staffordshire NHS hospital trust. I do not want to go into detail about the sad state of affairs in that institution; suffice it to say that 119 families have used the Human Rights Act to seek redress for the treatment they received from that hospital. Those are all important uses of the Act. Often, they quite literally make the difference between life and death, and are central to the quality of life of our citizens.

Let me turn to the implications of Brexit for the protections in the Human Rights Act. I have already discussed the wording of the political declaration with respect to the European convention on human rights, but in a sense I have to wonder why it is even an issue. The ECHR is the creature not of the European Union, but of the Council of Europe—an organisation to which this country subscribes and that involves 47 European countries, 40% of which are not members of the European Union—so one wonders why this is even being talked about in the context of Brexit.

It has been suggested that a commitment to the ECHR, if taken seriously, is in some ways a hindrance to the process of government and that it prevents the Government from acting freely. Some people on the extreme wings of the Brexit movement would suggest that it means foreign interference with the ability of an independent United Kingdom to do whatever it wants. Well, it is a good hindrance, because it obliges us to conform to international norms of civilisation to which most people throughout the world subscribe.

In terms of complaints under the ECHR and judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the United Kingdom actually has a very good record: it is right down at the bottom of the list of countries having cases lodged against them. Our association with the Court and with the processes upholding the convention should not be seen as some sort of hindrance; it is a vindication of the fact that this country is actually quite good at upholding human rights when it comes to how things are governed.

There is a concern that one reason behind the debate on revisiting human rights legislation may be a desire to free up the United Kingdom for international trading arrangements post Brexit—the International Trade Secretary is not doing that well at signing us up to them, but I am sure more will come on the agenda in time. It is important that we say at the outset that we are not prepared to accept any trade-off in human rights standards from third-party countries as part of securing trade agreements. Surely we need to be seen as a country that not only upholds its own human rights standards, but uses its power and authority to ensure that such standards are upheld internationally. I therefore ask the Minister, first, to confirm that there is no intention to diminish current protections, and, secondly, to explore how in a post-Brexit scenario—if indeed that comes about—human rights will be protected not just in this country but around the world.

One problem is that we are talking about something that, to some extent, has already happened. Last summer, in debates on the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the Government were keen to ensure that the EU charter of fundamental rights would not be included in British legislation, despite opposition from my party and many others. Their case was that including the charter would be unnecessary duplication, since all the individual rights in it were replicated elsewhere. That was not quite true—some rights in the charter are not in the ECHR—but, in any case, it missed the main point: the charter’s purpose was not just to define people’s rights, but to create obligations on EU member states regarding how those rights would be upheld and, in particular, to assert their primacy over other legislation.

Jason Coppel QC’s advice to the Equality and Human Rights Commission cites a 2017 case of cleaners in the Sudanese embassy who had tried to go to court to uphold their employment rights but had been told that, under the State Immunity Act 1978, foreign embassies were exempt from employment claims. They used the charter to go to court and to argue and win their case that their employment rights and human rights at work are more important that the 1978 Act, which should be set aside to ensure their rights. The tragedy is that if we exit the European Union at 11 pm on 29 March, the charter will be gone, so those cleaners would not be able to bring such a case. That is a diminution of people’s rights.

It is important not to be complacent about this, so we need to look at ways of strengthening and developing the application of human rights in our country. To that end, I want to say something about the situation in Scotland, because developments there can provide some leadership to the United Kingdom and the other nations in it. The Human Rights Act is a reserved matter, but the European convention on human rights, which the Act enshrines, is fundamental to the devolution settlement in Scotland and Wales and to the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. Scottish Ministers are required to comply with the ECHR in everything they do. For that reason—and for the simple reason that upholding most people’s human rights has an awful lot to do with the day-to-day processes of government—the Scottish Government are keen to look at how human rights can be developed and incorporated into Scots law.

Just before Christmas, the First Minister’s advisory group on human rights leadership, chaired by Professor Alan Miller, published a very good report, which I commend to colleagues. It sets an agenda for taking things forward over the next five years and sets out three central principles in the context of Brexit. The first, which I have already mentioned, is that there should be no regression in human rights protections as a result of Brexit. The second, which we do not often talk about, is that we need to keep pace with any improvements in human rights protections in the European Union. That is a matter of having policies to ensure that this country does not lag behind the EU27, or indeed the Council of Europe 46. The third is how to make it real—how to integrate human rights protections into the very processes of government.

The report splits human rights into categories, of which the most familiar is civil and political rights such as the right to life, the right to vote or the right to free expression. Those rights are central to the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, but there is a whole other dimension of human rights that is essential to defining the nature of our society: social and economic rights, such as the right to health, the right to shelter or the right to work. The report is instructive in how it takes forward the debate; rather than describing those rights as abstract principles or objectives to attain, it examines how to shape Government policy towards their delivery.

I am happy to debate the point, because colleagues from the libertarian right may be able to put an alternative point of view, but, to my mind, delivering social and economic rights has to address the question of regulating resources in society. Essentially, such rights are about a fair allocation and sharing of resources between people. That does not mean that it is the Government’s responsibility to provide everybody with the keys to a three-bedroom house, but it does mean that the Government ought to be responsible for ensuring that there is a housing public policy framework with the objective that everyone should be adequately housed. In cases where regulation or the market fail to achieve that objective, the Government should also be responsible for ensuring safety-net provision of basic shelter. To test whether Government policy is delivering those rights, we need to ensure that the notion of human rights is integrated into Government at all levels.

There is much that can be learned from the debate in Scotland, so perhaps the Minister could comment on it, and on whether such a debate could happen in the United Kingdom as a whole. Human rights cannot be seen as an add-on or afterthought to Government policy; they need to be central to it at all levels. In future debates on the subject, rather than having a reply from a Justice Minister, perhaps it would be more fitting to have one from a Cabinet Office Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or even the Prime Minister, because human rights need to be driven into every aspect of Government policy. They should not be seen as the concern only of lawyers or legal departments; they should be central to how we do the business of Government.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I know we are nearly out of time, so I will be brief. I thank everyone who has participated in the debate. I am slightly concerned that a few more Members did not turn up, particularly because we do not seem to have that big a distraction in the main Chamber at the moment—unlike with many debates in the Westminster Hall Chamber in the past. Perhaps as the months go on, we will encourage more of our colleagues to take part.

I have a couple of quick points to make. I will have to check the transcript, but I did not get from the Minister quite the unequivocal and categorical assurances that I sought on commitment to the existing Human Rights Act and the protections that it affords, or—several Members requested this—on no falling behind after Brexit, if rights improve in other European countries. I hope that we get such assurances in future, but that ambiguity—if no other reason—ensures that we will return to this debate in the months ahead.

Finally, I invite my Council of Europe colleague, the hon. Member for Henley (John Howell), to reconsider his attitude on whether social and economic rights should be accorded the same status as civil and political rights. After all, in this country we have a body of legislation that already gives people the right to education and to housing in some circumstances. As time goes on, we will want to incorporate such rights into the body of what we know as human rights. It is cold comfort, is it not, to know that we have the right to free expression if we are starving on the streets and have neither an income nor a home to live in. I am sure that we will return to the subject in the months to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered human rights in the UK.

Legal Aid: Post-Implementation Review

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. It is important that we have a strong and vibrant criminal Bar and I want to do everything I can to support that. I make it clear that it is important that we have a vibrant situation for solicitors as well. He will be aware that last year we announced changes to the advocates’ graduated fees scheme. I hope we have a constructive relationship with the criminal Bar, and we have been able to take steps and prioritise this area. We are also undertaking the review, which we anticipate will report in mid-2020.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. As others have remarked, at the core of this discussion is access to justice, a principle enshrined not only in the common law of England and Scotland, but in the Human Rights Act that applies throughout the UK. The House will be aware that these matters are dealt with differently in Scotland, as they always have been, with the Scottish Government responsible for the provision of legal aid in Scotland. Not for the first time, people in Scotland have reason to be grateful for this differentiation because in Scotland, despite cuts to the block grant available to the Scottish Government, they have maintained a system of legal aid that is more generous in its scope and application than any part of the UK. Some 75% of all civil cases in Scotland are eligible for some form of legal aid, whereas the corresponding figure in England and Wales is 25%. So although I am sure Members will welcome this as a step in the right direction to widening the scope of legal aid, I make the observation that there is still an awful long way to go. Will the Secretary of State consider emulating the targets that have been set in Scotland?

On the question of fees for those who provide legal aid, the Secretary of State will be aware that the Scottish Government have recently approved a 3% increase in fees across the board, whereas in England fees are to be increased by only 1%, and I believe that is just for barristers in the legal aid service. Will he consider bringing England and Wales into line with the more generous provision of fees in Scotland?

[Mr Gauke]

As I said a moment ago, we announced reforms to the AGFS last year, which see the biggest increase for some time in those fees. Let me make a point about the wider issue of access to justice. Access to justice is very important, but we should not consider that the test of that is purely about legal aid in the form that it has been. We need to be more innovative and to think ahead. I regret the dismissive tone taken by the shadow Justice Secretary about the potential for new technology in this area. To ensure that we can expand access to justice, we have to be prepared to innovate and make the best use of technology.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Robert Neill]

I think the most important principle is legal certainty. It may well be very sensible for us to start to remove, as soon as possible, bits of retained law that we do not want to keep, but it seems to me to be equally implausible to retain something without following through on the logic from whence it comes. I recognise my hon. Friend’s point, but the issue, as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) pointed out, is one of the Bill’s own making. I hope that the Government will table an amendment—before the Report stage—to remove these internal contradictions sooner rather than later. I think we all want to be in the same place, but justice requires not only independence of the courts but a proper framework in which it can operate. Above all, it requires certainty. The Bill as it stands runs the risk of creating uncertainty, and that cannot be in anybody’s interest.

I have been struck by the tone of the responses we have had from the Government Front Bench so far, but it is really important to stress that this is a matter of very significant principle. We wish to give the Government the best possible fair wind. I have no doubt whatever about the intentions, credit and integrity of the Solicitor General, who will reply to the debate shortly. What he says will weigh very heavily with many of us. I am sure he will do something that is constructive and helpful, and will help to improve the Bill. This is an important point that I wish to put on the record, because if there is not something of that kind, we will have to return to the issue as the Bill progresses. I hope that that will not be necessary. I believe it will not be necessary, but it is important to stress how fundamentally significant it is. These matters may seem technical, but they are vital to the underpinning of a sound piece of proposed legislation going forward.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

I support those amendments that seek to ensure that the charter of fundamental rights is not exempted when we transfer powers from the EU after Brexit. Like many people I expect, I have received a lot of correspondence from constituents, and I wanted to start by reading from one—because time is short I will just read the last section of a letter from one of my constituents, Andrew Connarty:

“I feel that the EU and its legislative and judicial bodies protect me as a citizen and have a process of checks in place to protect my human rights, my legal rights and provide me with security. A lot of conversation in the media covers the rights of EU citizens in the UK who are foreign nationals, but what about the rights of EU citizens in the UK who are British nationals?”

Andrew Connarty is one of the great number of people in this country who are fearful of what is about to happen. For them, the process of leaving the EU is not some great liberation or removal of an alien superstate that oppresses them and over-regulates them. They see this as a loss of something of themselves; they see themselves as being diminished and lessened by this process.

Some on the Government Benches will say, “Well, that view does exist, but it is the view of a small liberal elite”. Indeed, a Member earlier tried to taunt a colleague by suggesting that the vote for remain in her constituency could not possibly have been motivated by concern about the charter of fundamental rights. I accept that the great mass of people are probably completely unaware of what particular rights we are talking about, but that does not mean they are unconcerned about them. Joni Mitchell probably summed it up best with the line,

“you don’t know what you’ve got

‘Till it’s gone.”

The reason is that by their very nature political rights do not put obligations on the rights holder—they do not have to be defended and claimed every day; they put obligations on everyone else. We all have to respect the rights of others. In particular, private corporations and public institutions have to respect the rights of others. It is not until they are changed and that relationship alters that people understand that something has been taken away from them. That is why it is absolutely vital that we educate people about the process now happening.

There was some debate about whether the rights in the charter are substantial at all, about whether they mean very much and about whether they are covered elsewhere in legislation. In 2006, this Parliament established the Equality and Human Rights Commission to advise us on such matters. I have read its briefing—I suspect most have—in which it cites clear examples of articles in the charter that are not replicated in other forms of legislation and states that, if the charter is not transferred or incorporated into British law, these rights will be lost. They include—I will not read them all: article 22 on child labour; article 8 on the right to be forgotten on the internet; article 26 on independence for disabled people; and article 24 on the access of children to both parents. These are rights that we have now that we will not have if the charter does not come over post Brexit.

It is not necessary to lose these rights in order to achieve Brexit. I say to the Brexiteers: I am not one of you but you can have Brexit without losing these rights. It is entirely possible. We do not need to do this, so why are we discussing it at all? The Minister said earlier that it makes no sense to have the charter if we are not a member of the EU, because it refers to the EU, yet the entire canon of European law is being taken over and incorporated into British statute, and this charter goes along with it to give citizens rights in respect of it. It makes total sense, therefore, to bring the charter over in the process of repatriating these powers.

There has been talk that it would be silly to bring the charter over because it would create anomalies and inconsistencies with other parts of the Bill, but the Bill already recognises that there are a million anomalies in the process and makes provisions to deal with them. We wonder, then, what is so special about the charter that it cannot happen there, too. Leaving that to one side, however, the most telling argument, as colleagues have said throughout the last six hours, is surely that it is operational at the minute. Why is our legal system not grinding to a halt under the pressure of these contradictions if they are so great? The truth is they are not so great. It works at the minute, and there is no reason it could not continue to work beyond 2019.

In the absence of a rational argument for the retention of clause 5 and schedule 1, I am compelled to find myself reaching the same conclusion as the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke): what is happening here is pure politics. There are those on the other side who will be satisfied by being thrown this bone, and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman put it himself, the idea of being able to get rid of a provision that includes both the word “Europe” and the word “rights” creates a double salivation, but I do not think that it just about sating those who are so Europhobic that they will get pleasure from this; I think there is something else going on as well.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach), who is no longer in the Chamber, said earlier that the Government did not intend to remove or weaken our human rights, and I take that at face value. The Government have certainly not come here and said that that is their intention. In fact, no Members—or almost none—have said today that they want to remove people’s human rights, to weaken protection at work, or to lessen consumer protection laws in this country, although I rather fear that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) nearly let the cat out of the bag when he referred to “the wrong people” having rights in the charter.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the repatriation of powers so that he could have “real human rights” in this country. I dread to think what he means by “real human rights”. I find him an honourable fellow and I am sure that he means no malintent, but I know that there are plenty of people in our society and in our community who will take advantage of any roll-back of civil and human rights protection to ensure that our religious and political freedoms are constrained so that they can adhere to theirs. I think we need to be eternally vigilant, and I hope very much that the Government will feel able to think again.

I say this to those in the centre ground of the Tory party: “If you are just trying to keep the good ship together and keep every faction on board, and if you think that by giving this concession on human rights you will shore up the Government’s support, remember that your former leader David Cameron thought he would be able to do that by having a Brexit referendum in the first place, and look how that has worked out.” I sincerely say to them, “Once bitten, twice shy. Please think again.”

[The Solicitor General]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). Let me take this opportunity to assure him yet again that our commitment to rights and freedoms remains absolute. I spent nearly 20 years at the criminal Bar dealing with the liberty of the individual. Indeed, I think I was a human rights lawyer before we even coined the phrase, as were many other Members on both sides of the House.

The point has already been made that our rights and freedoms long pre-date modern developments, but modern developments have no doubt helped to sustain, improve and enhance the range of those freedoms. The fundamental question that we seek to ask about the charter is whether, in the final analysis—as we are no longer to be members of the European Union—it adds anything relevant or material to the sophisticated and developing body of law that has evolved over generations. I do not think so, and I have reached that conclusion after extremely careful thought.

It is tempting, after a long debate, to try and treat this as a Second Reading wind-up, but we are far from that. Other Members are anxious to take part, and I am mindful of the time. I will therefore be true to the principles of debate in Committee, and deal with schedule 1, which I hope will be agreed to. In doing so, however, I will address the various amendments that have been tabled on pages 8 to 12 of the amendment paper—which is still the same size although we are now on day three of the Committee stage, and I am pretty confident that that will remain the case.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

Some Government Members seem perturbed at the description of clause 7 as a power grab, but given the breadth of its powers and the absolute and unqualified way in which they are presented, the legislation represents a transfer of political authority from the elected House of this Parliament to the political Executive of Government on a scale not seen in modern times. Any democrat should be concerned about that, but what concerns me even more is Ministers’ justification for why such powers are necessary. They are effectively saying that this is now the only way that they can achieve Brexit and get the job done. That speaks volumes about the woeful inadequacy of the Government’s preparations for leaving the European Union.

It is no surprise: we all know and, indeed, have always known that the repatriation of European law and its integration into UK law would be complicated. It will throw up inconsistencies and anomalies and it will require further legislation. That is no secret. It is perturbing that 15 months after the referendum, having built a brand new, shiny Government Department, committed hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money to the process and instructed thousands of civil servants on the job, the best the Government can come up with is, “Trust us; it will be all right on the night.” Where is the schedule of the principal EU laws that are to be repatriated, indicating the effect on domestic legislation and bringing forward legislative amendments for the House’s approval in order to make it work? Where is the schedule—the plan? There is none. It is a shocking abrogation of the Government’s responsibility.

If clause 7 is a power grab by the Executive, clause 11 is a power grab by the British state over the United Kingdom’s devolved national Parliaments. Let me explain it this way to my friends in the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. Twenty years ago to the day, we voted to establish a national Parliament in Scotland. Our predecessors in this place went on to decide what its powers should be. If this country had control over fishing and agriculture back then, there would have been no dispute whatsoever: those powers would have been given to Holyrood. They would not have been included in schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which sets out the reserved powers. It would have been seen as an automatic, simple thing to do, yet that is not what is happening under the Bill, and we have to ask ourselves why.

We are being invited to trust Ministers, but I want to withhold my trust, because there are alternatives that they could have considered. They could simply have repealed the relevant bits in the 1998 Act and changed schedule 5. They could have repealed the measure and put in a new qualification on the Scottish Government to comply with whatever international agreements the UK forms in the future, or—here is the kicker—they could have said in the Bill, “This is our intention to devolve these powers,” and they could have put a time limit on that, after which it would automatically happen. The absence of that leads me not to trust the Government.

[Drew Hendry]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be incredible if the Scots Tories voted for this Bill to take powers away from Scotland, when even their leader, Ruth Davidson, says that this could do great economic harm to the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Tommy Sheppard]

I absolutely concur with my hon. Friend. I say to colleagues opposite: do not let yourselves be played for fools. It is quite clear that there is no intention to devolve. The reason why we warn about this Bill being a danger to devolution is that it is against not just the letter, but the spirit of the Scotland Act 1988, which achieved devolution.

[Bill Grant]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will you tell the House what powers will be taken away from Scotland with this Bill? Will you detail the powers that we are taking away—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can do no such thing, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) might be able to do so.

[Tommy Sheppard]

I find it incredible—Members on the Government Benches have had the answer to this question on three occasions. The point is that there is an opportunity in this place, in this month, in this debate to transfer powers from Brussels to Holyrood, and it is not being taken. Government Members invite us to trust them, but I fear that we cannot do so; if we could, they would have made clear their intention in the Bill. That is one reason why I will vote to decline giving this Bill a Second Reading tonight.

[Bill Grant]

rose—

[Tommy Sheppard]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to please sit down, as time is very short.

Finally, many Members have stood up and said how their constituents voted over Brexit. Let me put this on the record: the people who sent me to this place to speak on their behalf voted by 74% to retain their European citizenship and against the process in which we are now engaged. The people of my country voted by 62% to retain their European membership. We were told in 2014 that the independence referendum was not a matter of Scotland dissolving itself and its citizens becoming part of another country. It was about a political union between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Within that Union, according to David Cameron, the views of Scotland would be respected. I call now for that respect to be shown to Scotland and to the Scottish Government. I know that the UK will leave the European Union—that much is certain—but what happens next must be different in different parts of the United Kingdom; it must be different in Scotland, so that Scottish interests can be protected. I say to the Conservative and Unionist party in Scotland: you may have a majority in this vote, but you are alone tonight in Scotland in letting this process go through.

Transitional State Pension Arrangements for Women

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Lady will be aware that Governments have to take difficult decisions at times. Considering the state of the economy and the financial position that this Government came into—she will be aware that one of her own colleagues said that there was no money left—and considering the longevity of both men and women, the Government had to take difficult decisions, as all Governments of both shades have to. This Government had to take difficult decisions and we took them because they needed to be taken.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

The women of this country will be watching this debate and listening to the Minister’s comments with a mixture of concern and disappointment. He is giving us history lessons and is trying to apportion blame. We have a material problem now that the Government need to address, so he should stop looking backwards and start looking forwards, and start caring for the women of this country. This House has already said by an overwhelming majority that it wants the Government to look again at the transitional arrangements: has the Minister looked again at them, has his position changed since the last time this House debated the subject and will he tell us what his change of position is?

[Mr Vara]

If hon. Members did not give mini speeches in the middle of my speech, I could reach my conclusions. I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s question in due course. We cannot look at the changes to women’s state pension age in isolation without acknowledging the significant changes in life expectancy in recent years, the huge progress made in opening up employment opportunities for women and the wider package of reforms. First, on life expectancy, the reason for all these significant reforms is that people are not just living longer but are staying healthy for longer. In just a decade, the length of time for which 65-year-olds will live in good health has surged by more than a year. That is welcome news, but it puts increasing pressure on the state pension scheme, and the Government—any Government—have a duty to ensure the sustainability of the state pension system. It would have been irresponsible for this Government, or the then coalition Government, to have ignored those developments.

State Pension Age (Women)

Tommy Sheppard Excerpts

Thursday 7th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Gray]

I wholeheartedly agree. Sadly, those are typical stories that have played out across the Chamber today. It is this simple but dramatic injustice that is so galling.

The simple truth is that women born in the 1950s will be disproportionately burdened by the Government’s plan for many reasons, not least because men of the same age are and have long been in a better position to offset at least part of the loss through savings or a private defined contribution pension scheme.

The Pensions Policy Institute, in its submission to the Work and Pensions Committee on the Government’s pension reforms, emphasised that point by illustrating that only 65% of women in the 55 to 59 age range are economically active compared with around 76% of men. The gap is even greater among those in the 60 to 64 age bracket: 34% of women are currently economically active compared with 54% of men.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that some Government Members seem not to recognise the sense of injustice and grievance that exists among women born in the mid-1950s, such as my constituents Andrea Gregory and Wilma Robertson, who have worked all their lives, paid all their taxes and had their retirement postponed by the state not once, but twice? The word that they use is “robbery”. They feel that they are being made to pay for a financial crisis that was not of their making.

[Neil Gray]

I wholeheartedly agree. There have been some noteworthy speeches from Government Members, but some that have sadly not met the same standard. I hope that the Minister will show some contrition and introduce transitional arrangements.

Many women who have had their retirement plans shattered will be forced, through no fault of their own, to accept zero-hours contracts—temporary and low paid contracts that offer no financial security and poor return for their labour when, relatively recently, they expected to be enjoying a hard-earned retirement. Little, if any, thought has been given to the many women who care for their grandchildren or elderly relatives. It is not always possible to return to work in those circumstances and at this time in their lives.

I, my SNP colleagues and many other hon. Members of all parties agree with the reasons for the equalisation of the state pension age. However, the increased speed of the plans, with poor notice and no transition arrangements, is of great concern. The Government are betraying women and I am worried that there will be further undue hardship if they do not address the blatantly evident inequality. Not transitioning appears to be another example of the Government making cuts in pursuit of their budget surplus holy grail, with no consideration of the impact.

The Government must take some responsibility for their failure not to notify and fully prepare women for a longer wait. That means bringing forward the transitional protection and righting the injustice for those already and those set to be affected. I hope that today we will not get the same complacent ministerial reply that we heard to the recent Westminster Hall debate in which I was involved.

The Government are being warned today that the campaign will not go away. The women in the WASPI campaign will fight this all the way, and will be supported wholeheartedly by my SNP colleagues and by Labour Members. The Government need to sort the matter out with the same speed with which they delivered tax cuts for the rich when they got the opportunity, or they will forever be remembered for their betrayal of pensioners, particularly female pensioners.