Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 29th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

We go to the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and it is great to see you in the Chair once again. May I say to the Secretary of State that the Union is in trouble because there is no longer a case for the Union? We know that because a significant number of under-50s now support independence. Could he tell us what the Union’s greatest achievement has been in the past few years? Is it a Brexit that Scotland does not support; is it high-rise energy prices in energy-rich Scotland; or is it being run by a bunch of Tories that most of Scotland rejected?

[Mr Jack]

I notice that the hon. Gentleman did not quote any opinion polls to me this time. Nor, as he mentions Brexit, did he call for another—[Interruption.] The result was 52% to 48%—[Interruption.]

House of Lords Reform

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Patrick Grady]

I will leave my hon. Friend’s comments on the record. However, it is possible for people to be elected to the House of Commons and the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, our former colleague, Winnie Ewing, has the distinction of having been elected to the Scottish Parliament, the House of Commons and the European Parliament; I think that she is the only person ever to sit in all three of those legislatures. I do not know whether a seat in the House of Lords was then offered to her, but if it was she certainly never took it.

However, this debate is not about individual Members of the House of Lords. Many of them have immensely valuable skills and experience that sometimes are not found or replicated in the Commons. Nevertheless, there must be better, more imaginative and more innovative ways of using such experience for the public good than simply appointing people to the legislature for the rest of their lives and just letting them get on with it.

Even the majority of peers themselves think that the current arrangements are unsuitable and unsustainable. The Lord Speaker’s committee on the size of the House published a series of recommendations in 2017 aimed at reducing and stabilising the composition of the House of Lords, but under recent Prime Ministers the House of Lords has become even more bloated. Famously, the National People’s Congress of China is the only legislative Chamber in the world that has more members than the House of Lords.

That is one of those amusing anecdotes that some of us like to tell guests when we show them around this place. Another one is that Lesotho is one of the two countries in the Commonwealth where hereditary chieftains retain the right to make law, the other being the United Kingdom. Another is that Iran is one of only two countries in the world where religious clerics sit as of right in the legislature, the other being—again—the United Kingdom. Those statements are not just anecdotes; they are anachronisms. They are not really amusing; they are absurd. Sometimes, when we show guests, particularly those from developing countries, the opulence of the Lords Chamber, words begin to fail us. How do we adequately describe what the Lords actually is, how it is composed and why it functions in the way it does in what is supposed to be a 21st-century democracy?

Sometimes, visiting delegations—perhaps under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the Westminster Foundation for Democracy—come to Westminster from countries in Africa, Latin America or eastern Europe. They meet parliamentarians such as ourselves around antique tables and oak-panelled walls and they talk about good governance, democratic accountability and anti-corruption practices. Although such learning and sharing among parliamentarians is always valuable, many eyebrows are raised if in discussions it happens to come up that one in 10 Conservative peers have donated more than £100,000 to the Conservative party, and that in the past seven years every former Conservative party treasurer has given at least £3 million to the party, and almost all of them have been offered a peerage. There seems to be an uncanny connection between donating vast sums of money to the Government, or indeed to some of the official Opposition parties, and the chances of being offered a seat for life in the House of Lords.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is making that strong and powerful point. We have some gall to lecture the developing world about good governance arrangements, when we are prepared to stuff a political institution full of people who are little more than donors, cronies and political place-people, in order to ensure their place in what I would not call our democracy, but our legislature, just for the fact that they have some money to give to political parties. Does he agree?

[Patrick Grady]

I do not disagree with my hon. Friend. As he and I have said, the connection is quite uncanny. Of course, no one is levelling specific accusations, but that connection is out in the open. It is a simple fact; it is simply numbers. In conjunction with Brunel University, openDemocracy calculated that the odds of so many major Tory donors in the UK population all ending up in the House of Lords are the equivalent of entering the national lottery 12 times in a row and winning the jackpot every time. That is quite astonishing.

As we know, there are limits on the collective ability of the Lords to veto or overrule the elected House. However, as my hon. Friend alluded to, the rights available to individual peers are very similar to ours in the House of Commons. They can put written and oral questions to Ministers. They can vote on and seek to amend legislation during a three-stage process that parallels that in the Commons. Incidentally, that means they can also bump into Ministers privately when they are in the voting Lobbies, which is supposed to be one of the great advantages of in-person voting.

Peers can introduce their own private Members’ Bills. They can sign up to inter-parliamentary bodies such as the CPA and the IPU, and they can join all-party parliamentary groups. There is, rightly, a lot of scrutiny at the moment of the operation of all-party parliamentary groups, but I wonder how many colleagues present have had to leave early or arrive late at an APPG meeting that they were interested in because they have had to deal with urgent constituency casework, or get to the Chamber for an urgent question or a statement relating to their constituency. Meanwhile, colleagues from the Lords at such meetings are content to run on and opine about the topic under discussion, whatever that happens to be, and build their connections with stakeholders and the secretariats of those meetings, whoever they happen to be.

In return for all that, peers are entitled to claim £332 for every day they attend the House, tax free. Sometimes it is pointed out that over an average of 150 sitting days a year, that works out at slightly less than the salary of a Member of the House of Commons after tax. However, in the Lords it is guaranteed for life. Members of Parliament are, without doubt, very well remunerated compared with most of our constituents. However, our constituents can, quite rightly, choose to stop that remuneration and elect a different representative in our place every time an election comes round.

[Patrick Grady]

It comes back to the point about accountability. Members of Parliament who behave in such a way would be taken to task, first by their Whips, secondly by the local party members, and finally by the electorate.

Since the end of the second world war, 65 countries have gained their independence from the United Kingdom. Although many have based the design and practices of their legislatures on might be called a Westminster model, I am not sure whether any of them have chosen to replicate a wholly unelected, appointed, partially hereditary Chamber where members serve for life. Even in Lesotho, with its hereditary chieftains, appointed members of the Senate serve a five-year term. Its Senate has 33 members, not over 800.

SNP manifestos in 2015, 2017 and 2019 called for the abolition of the House of Lords. When Scotland becomes the 66th country to achieve independence from the United Kingdom, there will be an opportunity to consider how the enactment of legislation, scrutiny of the Executive and representation of the population can be most effectively —and perhaps innovatively—achieved.

There have been proposals for an upper Chamber of some kind, perhaps based on the model of the Irish Seanad. There have been calls for an increase in the number of MSPs, both under current devolution and indeed under independence. There are more radical ideas for pre-legislative scrutiny and a greater use of citizens’ assemblies and other forms of direct democracy that could feed into the main legislature.

However, nobody, as far as I am aware, has suggested that when Scotland becomes independent, or when any other country has a good hard look at its constitution, it would be a good idea to have a wholly appointed second Chamber. The idea is just incomprehensible and incompatible with a modern democracy.

[Pete Wishart]

This has always been a quandary for me: what does an independent Scotland do with existing peers who have Scottish titles or who are from a Scottish part of the world? It struck me that, just to show generosity and good spirit, perhaps we could donate all the Scottish lords to the rest of the United Kingdom as a parting gift? Does my hon. Friend think that is a good idea?

[Patrick Grady]

During the independence referendum campaign my hon. Friend was probably so busy making the case for independence in the House of Commons and in his constituency that he missed the fact that the peers dwelled on that issue for some considerable time and that it was a matter of great concern to them. They came to the conclusion that because they had been appointed for life and were peers of the United Kingdom, the fact that they once lived or served—or even continue to live—in Scotland was irrelevant and they would all be safe in their place. After that they appeared to lose interest in the question of independence.

[Pete Wishart]

What a relief that is!

[Patrick Grady]

I am sure it is a relief to many people paying attention to the debate. Anyway, that information was meant to be just for background and context, but it turns out that simply by describing the absurdity of the current system the case for reform of the Lords starts to speak for itself. My point today is not so much about what kind of reform of the House of Lords is necessary or what should replace it were it to be completely abolished, but about why reform has not happened or is not happening and the ongoing failure—indeed, the impossibility—of any kind of meaningful reform. There seem to be two main reasons for that.

First, it is not in the interests of the governing party at Westminster or the Prime Minister—any Prime Minister—to weaken the immense power of patronage that the ability to make appointments to the Lords represents. Secondly, it is simply not possible to reform the Lords in any meaningful way without reforming the Commons, and that would mean not just procedural reform but electoral reform, followed by a review of the entire structure of the UK’s constitution. That would never be in the interests of any incumbent party of government.

Members may be aware that there have been some significant interventions on the issue of Lords reform in recent months, and these have, intentionally or otherwise, conceded both of those points. The Lord Speaker addressed the issue of Lords reform in the Hansard Society’s 75th anniversary lecture just before Christmas. His proposed framework was thoughtful and pragmatic, and it is easy to agree with several of the key principles he outlined about why reform was needed and what it could start to look like. He made a key point that the more radical the change to the composition of the Lords, the more radical would be the change to the role of the House, even if there were no explicit changes in its powers. However, to me it then follows that there would inevitably also be a change in its relationship with the Commons, and the Commons would want to find new ways, quite rightly, to assert its democratic mandate.

The Lord Speaker diplomatically regretted the decision of recent Prime Ministers not to show restraint in making new appointments, and remarked that the House of Lords has increased from 778 members in June 2019 to 828 today, with more to come. Those figures show just how irresistible the power of patronage is to many Prime Ministers. Other than various absolute monarchs and dictators, who else in the world has the power to confer a job for life on any person of their choosing? That is a power that rests with the UK’s Prime Minister, exercisable over wavering Back-Bench rebels, potential advisers who need to be enticed away from the private sector and, it seems by more than mathematical coincidence, over many wealthy party donors.

The Lord Speaker also pointed out that a change of Government could easily lead to a further surge in membership of the Lords in order to reflect the changed balance of power in the Commons. That shows, once again, that it is impossible to speak of meaningful reforms of the Lords in isolation, and not consider the effect that reform would have on the UK’s wider political system.

These points are raised in the other recent major intervention on the issue, the recommendations published by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, after he modestly accepted a commission from the Leader of the Opposition to produce a report on the future of the United Kingdom.

[Patrick Grady]

Yes, what an achievement!

Incidentally, it is a bit odd that this debate is not being led by a Member of the official Opposition. People would think the report would have inspired a rush of applications from Labour Members eager to share their thoughts on constitutional reform and the role of the House of Lords, but in reality, barely a month after its publication, the status of that report is not clear.

Media coverage at the time suggested that it would form the basis of Labour’s next manifesto, which would mean the next election would become a de facto referendum on the constitution. A vote for the Labour party would be a vote to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with an assembly of nations and regions, for further regional devolution throughout England and for reform of the powers of the Scottish Parliament and Senedd Cymru, never mind that they were established by a Labour Government after popular referendums, or that previous extensions to their powers came as a result of cross-party commissions, including representatives from those institutions. Now it seems a Labour Government elected on 40% of the UK-wide vote will claim a mandate for sweeping constitutional reform.

[Pete Wishart]

Would it not be a simple way for Labour to show commitment to true House of Lords reform if it just stopped making appointments to it? A better gesture might be to even remove a few of them now and again, including the ones who do not turn up. Maybe that is a suggestion that my hon. Friend could make to our friends on the Labour Benches.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Julian Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman is an independent thinker on his party’s Benches. Not for the first time, I find myself in total agreement with him. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) said that the system of two elected Houses works well in other democracies. I am not sure that the citizens of the United States would entirely endorse that opinion, great though their democracy is.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Julian Lewis]

Forgive me, but I would like to develop my argument a little more. I promise that I will then give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Sir Julian Lewis]

How can I refuse the hon. Gentleman?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is always courteous. I am an abolisher of the House of Lords, but the UK is a complex democracy and some sort of revising Chamber would be required to take care of all its specific demands. The right hon. Gentleman and, I think, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) were here when Robin Cook proposed a series of reforms. I think we voted 11 times on a number of proposals, and none of them went through because of the very arguments made by the right hon. Gentleman. We cannot have competition with the House of Commons, but surely abolishing the House of Lords would not mean that we were left with nothing. There must be something we can think of to go in its place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I say to the Minister that his Government will never regain the trust of the Scottish people as long as they do not respect the democracy of our Parliament. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State might have his bolthole in the House of Lords, but the Minister and all his other Scottish colleagues will have to face the wrath of the electorate, so what representations has the soon-to-be Baron Jack made on behalf of him and his colleagues to make sure that they are safely ensconced in the House of Lords? [Interruption.]

[John Lamont]

I struggled to hear the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question.

We remain committed to Scotland remaining at the heart of the United Kingdom. We respect the result of the 2014 referendum, and I encourage the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and his colleagues to do the same.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

What would the impact have been on levelling-up projects if the Scottish Government had followed the advice of the Scottish Conservatives to give these unfunded and catastrophic tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society? Will the Secretary of State now apologise to the Scottish Government for insisting that they follow this disastrous and reckless course of action?

Contaminated Blood Scandal: Interim Payments for Victims

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I accept the premise that time is of the essence, and the point that the hon. Gentleman eloquently makes about each day that passes. I am very conscious of that, as are those working with me, and I ask him to accept that.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

There is no good reason why interim payments cannot be made. When we first raised issues of contaminated blood some 20 years ago, we were repeatedly told that no wrongful practices were employed. Andy Burnham conceded at the inquiry that he and his ministerial team were given lines by officials that he now knows to be false, and that that has had an impact on real lives. What is being done to address that misinformation, and will the Minister commit to an inquiry, over and above Sir Robert’s, into why MPs were misled at that time by officials?

[Michael Ellis]

I cannot commit to that. I am not aware of the detail of the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman. I have seen no evidence of officials giving deliberately incorrect information, but I will look into the matter.

Adviser on Ministerial Interests

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Well, there we have it, in the Minister’s own words, as clear as he could possibly be: it is abundantly clear that the Government have absolutely no intention whatsoever of moving speedily to replace their ethics adviser. If all the crowd on the Conservative Back Benches are prepared to be taken in by that rubbish, God help them when they have to try to consider some of the important issues of today.

We have heard from the Minister that there will be a review into the arrangements about the appointment of an ethics adviser. Why could he not have come to the Dispatch Box to state exactly and clearly what he intends to do, instead of mucking around with all of that rubbish and nonsense, skipping through God knows how many hoops and dancing on the head of so many pins? That would have been more useful to the House. We have had to listen to something like half an hour of unmitigated rubbish, and now we know that they will do nothing other than create some sort of review about how they will take the matter forward.

I do not know where to start when it comes to considering the ethics of this Prime Minister and Government. This is a Prime Minister with the ethics of Caligula and a Government with the morals of the last days of the Borgias. How the Prime Minister is still in place after all of this must go down in the history books as one of the great mysteries of early 21st-century politics. When the book is written and that feature film is eventually released, people will ask, “Did all of that seriously happen? Surely this must be a fictional account of this particular Conservative Government?”

There has never been a Prime Minister quite like it. He is a weird combination of privilege, narcissism, nastiness and naivety all wrapped up under the bumbling facade that he has carefully concocted to make his multitude of sins evaporate in front of our faces. He is about the worst Prime Minister to be in place at the worst possible time. No one has been more ill-equipped to run a community council, far less the Government of an advanced developed nation and democracy in western Europe. If there is one Prime Minister who is in need of ethical advice and the assistance of a moral compass, it is surely this Prime Minister. Far from doing away with the post—that plan is abundantly clear—the Government should be spending half of the UK’s GDP on creating an army of ethical advisers just to get on top of what is going on in the Government.

I have to say that, like the Culture Secretary, I was a little bit surprised to find out that we actually had an ethics adviser. I would not be surprised at all if the Prime Minister had an adviser for hedonism and partying hard, but ethics? He must be keeping his several successes in the course of the past few years hidden beneath a particularly big bushel. I do not know if he was a bit distracted when the Government were breaking the laws that they themselves created, distracted when they were threatening to break international law, distracted when they oversaw a culture at No. 10 that partied so hard that people were physically sick, got into fights and then abused the staff who were there to clean up, or distracted when the Government attempted to prorogue Parliament unlawfully and who continue to put their own cronies and donors in the House of Lords. But I suppose it gets to the stage where enough is enough even for the most patient, distracted and forgiving adviser, and the recognition finally dawns that this is an impossible task beyond the realms of human wit.

It comes as absolutely no surprise that the Government feel they can function quite adequately without an ethics adviser in place. They have been through two in the course of the past few years. Neither felt that they could make any real difference to the ethics and behaviour of this Prime Minister. That leads me to ask: what would an effective ethics adviser to this Prime Minister actually look like? They would need the ability to turn a blind eye and stomach some of the worst possible behaviour at the worst possible time. They must be able to take the abuse and disparaging comments from some of the Prime Minister’s friends, such as the Culture Secretary who, in her usual measured and respectful way, calls the current Lord Geidt “Lord Geddit” and says that voters do not care what he was or what he did. As part of the recruitment drive for the next ethics adviser, the Culture Secretary encouraged potential applicants for the post by saying that the public “don’t give a fig” about the job. Now, watch the great and good run forward to try to claim that particular prize.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a typically measured speech himself. In talking about ethics and standards, can he confirm whether the SNP Westminster group still has a zero-tolerance approach to sexual harassment and inappropriate behaviour? A leaked recording this weekend would indicate that that is no longer the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Obviously, I am not going to discuss any sort of leaked information that has been passed on to the press. What I will say to the hon. Gentleman is that if he is sitting in a glass house with a big rock, it is probably best not to throw it in any direction. I remind him that I was on the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme and put together the report that is now in place; one of the most successful initiatives we have had to tackle abuse in this place. I will take great pride in the fact that that was part of the arrangements concerning that.

I will finish with the Culture Secretary. Once she has finished her tenure in the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, which hopefully will be short-lived, she could maybe go on to become an international diplomat or peacemaker, given her ability to say the right things at the right time on issues that require sensitivity and care, just as she has in the last few weeks.

In an attempt to save face and further discredit Lord Geidt—this is perhaps one of the most concerning pieces of spin from the past few days—the Government were able to develop a narrative that his resignation was nothing to do with the appalling behaviour of the Prime Minister but a misunderstanding about steel. Because of the Government’s remarks and the spin from the Government’s friends in the newspapers, Lord Geidt felt it necessary to write a second letter to clarify exactly why he resigned. He said that it was nothing to do with steel, and that steel was an absolute and utter distraction. He said it was instead about being asked to approve deliberate breaches of international law given the Government’s

“widely publicised openness to this”.

[Joanna Cherry]

The Minister seemed very reluctant to confirm that a new adviser will be appointed anytime soon. Does my hon. Friend think that that is probably because the Government have it in mind to breach several international treaties in the coming months and it would be very awkward for them to have an adviser in place who would be advising them against that or possibly resigning because of their plans to do so?

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. and learned Friend is coming to the right conclusions about the Government’s indecision and apparently clear intention of not having an ethics adviser put in place at the earliest possible opportunity. A number of things are coming up—I will mention a couple of them—in the in-tray for any adviser to consider, some of which will greatly concern Members of this House.

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree that further delay and dilly-dallying in the appointment of an ethics adviser does nothing whatever to restore public confidence in our Government?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely and utterly right. I do not think that, in my 20-odd years in the House, I have seen it in such a dilapidated condition, when public trust in the activities of the House, the way in which we do business and the way in which we conduct ourselves has been so badly misunderstood and misinterpreted by the public. It is incumbent on the House to start to try and put these things right.

Let us get back to our good friend Lord Geidt. I do not know what it was in his comments that he had been left in

“an impossible and odious position”

and that he could not be

“party to advising on any potential law-breaking”

that led to any misunderstanding about his intention to resign from his role, and the real reasons why he eventually got around to it. Perhaps he had to be got rid of because it was he who had previously investigated the controversy over how the Prime Minister had funded the refurbishment of the flat above No. 11 Downing Street.

My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) referred to several issues that might require the attention of a future independent ethics adviser, but surely the one at the top of his inbox would be our emerging concern that the Prime Minister was seriously considering appointing his now wife to the role of special adviser in the Foreign Office. That is a matter that I think the House will have to return to in due course, and consider properly. Although Lord Geidt concluded that the Prime Minister had not broken ministerial rules in respect of the prime ministerial flat, the Conservative Party was later fined £17,800 for the improper declaration of donations.

So Lord Geidt is gone, and I have the impression that Downing Street is not particularly upset about that, but what is to be done? I have no problem with the Labour party’s motion, and I will support it; the only thing that I would say to Labour Members is that I would not give them the chance to try and find an independent adviser on the Government’s ethics. In any event, I think that it should be a matter for the House. I accept that some of these issues are relevant and pertinent to Government activity and business, but surely the House should have some sort of say, through the function of its Committees, in who does the monitoring and how that person is appointed. The present system has not worked particularly well in the case of the last few independent advisers. I think that we would need to find someone with the attributes of Gandhi, Mother Theresa, Columbo and George Washington combined to perform this role effectively.

In Scotland, of course, we have our much neater and easier way out of this midden, and that is to simply leave all of you to get on with it in your own time and in your own way. I have no idea what Scotland has done in its history to deserve governance such as this, but believe me, Madam Deputy Speaker, my colleagues and I are doing everything possible to ensure that the situation will be rectified. When it is right that we put forward the case for independence—as we will, and we will convince the Scottish people of its merits—all we need to do is to get the Scottish people to turn on the Parliament channel and observe what is happening in the House. That will increase their enthusiasm, and cause them to rush towards the cause of independence. The choice for them will be whether to be governed by these privileged Etonian spivs with their “one rule for them” approach to government, or to become a self-governing nation run by the people who care most about Scotland—the people who live and work there.

Sue Gray Report

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have apologised to them today already from this Dispatch Box.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Rarely in my 21 years in this House have I heard such utter drivel as we have been presented with today. I have tried to find words to capture what the Prime Minister said: disingenuous, delusional, slippery, self-serving—I know that I cannot say “dishonest” in this place. There has been no attempt at remorse; it is all somebody else’s fault. Surely if he was half the man he thinks he is, he would summon that self-respect and just go.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

A few people have said today that this has been a curious debate, and indeed it has been. It has been variously sombre, angry, reflective and even at times quasi-religious. Most of all, it has been necessary. When a sitting Prime Minister has been served with a fine for breaking a law that he himself set, particularly when that same Prime Minister had come to this House and said that no law had been broken, it could not possibly be ignored by this place. This House could have chosen to do a number of things in response to what it has been presented with. It could have done what the Government hoped: another apology could have been made and it could have hoped everybody would move on. But Conservative Members know there is real anger out there and that was never going to be enough for our constituents. At the other end of the scale, they could have replaced the Prime Minister and ended this with him having taken full responsibility and gone off into the embers and ether; that would be the end of it, he would go down with this incident and then we could fully move on. But that is going to be a matter for Conservative Members, and I have seen no indication that they are prepared to do that just now. We have instead chosen, as inevitably we will this evening, as it now looks as though this motion will be passed overwhelmingly, to refer this matter to the Privileges Committee. Although I personally find that a bit meh, it will do as a reasonable start in order that we deal with some of the issues around all of this.

I do not think the House will ever fully move on from this matter until we fully appreciate the sheer significance of what has happened and its profound impact on our constituents. Our constituents are genuinely upset and sincerely believe that the Prime Minister has lied—in fact, YouGov has just published an opinion poll that shows that 78% of the public think he has. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was absolutely right in his speech to reach for the L-word. After 20 years of sitting on the green Benches in this House, I still find it shocking to hear the L-word in this place, but no other word is appropriate. No other word could be used in the context of what the Prime Minister has said and done. Our constituents would be bewildered if we were not using the word that they now most commonly associate with his behaviour. We will never move on before the Government accept that.

I made my maiden speech on the same day as the Prime Minister back in 2001—in fact, I spoke after him. I remember his speech quite clearly: he compared himself to little Simba putting his paw into the huge footprint left by Michael Heseltine’s Mufasa. I should perhaps leave that reference there, because after the Pinocchio incident I do not want to mention the title of the feature film that features Simba.

Conservative Members know what the Prime Minister is like: they have known him for 20 years—for as long as I have. I found him a curious, dishevelling, odd type of character, but they must have known him better than me and they went and elected him as their Prime Minister. They knew what they were doing. This is no ordinary Prime Minister; this is somebody who profoundly believes that the law is for someone else and not for him. No other Prime Minister in history would have thought for a minute that they could possibly survive having been given a fine for breaking a law that they themselves set.

The main question is: did the Prime Minister mislead the House? I think the answer to that, on both sides of the House, is yes, he did mislead the House. The next question, therefore, is whether it was inadvertent: did he mean to mislead the House? Let us look at the evidence for that. First, he said there was no rule breaking. Then he claimed he was not aware of any parties. Then he said he was outraged by the parties he was not aware of. Then he said he was aware of “events” but believed they were not against the rules. Then he admitted he was at these events but did not know what they were. He was then fined for attending these events that he variously did not know anything about, was outraged over and did not realise were illegal. Then he apologised, a lot—again and again—but the time for that apology has passed.

I am not going to be reticent about the elections. The police have just put out a statement saying that no more fines will be issued and there will be no more comment until after the council elections, so they are now definitely in the mix. The elections are a feature of all this because of that police statement. I say to my Conservative colleagues: “You are going to get absolutely hammered in May.” The public are outraged. My local authority in Perthshire is Conservative, and we have one message on our leaflet: “As you obeyed the rules, the Tories partied. Kick them out.” I suspect that will go on most leaflets in subsequent elections until the Prime Minister is replaced or removed—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that he needs to stick to what is in the motion.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Absolutely, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would never dare move away from the motion before the House, and I find even the suggestion that I would quite shocking!

Let me conclude. This is a pivotal moment. Conservative Members can decide to resolve this issue and move on, for their own good as well as for themselves. Surely they are not going to go down with somebody who is now so full of the contempt of everybody across this nation. This motion will not be the end of it, but it could be the beginning of the end. I believe that this will truly end only when the Prime Minister goes, but that is all up to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

I cannot comment on the particulars that the hon. Lady mentions because, of course, the matter is under police investigation, so she presupposes a state of affairs that I cannot speak to.

[Pete Wishart]

The Prime Minister was asked this question yesterday and he failed to give a reply, but I am pretty sure that his human shield will be able to answer this today. Why did Allegra Stratton resign?

[Michael Ellis]

That is not part of this debate, and it is not part of my function here. The hon. Gentleman wishes to make political points, but this is a matter of principle, as the House knows.

While the Prime Minister is not here, he has already addressed the issue in the House earlier this week. I reiterate what the Prime Minister came to this House to say on Tuesday. As he said then, we understand the strength of feeling that we have heard and the expectation from the public for more from their elected representatives. That is why the Prime Minister has apologised wholeheartedly and unreservedly to this House. Again, I refer the House to his statement on Tuesday on specific matters relating to the notice issued to the Prime Minister, but he has already committed to making public any outcome of the investigation into his own attendance at any event, including any further fixed penalty notices. The Prime Minister has said that once the Metropolitan police have concluded their investigation he will immediately ask the second permanent secretary to the Cabinet Office, Sue Gray, to update the findings of her report. The Prime Minister will, of course, come back to this House to address the outcome of the investigation once we reach that point.

As the Prime Minister said on the issue of whether he misled the House, his comments made to the House were in good faith. He has responded to the event for which he has received a fixed penalty notice. He made clear that he did not think at that time that the event was in contravention of covid rules. However, he has apologised for his mistake, paid his fine and accepted the findings of the Metropolitan police. There is a difference between a deliberate and an inadvertent situation and I think most people would accept that.

I understand the strength of feeling in the House, but the Metropolitan police investigation is ongoing. Once that investigation is complete, the Prime Minister has made it clear that he will return to the House.

Easter Recess: Government Update

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I have said what I have said. I apologise and want to say again to the House that when I spoke before in this Chamber about events in Downing Street, I spoke in good faith.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

The Prime Minister spent less than two minutes addressing his lawbreaking in his statement to the House; that is somewhat less than the full account he has promised for the last few weeks. The one thing our constituents wanted to hear was a resignation statement, not any more of these mealy-mouthed apologies. The public will be astounded that the word they now most associate with the Prime Minister we cannot use to describe him in this House. The country knows what he is; we know what he is; and I think the Prime Minister even knows what he is. Will he now, for the sake of this country, just go?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman very much and repeat what I said earlier. I apologise and direct him to my earlier statement.

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

As always, it is a privilege and a pleasure to follow the Father of the House. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on securing this important debate. She introduced it in a means and a manner significantly different from what we had last week, and I welcome her comments.

What a few days this has been. What a week we have had to endure as politicians who serve in this House. Our politics has been taken to a very dark place indeed, with the sense that rules have been torn up and the feeling that we have returned to the worst days of Tory sleaze—sleaze that we thought had been buried and was gone, never to return. There is a sense of outrage among the public that I have never seen in the 20 years that I have been in this place. That is palpable and tangible in our bulging email boxes, with angry constituents demanding to know what an earth is going on, and demanding that we put it right and sort this mess out.

One has to ask, what on earth were the Government thinking of? What were they trying to achieve? What did they want to do? What did they think was going to happen, introducing that motion the way they did? I almost feel sorry for the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If there was a short straw for turning up to try to defend this Government’s action, he most certainly picked it today. It should be his right hon. Friend the Leader of the House leading this debate. It was him that brought that grubby motion to the House last Wednesday, it was him that defended it to the hilt, and it was him that took up nearly half the time that we were allowed to have that debate. He should be standing at the Dispatch Box today defending the Government’s action and telling us what he is going to do. He always likes to remind me of battles past; today, he is like the brave Sir Robin from “Monty Python and the Holy Grail”, bravely running away from doing his duty at the Dispatch Box.

We know that this was a plot hatched between the Leader of the House and his right hon. Friend the Government Chief Whip, designed, approved and orchestrated through No. 10, with the weight of the whipping operation that we saw last Wednesday. This goes all the way to the very top. What the two of them did was open the Tory Pandora’s box marked “sleaze”—and what a grubby, rotten receptacle it has turned out to be. They are a Government prepared to reinvent the rules if they do not like them—a Government so arrogant and entitled that they believe they can get away with whatever they want.

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend mentions the Pandora’s box of sleaze. He will be familiar with the corruption allegations that appeared in The Sunday Times yesterday following an investigation by openDemocracy. Does he not believe, as I do, that that is a matter not just for this House and for Parliament but for the police?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because I want to get round to that particular case. I did note that yesterday. I was here for cash for honours mark 1; this is cash for honours mark 2.0, and I will refer to that specifically.

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

As the hon. Member is on the topic, does he not agree that another aspect that has created great anger and concern in our communities is the funding of political parties? Let us look particularly at the Russians and how they are funding the Conservative party: Lubov Chernukhin has given £2.1 million; Alexander Temerko—a part-owner of a company that is trying to build an underwater cable—has given £1.3 million; and Viktor Fedotov, who also owns that company, has given money to the Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma), the Minister for corporate social responsibility, the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Is this right?

[Pete Wishart]

That was a long intervention but a necessary one. The right hon. Lady is spot on. The way that donations have been going into the Tory party needs to be properly investigated, and I am going to suggest a way that that should be done.

We are on day six of this. For six days, it has dominated political discourse in our media, in the public and in our communities and our constituencies. Nobody—no Minister who has presided over something that goes on day after day—usually survives that. It shows no sign of abating or going away.

I do not know whether the public will accept the apology made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; I suspect not. I do not think that was what the public wanted to hear. I do not think they were saying, “Yes, we want to hear this Government standing there saying, ‘Sorry, we’ve got this totally wrong.’” I think the public want to hear this Government being just that little bit more contrite and just that little bit more accommodating with the feeling and the sentiment out there in our constituencies. Our constituents are angry. Our constituents are fed up. I think the right hon. Gentleman has to do a little bit better than that.

[Wera Hobhouse]

We have established that the corrupt and bad behaviour of some MPs damages all of us, so does the hon. Gentleman agree that what is needed now is the commitment of every single Member to strengthen, rather than weaken, the standards process and the rules around it?

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right and spot on. That is exactly what is required. When I hear Conservative Members talking about reforming some of the rules and regulations to replace what we have in place, I am not hearing an attempt to strengthen them to make them better and more accountable. What I am hearing from them is, “Let’s weaken them. Let’s make sure that people can get off and get away with things. If we don’t like them, let’s rewrite them and do them all again.” That is what we are hearing from them.

I feel sorry for Conservative Back Benchers. The way they have been treated by the Government Front Bench almost approaches cruelty. They have been marched all the way to the top of the hill by the Leader of the House of Commons, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset—the grand old Duke of York—and marched all the way down again. They have not just been marched all the way down, however. They have been met with a barrage, a volley of bad constituents’ emails and the consternation of the people they represent. I feel sorry for the Conservative hon. Ladies and hon. Gentlemen here today for having to take that. I hope they know who is to blame for what they have to endure.

[Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)]

Of course, this is not the first time we have seen this Prime Minister do things that have shocked our constituents. The last time I had a mailbag similar to this weekend’s was for the illegal Prorogation of Parliament a couple of years’ ago, which my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) took to the Supreme Court and exposed. The level of outrage over that incident is similar to the level of outrage over this issue. The Government have learned nothing.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. There are spikes of interest from our constituents about the business of this place and my hon. Friend is right to mention that one. That was a busy, busy week for Members of Parliament. The other one, of course, was Barnard Castle. I do not think we have quite reached the heights of Barnard Castle yet in terms of the response from the public, but we are getting very close. As this matter goes on and we find it unresolved, we will start to get into that territory.

I listened very carefully to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire. I sense he is not listening very carefully to me, but I listened very carefully to him and I still do not know the Government’s position. Maybe he could help us. I do not know if there is summing up today, but we need to hear from the Government about what they are going to do now. What I think I heard was that they are sorry for this mess. Fair enough, they are sorry for this mess. That’s great, we will accept their apology. But now tell us what you are going to do.

The motion setting up the kangaroo court committee of corruption is still in place. That is the policy of this House. We need to hear the Government say clearly that they are removing it, and are finding some means and method to ensure it is no longer a part of the business of the House. We need to hear them say that they are prepared to accept independent investigation and that they will support the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, and his Committee in doing its work. We need to hear them say that. We also need to hear them say that they are going back to that moment just before the Division Bell rang last Wednesday and back to the position we were in before any of this nonsense started.

[Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

I have a concern about my hon. Friend’s proposition. Last week, regardless of whether one agreed with the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), the Government utilised it as a motion of confidence in themselves. I therefore have no confidence, and I am sure my hon. Friend has no confidence, that any of this is going to change.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. That is why we need clarity and we have to hear it today. The suggestion, I think from the Chair of the Committee, was that we need a motion to be tabled for tomorrow so that we can deal effectively with the former Member for North Shropshire. We have to have that before the House, so we are able to ensure our judgment is passed on what we believe are the consequences of his actions.

Another issue is the disgraceful attacks on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. They were co-ordinated—there is absolutely no way we can get around that. They came from the top. They were directed. You do not attack the credibility of the Standards Commissioner by saying disrespectful things about her if you do not have the permission to do that and say that. What they had in mind was a softening-up exercise, because they know that the Prime Minister is going to be investigated again. They know that a number of issues still have to be resolved about his personal behaviour and conduct. I think the undermining and neutering of the Standards Committee was a deliberate process and it has to stop—it has to end.

For the Prime Minister, it is almost like a revolving door of investigation, whether it is for breaking the ministerial code, acting unlawfully or soliciting dodgy donations for luxury holidays and home refurbishments. One thing we can commit to today is saying that this House has full faith and trust in our Standards Commissioner and that we will allow her to do her job. The undermining and disgraceful attacks must now end.

But the true shocker of the past couple of days is cash for honours 2.0. I really did not think, following Tony Blair being questioned under caution by the Metropolitan police 15 years ago, that we would be back to this place so quickly. It was only a couple of Parliaments ago that Tony Blair had to face questions about donations and the House of Lords. The only difference that I have seen in the course of the past couple of decades is that the price to get into the House of Lords has gone up from £1 million under new Labour to £3 million under the Conservatives. There is Tory inflation for you.

It now seems that nearly all the past treasurers of the Conservative party of later years are in that place, wearing their ermine and taking part in the legislative decisions of this country. The only characteristic they seem to have—the only defining feature that seems to get them a place in that House—is that they are able to give several million pounds to the Government. The Environment Secretary said yesterday that they were in the Lords for their philanthropy. I think the public will probably assess that the accounts of the Conservative party are just about the worst and least deserving good cause that there is in this land.

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful point. Does he think that it is a coincidence that the 22 largest donors to the Conservative party now hold peerages and sit in the House of Lords?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not, I have to say, because I think that place is just so corrupted. It is a receptacle in this place for donors to either of the big parties, and I have to include the Liberals in that, too, because some of their activities around the House of Lords are just as bad as those of the two main parties.

What I have done today is ask the Metropolitan police to investigate these appointments under the provisions of section 1(2) of the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. That Act states:

“If any person gives, or agrees or proposes to give, or offers to any person any gift, money or valuable consideration as an inducement or reward for procuring or assisting or endeavouring to procure the grant of a dignity or title of honour to any person, or otherwise in connection with such a grant, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour”.

I have now asked the Metropolitan police to investigate the activities of the Conservative party and the awarding of places in the House of Lords.

I will say ever so gently to my friends in the Labour party: stop putting people in that place. Stop giving it legitimacy and credibility. We do not need a Gordon Brown commission. We just need you guys as the Opposition party to say that you will abolish it. It is a corrupt circus, and it is the high point of deference in the class system. To think that a Labour party would defend that place and put people in it is beyond ridiculous. Grow up, get a sense of this and help us get rid of that appalling circus down the corridor.

Last week, the Tories royally cocked up and have had to beat an embarrassing, hasty retreat. Their next move might now define the rest of their parliamentary term. Accept this. They have to do more than apologise. They have to show contrition. They have to show that they really mean this. That is the task and job for this Conservative Government. They have to take us back to the point before the Division bell rang last Wednesday. We do not want to “reform” the standards process; we want it to continue its work, but nothing will happen until we get back to that point. They must stop rewarding donors with places in the House of Lords. It is now up to them to show the contrition that the public want, show that they are really sorry, and get us back to where we were.