Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 10th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

I reiterate that in the past conscience issues, including those that have been the subject of free votes by virtue of that fact, have not necessarily been considered by a Committee of the whole House. There is a job to be done in scrutinising legislation, which can sometimes be best achieved in Committee, and all Members have an opportunity to participate in the debate on Report, particularly if sufficient time is available. I am not prejudging the question of the equal marriage Bill at all, as it has not been introduced and I have not announced how we propose the business should be taken forward.

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

Next Tuesday we will discuss the important section 30 order, which will allow for a legally binding referendum on Scottish independence to be determined by the Scottish Government. Many of the Leader of the House’s hon. Friends are not particularly well disposed to that idea and might be tempted to vote against the measure. Can he assure me that there will be a three-line Government Whip for attendance to ensure that any rebellion is defeated?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may say so, it is sufficient that I deal with the business of the House, rather than attempting to answer questions relating to the whipping arrangements of each individual party. Suffice it to say, the matter will be brought forward on a Government motion.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 8th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. If I may, I will ask my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to respond on that, as they consider issues relating to consumer rights generally.

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

A very important debate on Scotland and the European Union had to be cancelled because the Member sponsoring it could not be bothered to turn up on time. What reprimand did that Member receive? Should there not at least be an apology given to those who had prepared speeches and bothered to turn up on time?

[Mr Lansley]

I must confess that I should have seen that that had happened; it is my fault that I was not aware of it, and I will certainly look into it. Of course, individual Members are responsible for their attendance at debates, particularly those they have sought, but I am sure that Members from across the House will regret it if debates to which they wish to contribute are available and other hon. Members fail to enable them to take place.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lansley]

As my hon. Friend will have heard, I urge Members to look at the positive steps that are being taken and at the increase last year in the Government revenue at post offices. That particular contract is a live contract. It would not be appropriate for Ministers to comment during the course of a live contract, nor for there to be a debate about a contract during the course of its procurement.

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

Will the Leader of the House do all he can to encourage the Labour Opposition to give us at least the topics of their Opposition day debates at the business statement prior to their taking place? I am not sure whether he is aware of what happened on Monday night. We had 20 minutes to prepare and submit an amendment to a Labour Opposition motion. That is totally unacceptable and is a gross discourtesy to the House, the Speaker and the officials. Will the Leader of the House get the Opposition to get their act together?

[Mr Lansley]

I read the hon. Gentleman’s point of order on that issue. In the spirit of the two Front Benches, I refer his question to the shadow Leader of the House to reply.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 13th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I certainly share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. Over the past few months I have been lucky enough to visit BBC Scotland’s headquarters and see the excellent work it does. May I record my gratitude to BBC Scotland for sending my children a photograph signed by Nina of “Nina and the Neurons”?

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

It is with a great sigh of relief that we see the Minister is still at the Dispatch Box, and I welcome the new Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The threat to the BBC comes not from an independent Scotland but from what is happening with the cuts now. How can that be justified in Scotland, which is a nation, not a region of the BBC? Given that we are about to make the biggest decision in our nation’s history, is it right that the BBC has been cut to the absolute bone? People need to be informed and the issues debated.

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words, and I regret that must I disagree with him. I think the licence fee settlement was excellent for the BBC. It provides funding certainty until 2017, which no other media company in this country can boast.

House of Lords Reform Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman: what happened to the Lisbon referendum? I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber yesterday, but my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister dealt with the question of a referendum on several occasions. He dealt with it again in Deputy Prime Minister’s questions today and it is dealt with in our response to the Joint Committee’s report. In the 1990s, under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, the Conservative party opposed Labour’s changes to the composition of the upper House, not because we wanted to retain the hereditary peers, but because we took a principled stand to argue—with very little dissent—for “no stage 1 without stage 2”. Our fear, disputed forcefully by Labour at the time, was that if we did not move immediately to an elected House after the abolition of the hereditaries, progress would inevitably stall. That was my party’s view at the time, and how right we were.

Let us remember that, in their response to Lord Wakeham’s report in 1999, the previous Government said that they would

“make every effort to ensure that the second stage has been approved by Parliament before the next general election.”

That was the 2001 election, when they told us we were going to elect the first tranche. Yet with three large majorities, three White Papers, two Green Papers, one royal commission, one Joint Committee, two Acts of Parliament and two sets of free votes, Labour missed a golden opportunity to move on to the second stage, despite support from many Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir George Young]

I propose to make a little more progress, and then I may give way again.

No political party ever voted for the halfway House that we now have, and no one wanted that to be the lasting settlement, or imagined that it would be. Although their Lordships do a diligent job, I believe their work is undermined by their lack of democratic legitimacy. It is simply unacceptable that just five people have appointed over 75% of the Members of our second legislative assembly. Tony Blair appointed 316 peers during his time in office. I find that difficult to defend.

[Pete Wishart]

Should we not just go home? The Leader of the House knows it is all over; Government Members know it is all over. We have more important things to debate and decisions to make today. Let us just say, “Enough is enough,” and call the whole shooting match off.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 14th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Hugh Robertson]

I think the key thing is to deliver the underspend first; then we will work out how to spend it.

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

Following the question from the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), can the Minister guarantee and assure the charities and good causes that have lost out to the Olympics that they will get the contingency underspend? Surely they deserve it, and it should not go back to the black hole of the Treasury.

[Hugh Robertson]

Under an agreement concluded by the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), as soon as the land sales are completed on the park, the lottery will be repaid; indeed, that memorandum of understanding was improved when the transfer was made from the old Olympic Park Legacy Company to the new London Legacy Development Corporation. As I say, I do not want to get into discussions about how we might spend a putative underspend until we have actually delivered it. The key thing is to make sure we deliver these games on time and substantially under budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

I understand the concern the right hon. Gentleman expresses, and it is a concern that he also expressed when we set up the Backbench Business Committee. When the relevant proposals come forward, there will be an opportunity to take on board the representation he has just made.

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

So far, the Wright Committee proposals have been a disaster for the smaller parties—fewer places for us on Select Committees; exclusion from the Backbench Business Committee. We need an absolute guarantee that, this time around, there will be representatives of the smaller parties on the House business committee.

[Sir George Young]

The harsh reality is that the hon. Gentleman represents a minority party. He will know that the way in which Select Committees are composed represents the balance in the House, and a Select Committee would have to be very big indeed for him to have a place as of right. We have recently changed the rules for the Backbench Business Committee to give access to him which he did not have before. As I said in reply to an earlier question, we will look in the round at the proposals for a House business committee when the opportunity presents itself.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 19th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

That would be an interesting debate. The Government believe in local democracy, in devolving decisions about parking charges to local authorities and in local electors holding people to account if they take unpopular decisions on parking. My hon. Friend will have seen the Mary Portas review and some of the proposals in that to make it easier for people to park in towns or cities such as his, and I can only suggest that he pursue his campaign in Brighton, because I think the key to a change in policy is held there rather than here.

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

May we have a debate on employment rights at the Olympics? The Musicians Union has learned that the London Organising Committee of the Olympic Games and Paralympic Games is expecting musicians to play for nothing at the summer events. Those who put on the events will be paid, as will those who provide the equipment and the security. I am sure that the Olympic bureaucrats will be handsomely paid, but uniquely musicians will be expected to play for nothing. Does the Leader of the House believe this is totally unacceptable and that musicians should always be offered a fee for their services?

[Sir George Young]

I understand the strong feelings and I commend the hon. Gentleman on his own performance as a musician. I will raise the issue with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport. I do not know whether there will be an opportunity to raise the matter in the rather narrow debate on Monday week on the Olympics and Sunday trading. Depending on the ingenuity of the hon. Gentleman and the breadth of tolerance of whoever happens to be in the Chair, there might be an opportunity to raise it then, but I shall certainly forewarn my right hon. Friend of the concern the hon. Gentleman has just expressed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The Minister will know that the Hargreaves review of intellectual property and the Intellectual Property Office consultation continue to exercise and concern our creative industries. Does he believe that having the maximum number of exceptions to copyright helps or hinders our creative industries? Will he come and give evidence to the inquiry of the all-party parliamentary intellectual property group in the next few weeks?

[Mr Vaizey]

The hon. Gentleman has been a doughty champion for rights holders and the protection of intellectual property. As he knows, I ensure that rights holders’ views are expressed regularly during the Hargreaves consultation. I have not yet received an invitation to give evidence to the all-party parliamentary group, but I look forward to receiving it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir George Young]

The commission will be meeting in public and it has asked for evidence. My hon. Friend is too kind about the work of the democracy taskforce to which I contributed when I was on the Back Benches, but I am sure this exchange will have drawn the commission’s attention to the existence of that important work.

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

Is not the easiest and most elegant solution to the West Lothian question for Scotland to become a normal, independent, self-governing nation?

[Sir George Young]

“Bring it on” is what we on the Government Benches would say. That particular issue is beyond the remit of the commission, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will do what he can to bring forward the date when we can resolve it once and for all.

Backbench Business Committee

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

There was limited scope for complaints about elections to the Backbench Business Committee because, certainly on the Government side of the House, there were no elections: the Members who serve on the Committee were elected unopposed. However, the Procedure Committee proposed that we needed to consider the position of minority parties and I assured Members from the minority parties when we first debated this matter that we would look into this and come back with proposals. I think we would be deficient in our response to the House if we were not to have that debate before the opportunity arises to vote again on the Backbench Business Committee.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for using the word “deficient” because his proposals for the minority parties are clearly deficient and unsatisfactory. Our being given observer status on a Backbench Business Committee—a Committee of the House—as though we were second or third-class citizens of the House is totally unacceptable to us, so if this is all about the minority parties and the smaller parties, he can forget it.

[Mr Heath]

I am rather minded to forget it. I went to a great deal of trouble to address the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman asked me to consider when we first debated this. He asked for his party and the other minority parties to be allowed to put up candidates for election as the Chair of the Committee. That is what we are proposing today and he says, “Forget it.” Well, we shall see whether he supports the contention when it comes to the vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Natascha Engel]

Indeed. Such representation would give added flavour to the Backbench Business Committee.

[Pete Wishart]

It is more than that; the Committee must be for Back Benchers of the whole House, not just those of the Government parties and the Labour Opposition. There are five other political parties in the House; surely they should be represented if it is to be a Back-Bench Committee of the whole House.

[Natascha Engel]

That goes to the heart of the amendments. The minority parties are Back Benchers. They can never really be Front Benchers. It is very unlikely that we will ever see a member of one of the minority parties at the Dispatch Box.

Using the principle of proportionality is also wrong. The Committee has four members from the Conservative party, one from the Liberal Democrats and two from the Labour party, plus the Chair, who has a casting vote. An additional member from one of the minority parties would not automatically lose the Government their majority—certainly not during a coalition Government, and I see no reason why we should not consider expanding the number of members of the Committee if there were not a coalition.

The Backbench Business Committee is different from other Select Committees, in that it represents all Back Benchers of the House. At the moment, however, we do that very poorly by not having representation from the minority parties. The Procedure Committee’s report of October 2011 recommended that these changes be made, and that an additional place on the Backbench Business Committee be created in order that the minority parties be given representation. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire has just made the point that, after the Procedure Committee had reported, we could table motions to amend what had been decided today. That is sort of true, but only the Government are able to table motions that affect the Backbench Business Committee. Quite rightly, we as a Backbench Business Committee cannot table motions that affect our own operation. What the right hon. Gentleman says is rather difficult unless it is within the Government’s agreement that the motions are tabled. That worries me. That brings me back to asking why the Government cannot simply wait until the Procedure Committee has produced its report and the Backbench Business Committee has told the House about its experiences in the one and a half years of its existence.

Let me briefly support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) that deals with the issue of the whole House participating in the elections. This goes back to the point that the Backbench Business Committee is somewhat different from other Select Committees, in that it represents all Back Benchers. Therefore, the whole House should have a say in who it wants on the Backbench Business Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

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

You will recall, Mr Speaker, the sense of disappointment, outrage and anger two years ago, when we first learned of the membership of the Backbench Business Committee. We had been excluded, as though we did not exist. We were not entitled to a place on the Committee. That would not have been so important had it been just another Select Committee of the House—we expect to be excluded from those, because that is what the arithmetic does—but for us to be excluded from the Backbench Business Committee, a Committee of Members acting for other Members, was absolutely and utterly ridiculous.

When we complained, we were reassured. I was told, “Don’t worry, Pete, it will be fine. As soon as we have the first opportunity to review this, we will put it right and ensure that it is fixed. We will have a place for you on the Committee.” And what did we get? Observer status. This is not the United Nations; this is the House of Commons, one of the Houses of Parliament. We do not do observer status in this place. What a ridiculous and utterly fatuous notion! We demand a place on this Committee.

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am sorry; I do not have enough time.

I could stand for the position of Chair of the Committee, but I have as much chance of becoming its Chair as the Deputy Leader of the House has of becoming the SNP Member for Somerton and Frome. There is no chance whatsoever of a member of one of the minority parties being allowed—

[Mr Heath]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will give way briefly to the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Mr Heath]

If it is of such little consequence that the hon. Gentleman could stand for the position of Chair, why on earth did he make such a song and dance about it two years ago?

[Pete Wishart]

What we were making such a song and dance about was membership of the Committee. I should be delighted to be able to stand for the position of Chair of the Committee as a member of the Committee, but for me to be able to stand for that position without having a place on the Committee is utterly and absolutely ridiculous.

We in the minority parties will have to have a think about this. We cannot have a Backbench Business Committee of some of the House; it must be a Backbench Business Committee of the whole House. We decided that we would involve ourselves with the Committee over the last two years, despite our great disappointment about what happened. We were reassured by the Chair, who has been fantastic with the minority parties, and who has been able to work with us to ensure that we could at least secure some of our debates. However, we will now have to take a good long look at our relationship with the Committee. I suggest to other members of the smaller parties that we should be saying, “If you, the House, do not want us, why on earth should we have anything to do with you?” If this is to be a Back-Bench Committee consisting exclusively of members of the Government parties and the Labour Opposition, why should we have anything to do with it at all?

We must ensure that the Backbench Business Committee is a Committee of the whole House. The present arrangements are nonsense, the idea of observer status is absurd, and I appeal to the House to back the amendments and ensure that we have equality in the House. There are five other political parties here. There is more than just a Labour Opposition; there are other members, there are other parties, and we must ensure that we are properly represented in the House. The Wright Committee has been a disaster for the smaller parties. We have effectively been turfed out of Select Committees, and now the same is happening with other Committees in the House.

I urge Members to back the amendments. I urge them to ensure that there is justice for the smaller parties, and to ensure that we have a Backbench Business Committee that represents the whole House.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 26th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Sir George Young]

I am sorry that there was an apparent lack of interest in self-employment among Opposition Members. I am sure that their constituents are as interested as ours in the opportunities available for self-employment, particularly under the new enterprise allowance scheme, which I hope will give many people an opportunity to commence their own business and in due course begin to employ other people.

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

What are the Government going to do about the Scotland Bill? It is back in the Lords today, like a sad, eccentric old aunt that nobody wants to visit. After the momentous events in Scotland of the past couple of weeks, as we move towards independence, are not the Government starting to think about pulling the plug on the sad old dear?

[Sir George Young]

Absolutely not. The Scotland Bill will implement commitments that I believe all three parties made. The reason progress is not being made at the moment is that one of the options in the consultation document, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware, was to amend the Bill. We need the consultation process to end before we decide whether it needs to be amended as was suggested in that document.