Sporting Events Bill [Lords]

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Pete Wishart

2nd reading
Thursday 3rd September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely—I think we all appreciate the efforts that are being made to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are promoted adequately. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will be watching very carefully to see that Scotland gets promoted in events in the future.

I think it is fair to say that nothing enthuses and unites the whole of the UK more than sporting success and seeing people who are representing our nations become prized athletes winning medals. It was great to see that happening in the last few months in both the European championship and the Commonwealth games. We even got to the world cup this year for the first time in 28 years! The tartan army charmed all of Boston and Miami with its usual antics, which thrilled, excited and impressed so many of our American colleagues. Unfortunately, that did not translate to activities on the football field—I will leave it at that—but it was a huge unifying force. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is quite right that it united all of us, whatever our political persuasion and whatever side of constitutional debates we are on, in support of our national side.

As the Secretary of State referenced, this year Scotland stepped in at the last moment to host the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I will not go over the reasons for that, but we should all be grateful that Glasgow did what Glasgow does, which is to step in at the last moment. I think we can safely say that Glasgow rescued the Commonwealth games. I think the model that was adopted in Glasgow for what was described as a more scaled-down version of the games will be the blueprint, and I have heard other nations that are interested in bidding in the future saying that they will look closely at that model. The Commonwealth games were an overwhelming success and perfectly showcased Glasgow, while allowing Scots and those from the rest of the UK to see at first hand a range of sports that caught the imagination, including sports that we might not normally watch, which is only available with the Commonwealth games.

Where Glasgow stepped up to host the games, the BBC most definitely did not. This was the first Commonwealth games in 72 years that the BBC did not fully cover, and that was because it offered what could only be described as a derisory bid for the rights, which it lost to the subscription service TNT. Because that is a subscription service, people had to pay to watch the games, and many sporting fans lost the opportunity to follow the games. That was so bad.

If we contrast that with the European athletics championships only a few weeks later in Birmingham, the BBC appropriately bid, secured the rights and even went as far as to change its week’s scheduling so that people could see the games. In Scotland, we feel that we lost out a little bit there. I hope the Secretary of State will raise that with the BBC, to find out why that was allowed to happen and ensure that it never happens again. Wherever the games are held, the BBC should be covering something as significant and popular as the Commonwealth games.

Although there is no provision in the Bill about broadcasting rights, I support some of the things that have been said about free-to-air coverage of what we call the crown jewels of events. We in Scotland lost free-to-air coverage of the national men’s football team’s games for something like six years—we went without any opportunity to see those games for free, like everybody else across the United Kingdom, which meant that a lot of fans could not follow our national team. That has now been put right, and we were able to see the Scotland games and qualifiers on the BBC, but we have to ensure that everybody has the right to see the national men’s football team qualifying and appearing in major championships.

I want to spend a few minutes focusing on the clauses that relate to ticket touting. For the many of us who care passionately about live music and the whole music fan experience, this Bill feels like a little bit of a disappointment. It is a lost opportunity to ensure that the scourge of ticket touting is tackled right across the sporting and entertainment environment. We are grateful that the Government are tackling ticket touting at sports events, but music fans have been let down by what they see as a lack of action on this issue. Although the Government are prepared to act on behalf of the sports sector, music fans will again have to wait before having their issues properly resolved.

Clauses 5 and 6 are good clauses, and they set out regulations on ticket touting for sporting events. This fast-tracked, heavy-duty legislation goes further than what the live music sector is asking for, as it makes all unauthorised ticket resale a criminal offence for major sporting events, full stop. The Government have rightly recognised the urgency, found parliamentary time and the necessary legislation, and acted decisively to shield sports fans and official sports rights holders—and quite right too, but surely music fans deserve the same attention.

The millions of people who form the backbone of our world-leading £8 billion music industry are to remain exposed to the touts, spivs and profiteers. For music, the Government have offered the promise of a draft ticket tout ban Bill. But let us be clear: until we see the draft Bill and work starts on it, it is pretty much just an aspiration, and it exposes the issue to a host of pre-legislative scrutiny, consultations, delays, and a long and winding road through this House.

I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response when I intervened on her, and I think I heard her say that action was going to be imminent, and that we would see something relating to music quickly. I really hope that is the case, because music fans are having to pay through the nose to see their favourite bands, and it is costing something like £145 million a year according to the sector. The UK music industry is asking not for a total ban on resale; it is asking for a resale price cap that prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original cost, with service fee limits to ensure that the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees or hidden charges placed on consumers, and with volume limits to make it unlawful for someone to buy more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market.

We have heard the Secretary of State say this before, and the Government roughly support all those endeavours and issues, but now we need to get it done—please. What we have is great for sports—I think everybody welcomes this, and I am sure it will go a long way to ensuring that sports fans are protected—but we need the same type of action and legislation for music fans. I do not want to end on a sour note, although I think the Secretary of State would expect me to say these things to her. I am encouraged by what she has said; as we go forward, let us all work together and get this issue fixed for music too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Minister.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Pete Wishart

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers.

I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform.

I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected.

Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary.

The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death.

The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [Interruption.] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful.

I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. Mr Wishart, we are debating the amendments, not your vision for the future of the House of Lords. Perhaps you should stick to the amendments.

[Pete Wishart]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away.

The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Just to be entirely clear, it was the property rights element of the hon. Member’s contribution that I thought was beyond scope. I think all Members—the House will be conscious that I have not been in the Chair very long—might like to stick to the scope of the amendments and what we are actually debating this afternoon.

Immigration

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Pete Wishart

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)]

I have to say that I was amazed to see a Conservative motion on immigration on today’s Order Paper. I think all that most of us in the House require from the Conservatives is a full and sincere apology for the mess and chaos that they left behind, and then for them to go away for a long period of self-ordained silence. They thought that they were reducing immigration, but what they did was quadruple it. They did not even understand their own immigration policy. They were letting hundreds of thousands of people come into this country. So please, do not get to your feet and have the temerity to lecture this House about immigration after the mess that you made.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman did rather incite me to get to my feet, and I am somewhat stunned at his allegation that I have played any part in this.

[Pete Wishart]

That was not like me, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was very lax, and I apologise.

The Conservatives are currently languishing in fourth place in the opinion polls, and it is a well-deserved position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot give way—I have no time.

Ordinary Labour voters have good, liberal values, but just now they have a party that is not representing their views. That is why they are moving on.

In Scotland, we take on Reform. We are one of the few parties across the United Kingdom that has steadied its own position, and we have even improved it slightly. There is a big gap between us and Reform. That is because we take on Reform’s arguments and we do not appease the party or go on to its agenda. I encourage Labour colleagues to think about that.

We now have an immigration policy that is the exact opposite of what we need in Scotland, and it is contrary to our national interest. Scotland is in the early stages of the population and demography crisis, and it will only get worse because of what this Government are going to impose on us. We will soon have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population.

For all three parties—Labour, the Conservatives and Reform—immigration is a burden and is out of control. For us in Scotland, it is essential to the health of our workforce and our economy. That is why we will never stop calling for a separate Scottish visa. We need the tools in our country to face up to our crisis. I will leave the Government to get on with their grotesque race to the bottom and to pander to Reform in a vain attempt to get some votes, but Scotland does not need their new “island of strangers” policy. It is contrary to what we want, so please leave us right out of it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We will now have an immediate four-minute time limit.

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill

Debate between Caroline Nokes and Pete Wishart

2nd reading
Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order.

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman understands the scale of the problem in our nation of Scotland. Twenty-two per cent of our population is over 65, compared with 19% in England. We have one of the lowest birth rate ratios, with one child for every three women. If we do not do something quickly, this will have a huge impact on every sector of our society and every part of our economy.

I thought Scottish Labour supported a Scottish visa. I have heard Jackie Baillie speak very interestingly about it, but all of a sudden Scottish Labour has abandoned it. Every time I raise it with the Home Secretary, I am totally rebuffed. Every time my colleagues ask the Government to give us the tools to help address our predicament, we are told where to go.

We need the tools so that Scotland can grow its population, and so that we can equip ourselves for the problems that are already coming our way. We need a new mindset on immigration, which we have to start seeing as a benefit to communities. We have to recognise how it enriches our society. For the Government, immigration is a bad that has to be dealt with, and that is such an early-century approach. We will soon be facing population stagnation and decline. Unless we get ready and prepare for what is coming, we will be in serious trouble.

I look across at Labour Members who are singularly uninterested in any of this. They want to be as hard on immigration as the Tories and the Reform party. It does not work, it cannot work, and it is the wrong solution for where we are heading. I encourage them to think once again about what we all need across the United Kingdom.