Breaking Down Barriers to Opportunity

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th November 2023 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a real pleasure to open for the Scottish National party on the day after the day before. I think of this as a constitutional Boxing day, when we assess the quality of the turkey, see how the hangover is getting on and make sure that the odd crown or tiara has not been left behind and that everyone got home with the right ermine robe.

That brings me to the first barrier. Do we have to do this so ostentatiously? Our constituents are suffering probably their worst cost of living crisis. Some of those emeralds and rubies that were described by the BBC yesterday probably cost as much as a local authority budget.

I know it is likely that the tribunes of the people will be presenting the next King’s speech and, keeping with their political pallor, maybe it will have a bit more measure and be a bit more in keeping with what this country deserves, particularly as it is going through a tough time. I already have constituents getting in touch with me who are quite upset about the sheer ostentatiousness of what we observed. [Interruption.] I will get to the substance.

This was a King’s Speech designed to revive the Government’s catastrophic fortunes—they have been 20 percentage points or more behind in the opinion polls for about two years. This was an opportunity to reacquaint themselves with the British public’s affections. How did they get on? The sad news for Conservative Members is that the answer is: not particularly well. I doubt they want to see this morning’s headlines, which say that it was a dud, a dead duck, a missed chance, a failed opportunity—and that is only the Tory press. There were some real crackers, including “The Kingzzz Speech”. One newspaper said that Colin Firth’s one was better. I particularly liked the description “insipid” that featured in The National—probably the finest publication in the UK—because it was mine.

This King’s Speech had to work for the Government, as they are looking for something to get them out to the stump to “stand up and fight”, as the Leader of the House said. They wanted red meat, but this King’s Speech was like last week’s boeuf bourguignon. It was not a fillet steak so much as offal, both literally and figuratively.

They were looking for populist measures to get them out there, and what did they get? A smoking ban. This is the biggest congregation of right-wing Tories we will ever see assembled on these Benches, and I hardly thought they would be standard bearers for progressive liberalism. Even the Liberal Democrats have not proposed a smoking ban. I support it, and I think it is great, but imagine a lily-livered liberal like me supporting a Tory measure. I do not know whether that is good news or bad news for them, but it is certainly not the red meat they wanted.

There are so many contradictory and confusing things in the King’s Speech. The Government have styled themselves as the friend of the motorist—the scourge of 20 mph neighbourhoods—who will get rid of clean-air zones so that people have to breathe exhaust fumes for the next few years. But what have they gone and done? They have only gone and planned to legislate for self-driving cars. So much for being on the motorist’s side. There will not be any motorists any more. That is one measure that particularly intrigued me. I suppose they could be the scourge of 20 mph neighbourhoods with an algorithm—that’s the modern Tories for you.

This was a last-gasp King’s Speech. It was a bit like that 14-year-old looking for a pack of cigarettes in some future corner shop. This King’s Speech confirms almost everything we know about this Conservative Government. It is a legislative programme from a “can’t be bothered” Government with nothing more to say, who are just waiting to be put out of their misery.

The theme of today’s debate is “Breaking down barriers to opportunity.” The opportunity that the whole country wants is the opportunity to kick the chaotic Tories out of power, and the barrier to that is their refusal to give us a general election so that we could achieve that objective.

Another opportunity that Scottish National party Members are looking for is the opportunity to get my nation away from this place. This King’s Speech was delivered by a Government we did not vote for, and who are doing things that we do not approve of and that we do not want. Would it not be better if my nation were governed by the people who live and work in Scotland?

Just by saying that, even I might be labelled an “extremist”. There was lots of talk about the red meat that was supposed to be included in all of this—all this stuff about turfing homeless people out of their shelters on the streets of the UK—but another thing the Government were considering was extending the definition of an “extremist” to cover people who sought to undermine the integrity of the UK. That is my political mission. My job here is to ensure that the UK is undermined and that my nation becomes free and independent. I do not know whether the Government are now thinking about extending the definition of “extremist” to cover half the people in Scotland who currently support Scottish independence—I am looking forward to seeing them try to bring that one in.

Of course, very few Bills in this King’s Speech apply directly to Scotland, which was not even mentioned in the King’s Speech. I have been listening to the pain of my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who notes that it contains no mention of Wales either. Apparently, we are told in some of the documents that 20 of these Bills somehow apply to Scotland, but they barely touch the sides of the Scottish experience and the conditions that my constituents are living in just now. We are looking for practical measures that deal with the reality of the situation for our constituents, such as proposals to deal with the cost of living crisis and to help people through this winter and with their energy bills, which will remain sky high. Nothing in the King’s Speech does that.

The Scottish Government, my colleagues in Edinburgh, are having to pick that up, with the transformative Scottish child payment. The one thing we have in our gift that we can deliver to the Scottish people is freezing council tax, and that is exactly what we are doing. Where we are in charge and have the responsibility, we will make that difference to the living standards of people in our nation—something this Government are not prepared to do and I am proud that our Government are doing it.

I am setting out the opportunities that we will give to bring dignity back and to tackle the real issues that are being experienced. It seems as though the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Department for Education are leading this debate, but nothing in this King’s Speech deals with either of those areas. Thank goodness that is the case in education; I say that after listening to that drivel from the Secretary of State, with the Government’s ideological venture in education. It has absolutely nothing to do with Scottish education and so we can get on with making sure that we deliver for our children.

While the Tories are fascinated with taking on poor degrees and university courses, we are making sure that young people in Scotland get the destinations they deserve. We have seen fantastic figures, with 95.7% of 2022 school leavers in Scotland having now secured that positive destination; they have gone into work, training or further education. The national 5 pass rate is up from 78.2% in 2019 to 81.6% in 2022, which was our best exam year ever. Higher exam pass rates increased from 71.7% in 2007 to 80.3% in 2022. Thank goodness we do not have the Tories involved in any of our devolved services, because if they were, we would end up being subject to that drivel we have heard. Of course, we also have no tuition fees in Scotland, which means that students from Scotland do not have the crippling, sky-high debt that these Tories seek to burden our young people with at the beginning of their lives—thank goodness for that.

Of course, there is one Bill that totally applies to Scotland: the Bill that seeks to have an annual licensing round for North sea exploration. It perplexes me, along with many people in Scotland, because I remember—you were here too, Madam Deputy Speaker, so you will remember—that during the debate about Scottish independence the Government and the “Better Together” side told us that Scotland’s oil and gas was just about to run out. We were told that we were cursed with this stuff and that even having it would impoverish us, but now we find out that North sea oil and gas will liberate us from foreign reserves, reduce bills and give the nation the energy security it needs. What a remarkable resource we have in the North sea: it can simultaneously be running out and a curse, while rescuing the UK from its current conditions when it comes to oil and gas. That, of course, is all absolute bunkum.

Apparently, we will get to net zero more efficiently by taking more carbon out of the ground, burning it and then releasing it into the atmosphere. No one believes that sort of bunkum science other than the Tories. This Government have already watered down the climate targets, pushing back the deadline for selling new petrol and diesel cars and the phasing out of gas boilers. By far the best way to improve energy security, cut bills and support workers is through investing in more renewables.

Extracting more oil from the North sea will not help energy security in Britain or reduce bills. Our oil is owned by the big companies, such as Shell and BP, which extract it and sell it into the international markets. We then buy it back at market rates. The new licences will make no difference. The way to reduce dependence on foreign oil is to reduce dependence on oil—it is as simple as that.

After 14 years, is this really the best the Tories can do? They are now at the stage where they are wanting change—change from themselves. Yes, we all want change, but the change that we all require and need is to get rid of the Conservatives. At some point in the course of the next year, they will meet their destiny with the British people, which I suppose and suggest will not be good for them. The King’s Speech has not worked for them. They probably have one last chance and effort when it comes to the autumn statement, but I do not think anybody is expecting them to get out that way.

I do not just want rid of this Conservative Government; I do not want the Westminster Government impacting and affecting decisions made in this country. We will get there, Madam Deputy Speaker, first by making sure that they are replaced and then making sure that Scotland has the opportunity to decide its own future. Believe me, when that opportunity comes, Scotland will make its position dead clear and we will be leaving this place for good.

Schools and Colleges: Qualification Results and Full Opening

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend highlights the challenges of competition between year groups and ensuring fairness across year groups. We will work with Ofqual and the whole sector to achieve that fairness because we do not want youngsters taking exams in 2021 to be disadvantaged in any way.

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

What does the Education Secretary have to say to his friends the Scottish Conservatives? Just when he was copying the Scottish Government’s approach to resolving the exams crisis, they were supporting a motion of no confidence in the Scottish Education Secretary, who was just doing what the Education Secretary was about to do. At any point, did they come to him and similarly ask him to consider his position? If they did not, would he like to comment on their consistency?

[Gavin Williamson]

One of the great pleasures that I have had over this period is working very closely with the Education Minister and Deputy First Minister, Mr Swinney. We have always tried to work together in a collaborative manner. We do recognise that there are some real shared challenges right across all four nations of the United Kingdom. What is clear is that, as a United Kingdom, we are so much stronger together, because the support that is there—whether it be job retention schemes or the extra £6 billion-plus towards universal credit—shows that every one of the four nations of the United Kingdom is richer and stronger as a result of a Union, which, sadly, the hon. Gentleman always wants to break up.

Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Edward Timpson]

I hear what the hon. Lady says. Of course we are all looking very carefully at the situation in Northern Ireland and hope that we can achieve a resolution as soon as possible, but in relation to the Bill, we have been very clear about which provisions are appropriate in relation to devolution arrangements. Having said that, I should add that on certain aspects of the Bill, we want to co-operate across the whole United Kingdom. I shall take that up with whoever is in place in Northern Ireland in my reciprocal capacity, so that we can make progress throughout the country.

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

I was loth to speak in this debate, although I think that I am the main contributor to Legislative Grand Committee debates: I believe that I have spoken in them more than any other Member. However, I did not have a clue what was going on. One of my hon. Friends asked me, “What exactly did the Speaker rule in his statement about the certification of English-only business?” I should be interested to learn whether the Minister knows what it all meant, because my colleagues and I have not got a clue, and that goes to the heart of this nonsense about English votes for English laws. No one knows what is going on. The Constitution Unit examined it in detail, and concluded that it was opaque in the extreme.

No one has much of an idea about what we are actually discussing here. I think I heard something about a procedure requiring double consent. What comes first, the English-only vote or the whole-House vote? I know that I cannot take part in one of the votes, but which one is it? That has not been made clear to us today.

If we are to continue to have these Legislative Grand Committees, we shall need a little bit more than a Minister going to the Dispatch Box, touching it with his hands, and then sitting down again. The Mace goes up, goes down and then goes up again, and nothing is debated and discussed. We were told that English votes for English laws was just about the most important innovation in Parliament when it came to debates in the House, and it is not good enough for Members not to take advantage of these opportunities. I appeal to at least one English Member to stand up and speak about the English-only clauses. If they are so important that we suspend our business, surely they should be addressed.

I hope that in future I shall not have to speak about Legislative Grand Committee motions. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] For once, I concur with Conservative Members. This procedure has reached a stage at which it is beyond a farce. It is bizarre; it is unnecessary; it disrupts the business of the House, and no one is even bothered about making a contribution.

Question agreed to.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses and schedules of the Children and Social Work Bill [Lords]:

Clauses and schedules certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence

Clauses 1 to 7, 11 to 31 and 41 to 67 of the Bill as amended in the Public Bill Committee including the amendments made on Report;

New clause 15, new clause 16, new clause 17 and new clause 18 added on Report; and

Schedules 2 to 4 to the Bill as amended in the Public Committee, including the amendments made on Report.—(Edward Timpson.)

Question agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.

Third Reading

Technical and Further Education Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill:

Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence

Clauses 2 to 38 of, and Schedules 2 to 4 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.)

Question agreed to.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill:

Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence

Clause 1 of, and schedule 1 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.)

Question agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House was greatly entertained by the farce that we have just witnessed. I hope that during the adjournment, you had the opportunity to take advantage of the facilities here and even make yourself a nice cup of tea, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it was a completely and utterly pointless waste of time.

Because of the way in which the programme motion has been designed and because of the lack of time available, it has not been possible for the Legislative Grand Committee to consider all these important English-only measures. Given that English votes for English laws is supposed to be of paramount importance and one of the main innovations of this Parliament, is it not disappointing that English Members have not had the opportunity to lend an English—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman and I both know, first, that that is not a point of order and, secondly, that an important debate took place today, and it was regarded as important to have a special debate on health as well. The fact is, however, that time has gone. The House agreed to the rules and they have now been applied. Going over all that is not going to change anything. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point of order and he has now put his point on the record. The bottom line is, however, that these are the rules that the House has chosen, as he well knows. That is the end of it. We move on to Third Reading. Perhaps time for a cup of tea. [Interruption.] Order. If you have a problem, Mr Wishart, you should pursue it through the usual and proper channels. The fact is that you did not raise a point of order, as you well know. I know it was not a point of order and you know it was not, which was why you raised it. The bottom line is this: if you do not like it, go and get your cup of tea while the House gets on with the business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is a notable practitioner of what I call the shoehorning technique, which is to shoehorn the matter of concern to oneself into any question whether it naturally fits or not.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is absolutely right that EVEL has been a bureaucratic, cumbersome and misunderstood nightmare, which has divided this House on the basis of nationality and geography. Given that the Government have a majority in both England and the rest of the United Kingdom, what difference has this useless apparatus made to any legislative outcome that we have considered in the past year?

[Mr Lidington]

The changes are a demonstration of the Government’s commitment to ensuring justice is done to Members from all parts of the United Kingdom. The EVEL arrangements apply only in respect of legislation, amendments or statutory instruments that cover matters that are devolved in Scotland, over which this House has no say and no jurisdiction, but which are a matter for this House to determine in respect of England, and it is only right that English Members should exercise the veto that these arrangements provide.

Student Maintenance Grants

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I am particularly concerned for the hon. Gentleman, because he is very new to this House. Indeed, I hope he will be making his maiden speech later this afternoon. We are all looking forward to that. Of course his name ought to have been there. We will do everything to make sure it is there in future.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could help me with this. This is very serious. The fact that one of our Members—one of the most English of all English Members—has been denied the opportunity to vote in the first double majority vote in this House is something that has to be properly investigated. Can you suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether it is now worth having a recount, given that hon. Members have obviously been left out of this very important first vote?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the vote of the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has most definitely been counted. There is no need for a recount.

Consumer Rights Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree that people should abide by terms and conditions. The fact that the lack of transparency allows platforms to resell against terms and conditions is certainly not in the interest of consumers.

If the Minister does not want to take my word or that of Members in the other place on why we need transparency, perhaps she will listen to those who are actually involved in our crucial cultural and live sector. As she may know, more than 85 prominent organisations and individuals signed a letter to The Independent on Sunday yesterday calling on her and the Government to adopt the proposal. Those signatories included UK Music, the voice of the live and recorded industry; the Sport and Recreation Alliance, the voice of sporting governing bodies in the UK; the Rugby Football Union; the Lawn Tennis Association; and the England and Wales Cricket Board. They have all gone to great lengths over the years to try to ensure that tickets reach the hands of grass-roots fans.

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

May I congratulate the hon. Lady on the diligent way in which she has approached the issue and her determination to get justice for music fans, which is what we are talking about? UK Music’s music tourism forum found that live music generates £2.2 billion. Surely we have a right to expect that live music fans are protected and not ripped off.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman and thank him for that valuable contribution. He is not only a creator of music—he remains one to this day—but a huge supporter of the music industry.

Other signatories to the letter included probably the world’s most pre-eminent promoter, Harvey Goldsmith CBE; the operators of west end and regional theatres; a host of individual music managers who look after some the country’s leading performers, including Iron Maiden, Muse, Arctic Monkeys and even One Direction; and most other industry umbrella bodies, which represent countless businesses contributing to the vitality of our creative sector, such as the Association of Independent Festivals and the Event Services Association.

All those bodies, and more, joined together to call on the Government to make one simple change. Would the Government rather listen to that collective call from the live event sector: the people whose hard work, talents and investment create the demand that the touts exploit? Alternatively, would they rather listen to the four companies that have been lobbying so intensely—I have with me reams of letters they have been sending out lately—against opening themselves and their relationships with big-time touts up to scrutiny?

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. For a genuine fan who does not belong to a rugby union club but wants to watch a rugby international, the secondary ticketing market is one of the best ways of indulging their interest.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West and my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley) found that every report on the secondary ticketing market went against them, so they decided in the all-party group on ticket abuse to produce their own report, because they knew that it could come to a conclusion with which they agreed. It was a sort of desperate measure—no one else would agree with them, so they produced their own report. As I understand it, in their report they argued against capping prices, yet the amendment is in effect a price cap. The amendment states that tickets can be resold, as long as they are not resold above their face value, and that is a price cap—[Interruption.] Of course it is. If someone can resell a ticket but that resale is limited to its price value, there is a price cap on that ticket. We have the extraordinary situation where the hon. Lady and my hon. Friend have come up with their own report, and now they have tabled an amendment that argues against that report. They argued against price caps, but the amendment would introduce one.

There are many arguments against a price cap. First, we do not have price caps on other things. If I buy a ticket to an event, as far as I am concerned that is my ticket and if I want to sell it on to somebody else—for whatever price I can command—that should be my choice. Similarly, if I buy a house and want to sell it on at a later date to somebody at a much higher price, and someone is prepared to pay that price, why should the Government interfere in that legitimate transaction between a willing seller and a willing buyer?

People say that the market in tickets does not work properly because there is a dearth of supply and a lot of demand, and it is the same with houses. There are currently few houses for sale and a lot of people want to buy one, and the price of houses has rocketed as a consequence. Exactly the same arguments apply to housing as to tickets, yet who argues that we should have a price cap on houses and that someone cannot sell their house for more than they paid for it? It would be ridiculous for anybody to argue that, but it is exactly the same principle.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Philip Davies]

In a moment, if the hon. Gentleman calms himself down. The only difference is that people think it is populist to say that we should have a cap on tickets, and they know that it would be grotesquely unpopular to say we should have a cap on house prices.

[Pete Wishart]

To take the hon. Gentleman’s analogy to its logical conclusion, it would be like someone coming to a street, buying all the houses in that street, and selling them back at an inflated price. Would he be happy with that?

[Philip Davies]

As far as I understand, that is exactly what the son of John Prescott, the former Deputy Prime Minister, did in Hull. As I recall, he bought a whole street of houses in Hull for a ridiculously low price and sold them on at a higher price afterwards. That is what happens. I know the hon. Gentleman is a socialist too, so I would not expect him to believe in the free market. However, Members on the Conservative Benches are supposed at least to consider themselves believers in the free market. If they agree with the Lords, and in particular with the hon. Lady’s amendment, I do not really see how they can justify that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Weatherley]

Absolutely, and there is no doubt that merchandising plays a significant part in allowing bands to continue touring.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful point, which I recognise from my experience of touring with a band. It is uneconomic to go out with two trucks and all the equipment to play in front of fans. Bands rely on their merchandise and on being able to sell other products to enable them to continue to work and make the fantastic records they do, and ensure that people of any age group can watch them play live. Distortion caused by these appalling ticket prices threatens the industry.

[Mike Weatherley]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I would like to thank him for his contributions over the years; we have had good debates in this Chamber.

It is probably true that my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for Shipley have unlimited budgets, but most people have a finite budget and they have to make decisions on how to spend their money. If they spend it all on ticketing, they will not spend it on other things.

As has been mentioned, different methods have been tried to control secondary ticketing and to protect purchasers, such as named ticketing. It has been proved, however, that this will not work for every event. It works in some situations, but not others. The industry would like to take other steps to control these abuses but it cannot do so. It has been argued by the ticketing organisations that the measures already in place are enough. If that was the case, why are we still seeing cases where fans or performers are not protected from exploitation and revenue loss?

These amendments do not restrict the buying and resale of tickets. All they ask is that the process is transparent so that buyers have information such as where the seat is, who the seller is, and what the original price of the ticket was, and whether the resale of the ticket is against the terms and conditions of the original purchase. It does not expose the seller to data protection problems. Only those sellers whose job is related to the live entertainment sector will need to provide employment details. This means that an informed decision can be made whether or not to buy a ticket. Similarly, it would mean that in cases where tickets were resold by industry insiders for a profit, it was out in the open.

Creating such transparency means that it will be easier to prevent and detect ticket fraud, expose and reduce insider dealing of tickets, and assist event-holders in protecting their customers from the worst excesses of ticket touting. It will also assist the artists in ensuring that they are able to deliver tickets to the intended market at the intended price. In my view, these amendments provide the right balance to avoid full legislation criminalising the activity by implementing sensible, reasonable information requests. To quote Steve Parker, managing editor of Audience and Live UK:

“The proposed amendment to the Consumer Rights Bill simply requires transparency and the restoration of fairness to the market. It is not a threat, restriction or burden to anyone operating honestly in this sector—it is a threat to those that seek to secretly manipulate the market for their own greedy ends.”

Only the operators who want to hide this information could possibly object to a request for the system to be transparent. The proposed measures have been formally supported by a wide range of stakeholders from the live event sector, promoters including Harvey Goldsmith, the Lawn Tennis Association, the National Theatre, the Musicians Union, the England and Wales Cricket Board, UK Music, the premier music booking agencies, managers of major British bands like One Direction, Iron Maiden, Arctic Monkeys, Muse, Radiohead and Mumford and Sons, and over 50 more in a letter issued over the weekend. These amendments are only opposed by those profiteering from the confusion and technological shortcomings of event ticketing.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I like to think that the small venues are for new bands—people who are up and coming and do not have a great following. I have bought a ticket to see AC/DC at Hampden Park, which I had no problem doing because it holds 50,000 people. That was easy, but there is a genuine problem in respect of the small venues. We have a new venue in Glasgow called the Hydro, which holds 13,000 people. I have been there and it is fantastic, but even there, depending on who is coming, the ticket touts are out selling the tickets.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fine speech and covering a range of new issues. One thing we have not thought about is that because the Government have failed to do anything about this, it has been left to the big festivals such as Glastonbury and T in the Park to try to put in place some sort of inventive, creative measure to protect their own audience. Why should it be left up to large festivals to deal with the problem? Surely it is the Government’s responsibility to protect fans.

[John Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman is right about that. I have met various promoters for T in the Park and they have done their level best to try to stop the touts, but even they admit that they cannot do it completely. If we make this illegal, that puts a different front on it. If we tell everybody it is illegal to do something and someone does it, they know it is illegal. If we do not tell them it is illegal, they will continue to do it. As we have already said, they will continue to use all the new technologies that are coming online and they will rip people off. There will be people who are so desperate to buy a ticket to see somebody that they will pay these prices, and as long as somebody is willing to pay them, the problem will continue and prices will keep increasing.

Living Wage

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 6th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bain]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The proportion of company profits paid in wages has declined in the past 15 to 20 years, but it has declined particularly in the period since the financial crisis and in the four and a half years of this Government. Companies must be forward looking if they want to retain staff and if they want staff to develop. Employees want a job that becomes a career—they want progression in that firm or that profession. Paying higher wages benefits not just the employee, but the employer. Many countries are demonstrating that.

How can we act to end the low pay crisis? First, every level of government, whether a council, a devolved Government, a regional government in England through local enterprise partnerships, or central Government, should commit to using whatever policy levers they have to advance the living wage, to show an example to the private sector and the rest of society. It was therefore disappointing that the Scottish Government yesterday rejected the Labour party’s offer in the Scottish Parliament to extend further the use of the living wage through procurement policies. I hope they will reconsider. With 264,000 women in Scotland earning less than the living wage, it was wrong for the Scottish Government to reject that practical and helpful suggestion yesterday. The living wage is too big a prize for us to be deflected by partisan considerations. People expect all politicians to use every tool at our disposal to extend it to the widest possible number of people. I hope that devolved Governments, central Government and councils use those powers and achieve precisely that aim.

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

We know that Labour’s tribal hatred of the Scottish National party is part of Labour’s problem in Scotland, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that the Scottish Government pay the living wage to all public sector employees? They also have no compulsory redundancies. That is the SNP’s record. In government, the Labour party could not even match the minimum wage with inflation. That is Labour’s record.

[Mr Bain]

The hon. Gentleman knows that the hand of friendship is always extended between Labour and Scottish National party Members. I have reiterated that to him on many an occasion. It is wonderful to see him in his place, but I gently point out that Labour Members strived and sat up night after night in order to introduce the minimum wage in the first place. All my Labour party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament were asking in their proposal yesterday was for the Scottish Government to do what the UK Department of Energy and Climate Change does. I would have thought that that was a commendable approach, and I hope the Scottish Government will decide to adopt it.

Secondly, the remit of the Low Pay Commission needs to be shifted from simply setting a floor for wages to examining scope for raising low pay across the board. Different models have been suggested. We could change the commission’s remit so that it offers forward guidance on the scale of future rises in the minimum wage, or, as Labour Members have suggested, we could peg the minimum wage to around 58% of median wages by 2020.

The third tool that I ask the Government and the House to consider is incentivising employers to move to the living wage using the tax system in those sectors of the economy in which that can be afforded. The evidence is that, when employers pay a living wage, they experience long-lasting benefits in productivity and reduced staff turnover. We should use all the levers of fiscal policy. We should see what tax concessions can be given to businesses if they start paying the living wage. We should pump prime the system. I believe that employers and employees will benefit.

The fourth way to solve the low pay crisis is by making the right investments in skills to ensure that people do not remain stuck in low-paid jobs for ever. Important research from the Resolution Foundation establishes that 80% of low-paid workers never escape from low-paid work. There is therefore a premium on government at all levels, whether the UK Government, the Scottish Government or local councils, using the whole range of their powers to have the skills revolution that is needed in the UK.

Never let anyone say that voting does not matter when there are families who can be helped by the Government, the Low Pay Commission and employers acting together to secure a decent pay rise for millions of people. Never let anyone say democracy does not count when by our actions the UK could become a living wage country by 2025, as the child poverty and social mobility commission recommended last month. Never let anyone say that the right to vote means nothing when it can help to deliver the right to more decent work that genuinely pays a living wage.

We know what has to be done to end the scourge of poverty pay in this country. The question is whether we have the determination to do it. In supporting the motion before the House today, I hope we can say we must and we will.

Technical and Vocational Education

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Tristram Hunt]

The record will note that the Skills Minister did not want to defend IES Breckland and the free schools policy.

We are beginning to see a widening attainment gap, but it is on vocational education where the Government’s negligence hits hardest. The Government are failing young people who want a gold-standard technical education, and they are not securing our skills base.

Let us be clear about the Government’s record. The number of apprenticeship starts by under-25s has fallen by 11,324 since 2010. The number of STEM apprenticeships for 16 to 24-year-olds has fallen by more than 7,000 since 2010. Too many apprentices in England are existing employees, not new job entrants, and too many are over 25. Let us add to that the Government’s scandalous destruction of careers advice.

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

The hon. Gentleman’s motion refers to the United Kingdom, but he will know that in Scotland vocational education and skills development is devolved and the cross-party Wood commission is looking at that very issue. Does he intend to overrule what has been proposed in the Scottish Parliament in favour of his proposals, or did he just get a bit confused when drafting the motion?

[Tristram Hunt]

We will devolve our skills budgets to a regional, local level in England, because we believe that those decisions are best made locally.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

We do not have a lot of time, and I do not want to detain the House unduly. However, although it is recognised that this matter forms only a small part of the Bill, the importance of the creative industries to our national economy, and the contribution that they are making to growth, is so essential that we need to look very carefully at anything that affects the livelihoods of those working there—and the creative industries rest on the protection of intellectual property rights.

On Second Reading, I suggested to the Secretary of State that clause 57—then clause 56—could be used to make substantial changes to copyright law through statutory instruments. I am grateful to him for meeting representatives of a wide range of creative industries to discuss those concerns. That has led, to some extent, to the amendment that the Government have tabled. As the Minister said, several representatives of the creative industries, such as UK Music, the British Copyright Council, the Publishers Association and the Premier League, have said that they are now satisfied.

However, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) said, that is not a unanimous view across the industry. The Minister has assured us that this is about enforcing penalties but, despite the Government’s amendment, the clause does not mention penalties. I am therefore still not clear as to why the Government did not accept the suggestion that they make it absolutely explicit in the Bill that it is all about penalties. Instead, it talks about exceptions, and it still allows changes to be made to copyright law by statutory instrument. Following the Hargreaves report, there is still great suspicion on the part of many of those in the creative industries that there is an intention to try to dilute intellectual property rights. They fear that the clause could be used—perhaps not by this Government but by a future Government—to bring forward changes to copyright law.

Those fears have been expressed, as the hon. Member for Hartlepool said, by a wide range of organisations, including Associated Press, ITN, Getty Images, the Press Association, British Pathé, Agence France Presse and Deutsche Presse-Agentur. I will quote one sentence from the letter they have sent that sums up the problem that the Government face:

“It therefore remains our concern that…the true purpose of Clause 57…as drafted”

is that

“it will be used as a vehicle to push through a number of changes to copyright exceptions recommended by the Hargreaves Review, which we discussed with you at our meeting because of the detrimental impact to business and the creative industries as well as…ultimately…to the UK’s future economic growth.”

I welcome the Minister’s assurance that that is not the Government’s intention, but it must be of concern that a number of organisations that are important to this country retain that suspicion. Anything that the Government can say or do now to allay that suspicion and make it clear that they do not intend to implement the Hargreaves recommendations in a bundle, via a statutory instrument, would be extremely welcome and would reinforce the point that the provision is not about that, but about criminal penalties.

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

I do not know whether I should break out into song and wish a belated happy birthday to the hon. Members for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) and for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), or declare my favourite band. Whenever the hon. Member for Cardiff West and I appear in the Chamber together, I always try to plug MP4, because we comprise half the band. We will conclude our world tour of UK party conferences this Saturday, which is worth noting as a landmark occasion.

I agree with and endorse what the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee said about the value of copyright to our creative industries. It is the very essence of what underpins our success and probably makes the UK the leader in so many sectors throughout the world, from music, drama and film to Premier League football. It is the one thing that makes sure that we can continue to deliver that immense conveyor belt of talent that excels right around the world.

We muck about with copyright at our peril and must tread carefully with regard to copyright exceptions. We have to know exactly what we are doing, which is why impact assessments are vital and why the Minister’s confused response alarms me and is of concern. We have to know what the exact impact will be on all the sectors and everybody involved in the creative industries, and listen carefully to what they have to say.

I welcome the amendment, but only half-heartedly. For once, the Government have listened to representatives from the creative industries, who have not received a particularly good welcome from them over the past few years. They feel undervalued and sense that their concerns, which they make eloquently to the Government, are ignored and that, if they are listened to, it is in a half-hearted way.

The issue of copyright exceptions is important. We have had the Hargreaves report, the Government’s response to it and the Intellectual Property Office’s examination of how the report’s recommendations could be implemented. I am sure that the Minister will be thrilled to know that he is about to receive the report by the all-party group on intellectual property, of which I and the hon. Members for Maldon and for Lewisham West and Penge (Jim Dowd) are members. It will suggest various ways in which IP policy could be better formulated across Government and across Departments, and suggest the need for a real champion of IP copyright, because that is what is missing.

We need a proper investigation and an impact assessment. The assumptions that underpin a number of the Hargreaves recommendations are nonsense. The examples that caught our eye related to copyright exceptions, such as the assertion that an exception for format shifting would be worth £2 billion to the UK economy. The funniest assumption was the claim that an exception for parody of intellectual property could increase the UK economy by £600,000. Those assumptions were challenged, but they were asserted by the IPO without any real foundation. That is why this House has properly to consider copyright exceptions. If we do not, we will be left with that sort of nonsense. We have to make sure that that does not happen again.

I join others in calling on the Minister to listen to the concerns that the creative industries still have about the potential bundling together of proposals in secondary legislation. The Rolls-Royce model is primary legislation, whereby Members of Parliament can come to the House to have a proper debate and kickabout on proposals for copyright exceptions. If that is not to happen, the Minister must provide a better assurance that there will be separate pieces of secondary, delegated legislation, with full impact assessments, so that we can understand the impact that any further copyright exceptions will have on all the relevant sectors.

[Jim Dowd]

To reinforce that point, the wooliness of the Minister’s response, if it is left like that this evening, will have created an awful lot of work for his colleagues at the other end of the building. There are people down there who know better than most Members of this House precisely what the Government’s lack of decision—or else their attempt to hide what they are doing—really means.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he is spot on. The other House has people who have looked at these issues over a long career, who know the dangers and who understand that we have to tread sensitively and carefully when we look at copyright exceptions.

I hope that the Minister listens to the concerns that have been raised not only by the creative industries, but by hon. Members who have an interest in copyright issues. I hope he will give us the assurance that there will be no bundling of copyright exceptions in secondary legislation and that we will have full impact assessments if there are further copyright exceptions. He must also do something to convince those of us in the House and those in the creative industries who still have major concerns about what is being proposed.

I will touch briefly on the Labour amendment. I support it and think that it is sensible to ensure that we have a proper assessment before we move on to the licensing of orphan works. Orphan works have been hotly debated a number of times in the House, particularly when discussing Hargreaves. The matter has caused great anxiety and unhappiness, particularly among photographers, who have massive concerns about how their industry is threatened by the Hargreaves exceptions on orphan works. It is entirely sensible to have a proper assessment before we proceed with the licensing of orphan works. I heard the Minister’s response to the plea from the Labour spokesman for the assessment. I hope that the proposal will be considered properly. We need to hear more about what the Minister intends to do to ensure that we do not do anything wrong in the licensing of orphan works.

Most importantly, we must hear from the Minister that he will do the right thing by the creative industries, that there will be no bundling of legislation, and that Members of this House will have a proper opportunity to scrutinise and debate such measures.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I defer entirely to the Members who have engaged in the debate hitherto, but I have been alerted this week to outstanding concerns among those involved in intellectual property that the Government have not fully taken account of their concerns and reservations. I heard what the Minister had to say, including his assurance that the Government amendments are designed to achieve that. I have also spoken to the Secretary of State and passed him the detailed reservations that have been communicated to me.

Nevertheless, I have been advised that the uncertainty that the creative industry or intellectual property sector feels may be having a negative effect on commercial decisions. It has been reported to me that some business interests are actively considering relocating out of the UK because of their concerns about the uncertainty. The Minister has made it clear that that is not the Government’s wish or intention. I accept that that is said in good faith. However, I ask him to consider the representations that are being made and to reflect on whether the Government amendments will allay the practical concerns. I appreciate that our consideration is at a late stage, but, as has been mentioned, the legislation will go to another place. Those who are in that place will no doubt want to bring forward more detailed proposals if they are required.

The concern, which has been articulated much more eloquently by others, is that we could lose intellectual property rights in a bundle of legislation that goes through in a Committee Room, without adequate debate or amendment. That could have far-reaching and negative commercial consequences. In recognition of the Government’s dilemma, I would say that we need to strike a balance. It is understood that excessive protection of intellectual property rights can be contrary to free trade. Of course, it is important that we get the balance right. Equally, those who are creative in any sector have the right to know that they will not suddenly find their intellectual property taken away from them at short notice. Protection against that must not be weaker in the UK than elsewhere in the EU or in the rest of the world.

The importance of this matter has been communicated to me by people who know better than I do. They are still concerned that what the Government are doing will threaten the commercial viability of UK investments, and I am sure that is not the Government’s intention.