EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd September 2026 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this morning, Ms Butler. May I also congratulate myself on securing this debate? It came as a bit of a surprise to me. I thought that there would be an overwhelming clamour to secure a debate to celebrate the 10 years since the Brexit referendum. I thought people would be tripping over themselves to ensure that they could tell us about all the wonderful things that have happened. It would have been an opportunity to go wandering through the sunlit uplands to celebrate the dynamic economic growth and political stability that had been secured, the fact that immigration was under control, and all the wonders of our new-found freedoms.

Do you remember, Ms Butler? We were going to have our cake and eat it, we were going to secure the easiest trade deal in history, and of course we were going to take back control. From the lofty heights up there in the sunlit uplands, we could have peered down and admired all the shiny new hospitals that we had managed to build because of the £350 million we had saved weekly from the evil and wicked EU. Perhaps, in a more reflective moment, we could have thought back and wondered why we ever put up with those bendy bananas, the vacuum cleaners that lacked that extra Brexit suction, or EU lightbulbs that would not even light, and about how, thank goodness, the existential threat to the great British sausage had been removed and Brexit had saved us from all the barmy Brussels bureaucrats.

There are some anniversaries that we look forward to, such as birthdays and weddings, and some that invite solemn reflection, such as the end of wars, the passing of great men and women, and great historical events. Then, of course, there is the Brexit referendum anniversary, which somehow feels so different from all the other things that we mark. Brexit is a rather extraordinary anniversary to celebrate.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I will just finish this point. It is 10 years since we embarked on what has turned out to be one of the most self-defeating exercises in political and economic self-harm inflicted in modern political history—a bizarre, destructive and economically illiterate political project that has made everybody in this country so much worse off. On that note, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Andrew Rosindell]

I am very confused. The hon. Gentleman seems passionate about independence for Scotland, so why does he not believe in independence for the whole United Kingdom?

[Pete Wishart]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman within a second that I am all for independence—but not for the bizarre notion that keeps on coming up that membership of the European Union means automatically losing independence. Tell that to the French, the Germans, the Italians or any of the other members of the European Union, who as far as I am concerned pretty much enjoy their own independence. That is what we want to do in Scotland.

In the 10 years since the Brexit referendum, we have had seven Prime Ministers. Even a new Labour Government with a majority of 172 have not been immune from the instability of the Brexit era, barely making it to the two-year mark before they had to replace their first Prime Minister.

Let us turn first to the economy. I am grateful, as always, to the House of Commons Library, which produced an excellent briefing for this debate. I really encourage colleagues to have a look at it. It is remarkably clear about the broad economic evidence. There is now substantial and significant consensus that the UK economy is smaller than it would have been had we remained in the European Union.

[Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)]

My constituency has one of the busiest roll-on roll-off ports, in Holyhead. There has been an announcement regarding passport requirements for travel between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Teithiau Elfyn, a local tour company, has warned me of the serious economic impact of such short-notice announcements. Does the hon. Member agree that the Brexit agreement has not worked for the people of Ynys Môn or Wales, and has had a negative impact on the economy?

[Pete Wishart]

This hon. Member more than agrees with the hon. Lady and thoroughly endorses what she says. It is not just Ynys Môn or Wales; every part of this United Kingdom has been impacted and hurt by this crazy project.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend is making a humorous speech about bananas and sausages that is making me hungry. Yesterday, the new Prime Minister spoke of wrong turns going back as far as the 1980s. There is a wrong turn he could do something about, because the EU reset that the previous Prime Minister promised was a disaster. He gave away 12 years’ access to our waters in Scotland in return for very little. In fact, when the coastal and fishing growth fund was disbursed, there was a pittance for Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Prime Minister is serious about undoing wrong turns, he should have the courage to do something about Brexit?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he brings us right up to date in the debate about Brexit. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister yesterday and what he had to say about European Union membership. I want to come on to that because we are at an important juncture. We have new opportunities to go forward, and I hope that this new Labour UK Government make the right choice. I will come to that, so I ask my hon. Friend for his patience, which I know he will be able to supply me with.

I want to get back to the economics. It is now estimated that GDP is anything between 2% and 8% lower than if we had remained in the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests a 4% reduction in productivity, and Goldman Sachs estimates that the UK economy is around 6% smaller than it would otherwise have been. I want to be clear: that does not mean that Britain suddenly became 8% poorer on the morning of 24 June 2016. Of course, Britain continued to grow, and we have experienced some economic growth. The argument is that the UK has grown less than it otherwise would have done. Brexit was never going to be a spectacular economic crash. If anything, it is more insidious than that. Brexit is more akin to a slow puncture. The economy keeps growing, the car keeps moving forward, but the driving gets tougher as we negotiate in a harsher environment.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

On the economy, does the hon. Gentleman remember, as I do, the weeks before the referendum, when we were told amid all the scaremongering that if we voted to leave, house prices would decline by 28%? They did not. We were also told that unemployment would rise, but it did not. Does he recall those scaremongering headlines?

[Pete Wishart]

Indeed I do. They were almost as ridiculous as the extraordinary claims that were made about what would happen if we left the European Union, from the £350 million saved per week to the claims about bendy bananas and sausages. They were absurd, and the hon. Gentleman is right that it was a poor debate, but he cannot disagree with the evidence from the House of Commons Library and all the major financial institutions that Brexit has been an economic disaster. I do not think anybody could possibly disagree with that basic statement.

I will come on to trade, because that is equally important. The OBR assumes that Brexit will ultimately reduce UK imports and exports by around 15% relative to the scenario had we remained in the European Union. Again, that does not mean that our exports have literally fallen by 15%, but the additional barriers created by Brexit mean we trade less than we otherwise would have done.

That matters because the European Union is still by far our largest trading partner. In 2025, the EU accounted for 41% of our exports of goods and services and around half of our imports. So much for the idea that we would effortlessly turn our back on Europe and replace all that trade with new deals around the world. Yes, of course, there have been useful, good trade deals with the likes of New Zealand, Australia and India. They have benefits, but they barely touch the sides of the trade relationship we already had with the European Union.

[Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)]

In Stourbridge, Brierley Hill and Netherton we have been negatively impacted by the effects of the steel strategy and by measures brought in by the EU such as tariffs and quotas. Does the hon. Member agree that if we had a closer trading relationship with the EU, constituencies like mine and likely his would be far better off?

[Pete Wishart]

Most definitely. I thoroughly agree with the hon. Lady. It is hard to think of any sector that has not suffered as a result of our leaving the European Union. She is right to reference the steel sector, although it could be any sector. I am pretty certain that today we will hear quite a lot about how leaving the EU has disastrously impacted so many sectors throughout the United Kingdom.

I want to get on to immigration. How do we start to deal with the subject of immigration? It is perhaps the saddest but funniest part of the whole saga. Immigration was supposed to be the one thing that Brexit would fix. That seemed to be the whole point of it: it was about taking back control and stopping uncontrolled immigration. But what did we find? Immigration skyrocketed and reached the extraordinarily high level of 1.47 million in the year to March 2023.

Without a doubt, leaving the EU closed the door to EU immigration. Net migration from the EU has been negative since June 2022. The conveyor belt of talent that had been coming to the UK for the best part of the past two decades was stopped. After closing off Europe, we quickly discovered that we actually quite liked having EU people working in all our different sectors, from hospitals to farms, hotels, restaurants, universities, care services, businesses, the City and our creative sector. We all found that we actually needed people from the EU and people quite liked employing them.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

As secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on Germany I spend a lot of time meeting German businesses that want to invest in this country. One issue that comes up time and again is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman has made about business mobility and persuading German boards to invest in British companies to grow the economy, and one constraint on that is the ability of German professionals to come here. Does he recognise that point, and will he join me in paying tribute to Ulrich Hoppe, the director general at the German-British Chamber of Industry and Commerce, who does formidable work trying to resolve some of these issues to support the British economy?

[Pete Wishart]

I join the hon. Gentleman overwhelmingly and enthusiastically. He is absolutely right. It is hard to think of a sector that has remained untouched by the fact that we cannot access European talent. It is a problem for hospitality and restaurant businesses in constituencies like mine, and in the City, where many dynamic figures helped build some of the success stories that we see just a few miles from where we are today.

Before Brexit, there was barely a small boat sighted in the channel, and now we are told that that is perhaps the single biggest issue that confronts this country. Various Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries have come up with a variety of different wheezes to try to stop those small boats coming to the UK, but all have been hampered because we left the one international agreement that might have dealt with returning some of those people to the European Union. When we left the European Union, we also left the Dublin III regulation—the one thing that might have achieved some of the ambition that people had about stopping small boats.

Then there is the irony that Brexit did not just make it harder for Europeans to come here; it made it harder for us to move around Europe, too. British citizens are now third country nationals in their own continent. We can still travel across Europe, of course, but there is now a 90-day limit in a rolling 180-day period. For ordinary holidaymakers who have been away enjoying the sun, that might mean nothing more than the huge queues that we have seen in some airports across Europe—a minor inconvenience, perhaps—but for businesses it means more red tape, more restrictions and more unnecessary difficulties.

For those in my former profession—musicians, performers and other creative professionals—it can mean a bewildering collection of different rules about work permits, visas, carnets and documentation. Brexit has been such a destructive and invidious political project that it has even managed to stop the music moving freely. This Labour Government gave a commitment that they would fix that. We are talking about ambitions, so come on, Minister: stop the Brexit imposition on music. Let the music move freely again. Let the current generation of musicians enjoy the opportunities that I had as a musician. Who knows, we might even have the Prime Minister on a European tour if he manages to get it fixed!

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

Over the summer I was with a constituent who, while celebrating the UK Government’s recent music strategy, recognised the hon. Gentleman’s point about the significant challenge of getting into Europe. Fifty-nine per cent of UK musicians say that touring in Europe has become unviable. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unacceptable that British musicians and other touring artists face barriers that did not exist pre Brexit? Would he encourage the Minister to look seriously at accelerating improvement in this area?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. We have had this issue for seven or eight years. I remember securing the first urgent question when it was recognised as a problem. We have had a long time to fix it. I see that the Minister is taking notes; one thing he could reassure the House on is that the music will move. Get it moving, because there is no reason why it should be stuck behind the English channel.

We are told that all this is happening—and I am afraid to say that we are going to hear it again today—because it is the wrong type of Brexit. Who knew? Apparently, it was the wrong deal. Variously, it was the wrong Government—the wrong everything—but the hard Brexiteers got everything they wanted. They got everything they asked for and more: no customs union, no freedom of movement, no single market, no European court jurisdiction, no EU institutions and no going back. What we have now is not an accidental form of Brexit that just happened to emerge out of the ashes. It was everything that they fought for decades to achieve. The conclusion is that there is no magic Brexit. There is no Brexit where we get all the benefits of membership without the obligations. There is no Brexit where we have frictionless trade without accepting that the rules are necessary for frictionless trade. There is no cake and eating it.

Lastly, there is the extraordinary position of this Labour Government. They know that Brexit is an absolute and utter disaster. There is no getting away from it. The evidence is right in front of them. I listened to the Prime Minister yesterday, and he was absolutely right to reference Brexit as one of the biggest issues that has damaged this country in the last 10 years. They know that our relationship with our largest trading partner is fundamentally broken, but they have tied themselves up in knots with these unnecessary and useless red lines. Instead of actually fixing the problem, they continue to tinker around the edges. There is a little veterinary agreement here, a little customs improvement there, a bit of mutual recognition, a bit of youth mobility, a bit of this, a bit of that—a bit of a big fat nothing, because that is what it is.

The Government have their reset plans, which I am pretty certain is what the Minister will almost exclusively tell us about, but they are nothing more than the same old tinkering.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way to the hon. Gentleman already. Sorry, but lots of people wish to speak.

None of the Government’s plans solves the real problem, which is getting back into the EU. The British public are so far ahead of them on this, it is almost unbelievable. Rejoining the EU is by far the most popular option when presented to the British public. According to Ipsos, 58% of voters would back rejoining the bloc, with almost half supporting a new referendum after the next general election. Only 33% think that the UK should stay out. If only the Government had that in their manifesto, they would be an absolute shoo-in to continue in government maybe not just for the next Parliament, but for the one after that.

Not everything that has gone wrong in the UK in the last 10 years is down to Brexit—of course not. We have had covid, the war in Ukraine, the energy crisis, inflation and 14 years of the chaotic Tories to help make matters much worse. But Brexit is a slow puncture rather than a spectacular crash, and since 2016 we have had to navigate the increasingly difficult terrain of all these international difficulties with a flat Brexit tyre.

Brexit was sold as a moment when we would open our doors and regain our freedom, but all we have done is secure more paperwork. We were told that we would take back control, but immigration has skyrocketed to record levels. We were told that Brexit would free us from Brussels bureaucracy, but we have only created our own UK bureaucracy to deal with leaving the Brussels bureaucracy.

Perhaps the best thing that we can do today is remember what was promised and what was achieved. We in Scotland most definitely remember. We remember back in another referendum—the referendum on Scottish independence—being told that the only way to secure Scotland’s EU future was to vote to stay within the UK Union. What happened to that? Brexit has been an utter disaster. It is a shameless project that has made everybody worse off. Let us reflect on that again, and hopefully in 10 years’ time we will be back in the European Union enjoying the prosperity that we deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler, and to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this debate, but I am sure it will come as no surprise to him or other hon. Members that we see the legacy of the 2016 referendum, and indeed the path forward for our country, through a very different lens.

Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one might almost assume that the United Kingdom was a sunlit, frictionless economic Shangri-La until a single ballot paper cast us into eternal ruin. He told us, echoed by other hon. Members, that leaving the European Union uniquely crippled our economy and that our only salvation lies in surrendering sovereignty through the Government’s grandly titled EU reset, or perhaps going further.

That entire narrative collapses under the weight of hard economic reality. First, let us examine the great myth of the EU single market as an automatic engine of export growth. Ministers speak of the single market as if it were a place where magic happens, but if there was magic, the UK was firmly in the audience wondering when the rabbit would emerge from the hat. As former Trade and Industry Secretary Lord Lilley demonstrated in his Policy Exchange paper earlier this year, during our entire 28-year membership of the single market, from 1992, UK goods exports to our EU partners grew by less than 1% per year, but over that exact same period our goods exports to the 111 countries with which we traded on standard World Trade Organisation terms grew by 87%. In fact, according to the European Commission’s own single market scoreboard, the UK was the member state that benefited least from the goods single market. Rejoining that regulatory straitjacket in pursuit of export growth is the pure triumph of hope over experience.

Secondly, we must address the sheer statistical alchemy deployed by advocates of rejoining. Several speakers have brandished a non-peer-reviewed National Bureau of Economic Research working paper that claims that Brexit cost the UK up to 8% of GDP, but let us look at how the model has constructed that parallel universe. It created a statistical doppelganger proxy that was dominated by the United States and Estonia, which between them provide almost three quarters of the entire weighting for the alternative proxies—apparently—for where the UK could have been without Brexit. It assumed that, had we remained in the EU, the UK would have miraculously mirrored the American economic performance.

To attribute that divergence to Brexit requires an extraordinary leap of imagination. It requires one to pretend that there was no US artificial intelligence boom, no massive American fiscal stimulus—which was possible because the dollar is the world’s reserve currency—no transatlantic shale gas price advantage, no differing pandemic shock, and no North sea oil rundown. In fact, Germany fell 8% behind the same arbitrary index under that model, so unless German departure from the EU has passed us by unnoticed, blaming that divergence on Brexit is simply economic nonsense.

When we examine the actual data, rather than econometric fairy tales, the evidence is clear. Between 2016 and 2025, the UK economy grew by 12.2%, and by 5.3% since we formally left, outpacing the European G7 average. Since Brexit, British economic growth has averaged 1.1% per annum, compared with just 0.1% for Germany. As hon. Members have mentioned, the Office for Budget Responsibility previously assumed an implausible 15% collapse in total UK global trade openness, but as its own November 2025 briefing conceded, UK trade intensity has remained stable at around 65% of GDP and has continued to track peer economies such as France.

The single market was overwhelmingly designed for goods, but more than 80% of the UK economy is based on services. Our services exports continue to boom globally. Even the dire predictions of a mass exodus from the City of London proved dramatically overblown. Institutions such as JP Morgan, which had threatened to move thousands of jobs abroad, have instead been transferring staff back from Paris to London.

Although business investment was undeniably delayed during the post-2016 political paralysis, dragged out by those trying to overturn the referendum, fixed investment to GDP rebounded, reaching 19.6% by the end of last year.

[Pete Wishart]

I have been listening very carefully and patiently to the hon. Gentleman, and he refuses to accept the reality. The House of Commons Library did us a great favour by bringing together all the evidence, which clearly suggests that there has been a fall in GDP and in the performance of the UK economy since we left the European Union. Is he credibly standing there and telling this House that there have been no impacts whatsoever of our leaving the EU?

[Mike Wood]

If we chart it over the last two decades, particularly against German performance, on almost any economic chart we look at, it would be almost impossible to pick out the point at which the UK left the European Union. It is impossible to say from looking at those charts that our economy has grown more slowly than Germany’s, because it has not; it has grown more quickly. Our trade has not been disrupted more than Germany’s—[Interruption.] It really has not; they track almost identically across that chart.

Thirdly, where Britain is succeeding, we are doing so precisely because of our post-Brexit freedoms. The UK digital and tech flat white economy now represents about 15% of GDP—larger than the entire domestic goods sector. As the Growth Commission highlighted, our tech sector is flourishing and leading Europe in artificial intelligence, precisely because it is unburdened by Brussels’ heavy-handed Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act and restrictive AI Act.

Instead of backing British enterprise, the Government are proposing to pursue unilateral dynamic alignment, shackling the 92% of British firms that do not trade with the EU to Brussels’s rulebook, surrendering our precision breeding advantages and hiking domestic carbon costs by linking our emissions trading scheme, which threaten to add up to £100 per tonne to fertiliser prices at a time when they are already crippling British farmers, while paying administrative fees to Brussels for the privilege.

That is an astonishingly one-sided bargain, a masterclass in the art of the bad deal. The lesson of the past 10 years is that national prosperity is built by businesses working across the UK, not subcontracted to the EU. The economic catastrophe prophesied in 2016 simply did not occur.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to have a couple of minutes to sum up what has been an excellent debate with some fantastic contributions.

I secured this debate because I could not believe that in June this year, no one made any attempt to even recognise the fact that we had left the European Union 10 years ago. There was no carrying of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) down the Mall in ticker-tape processions. There was nothing in the way of celebration or even to mark the event. I found that a bit unusual, which is why I secured the debate. I am pleased that I did, because we have heard some pretty scary things today. There were two words that came out loud and clear from practically every contribution: unmitigated disaster. That is the conclusion that any sane and rational person would have to make when they look at what has happened in the 10 years since we left the European Union.

I listened carefully to my Conservative colleagues talk about the history of all this. They do not seem to be able to accept the forecasts that are clearly laid out in the House of Commons Library briefing. Maybe we have the wrong type of Brexit, the wrong type of Government, the wrong type of deal or the wrong type of House of Commons Library. I do not know what their real issue is, but they fail to accept and recognise that there has not been even a mixed response. It was quite alarming that the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood), who spoke for the official Opposition, could not even acknowledge that there have been difficulties over the past 10 years.

My last word to the Government is that, yes, they can make progress, and we are all keen to support them in trying to improve the relationship with the European Union, but unless they are prepared to consider rejoining the European Union, which is what the vast majority of the people of this country want, I am afraid they will not be able to make much progress. It will just be more tinkering and making slight progress at the very edges of a very clear and distinct problem.

I urge the Government to have a look at the benefits of rejoining the EU, even through some sort of examination or inquiry about what it could do. It is not good enough to just blithely say that we are not looking at it and we are sticking to our red lines, and it is not what the people of the country want. They want to be back in the European Union—a sensible place to be—and to end the unmitigated disaster that we have experienced in the last 10 years.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of the 2016 EU membership referendum on the UK.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Forster]

I am pleased that, for once, we have cross-party consensus on an issue.

However, it has been more than a year since Jonathan Hall KC first recommended the powers contained in the Bill to tackle state-backed and state-linked threats. The Government and this Parliament have been too slow to listen to his concerns.

The Liberal Democrats welcome the fact that the legislation creates the power for state-backed entities to be designated under the National Security Act 2023. On Second Reading, my Liberal Democrat colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), raised strong concerns that the offences in the Bill might inadvertently capture the activities of humanitarian workers. Tackling state threats and protecting those who provide vital assistance and support to some of the planet’s most vulnerable people are not and should never be mutually exclusive. I therefore highly commend the amendments tabled by my noble Friend Baroness Northover, as well as by Lord Anderson, in the other place, which we are now considering. They will protect those who carry out humanitarian work, which, as colleagues have said, we never intended the Bill to capture. I am pleased and relieved that the Government are supporting the amendments.

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

Does the hon. Member not think that this shows that we do not properly consider the inadvertent effects of the legislation we pass in this place? We have had useful amendments introduced in the House of Lords, but surely when we are drafting legislation on issues as important as this, we should get it right in the first place. We should not have to rely on hastily drawn up amendments in a Bill’s last stages to put it right.

Payment Scheme

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us an update and introducing the regulations. He did so with real sincerity, guile and grace, and I think we are all grateful for the way in which he engages with us all across the House.

I do not know how many of these statements and urgent questions I have attended over the course of the past 15 or 20 years. I seem to be spending an awful lot of time with the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), attending debates and meetings of the all-party parliamentary group that he so assiduously chairs. I have written letters to various Ministers, got responses, taken them to constituents, let them down again and perhaps even given them some sense of encouragement. I would like not to be doing that any more; I would like just for things to just work.

I would like to think that everybody I have represented and got to know within the community is feeling positive and good about what is happening, and satisfied that things are moving on. I would like to think that the people who deserve these payments are securing them. I would like to think that they do not have to worry any more or be anxious about their domestic or personal situation—that they do not have to be concerned about those they care for, love or live with, because things are just being done. It would be great to be in that position. I always like to hear from the Minister, and it is great that he gives us constant updates, but would it not be something to get to that place of resolution, where people are satisfied with the progress and the payments being made?

We had a very good debate a couple of weeks ago, which has been referenced by a couple of Members. I thought it was really good; lots of important and relevant points and issues came up. That is why I was a little bit surprised to find that the regulations were laid the very next day. Surely we should have taken that opportunity to pick up some of those things, because the themes were quite consistent across the House. Several concerns were consistently raised, and I think the Minister got a very clear impression of the priorities among those of us who work with the community—that was all loud and clear.

There is something I do not get; perhaps the Minister can explain it to me. Maybe it was always part of the timetable that the regulations would be laid on that particular date, but surely we should have had time to reflect and go through the various points that came up from Members right across the House before we made this final progress and these regulations were laid. Important points came up, and we have heard some of them again today. I will not repeat them, because I have said them so many times to various Ministers at the Dispatch Box.

The key thing that really needs to be progressed, looked at and resolved is the pace of the payments. We know that the infected are being looked after, and it looks like we are making real progress there. The Minister is right to refer to the structure and process used, because it has worked; I think we are all satisfied that things have moved on quite significantly and that payments are being made. But when it comes to the affected, I think we need to see a little bit more dynamism and energy. We need to ensure that the payments are made to these people, who are desperately waiting.

I do not think the issues around interferon are properly addressed through the regulations. We are all happy and satisfied that we have the new 2B payments, but there is a huge case to be made for further levels of payments, particularly around 3B or 4B awards, which the community have been asking for quite consistently. The Government and their expert group seem to have ignored the huge amounts of real-world evidence of the debilitating, enduring impact of interferon treatment. In the debate a couple of weeks ago, I said it was akin to chemotherapy. We should start thinking about the damage that has been done by interferon on the same basis, and take it as seriously.

We welcome the increase in the figure for families who have been subject to research and medical trials; I think the Minister said £60,000, compared with £25,000 previously, so that is a significant rise. However, there are still a few questions and issues around some of those payments and the inclusion of some people in the unethical research group. Again, it all comes back to that date of 1986—I think I heard the Minister say something about that particular date. That still seems to be a pretty rigorous cut-off point for people to be considered, particularly as the report itself references damage done beyond that date. Maybe the Minister could clarify that a little bit, and satisfy me that any cases belonging to that particular group that came after 1986 will be addressed.

It is disappointing that there has been very little reference to the significant problems with estate claims, despite a number of meetings and much correspondence with the Cabinet Office. As we have heard from several hon. Members, it is a feature that came up in the previous debate. This is about the evidential hurdles that are impacting so many people—the fact that records do not exist, and it is really difficult to prove that certain documentation existed when it is no longer there because of historical issues, or because it has been lost, mislaid, or perhaps destroyed. We heard a little bit about the Government’s role in facilitating that—a number of records that had been kept by various Departments are no longer available to people who need to access them in order to progress their claims.

Again, as a couple of Members have mentioned, we cannot forget the thousands of bereaved families who continue to wait for their compensation claims to begin, causing great anxiety and distress. The most important thing is the scaling up of the claims process to end the unbearable period of limbo that people are still having to endure. The number of the affected who have been through the process remains too low—now is the time for real progress. I think we are looking for a commitment that the Government will reflect on some of the issues we have highlighted, and perhaps think about coming back to the House having considered some of the things that have been raised consistently in debates and statements over the course of the past few weeks. Perhaps the Government could give us an update on how they intend to deal with those issues.

It will not surprise the Minister that I am going to raise the issue of the duty of candour, which I think is the most important missing detail in all this—the thing that profoundly needs to be addressed. We know that the Hillsborough law Bill is coming up; I suggest ever so gently to the Government that that Bill has to be an absolute imperative. We need a duty of candour for civil servants who are involved in some of these scandals. Twenty years ago, civil servants would give stuff to Ministers for correspondence to me that they knew was lies, not just misleading or getting a few things wrong. I was raising issues on behalf of constituents who were experiencing real difficulties, and civil servants were supplying correspondence—facts and figures—to the Ministers replying to me that they knew was wrong. We need to try to understand why that happened and address it. The duty of candour aspect of any Hillsborough law is going to be highly important to ensure that nothing like this scandal ever happens again.

I will end by saying that we are in such a better place than we were five years ago, or even three years ago; we are getting there. All of us who care about this debate, who have been in the Chamber putting these issues to the Minister, do not want anybody left behind; everyone, infected or affected, should be brought with us and should benefit from this resolution in the House.

I will say one other thing to the Minister. The community have suffered so much throughout the decades. They have taken up this fight with such distinction and such courage, and they need to be thanked. We had the service, which was brilliant, but I hope that as we go forward, the Minister will look at the community as a resource—a source of lived experience who have a background in these issues that goes beyond anything that any expert group could have. They have lived with this, they have seen it, and it is they who are dealing with it. I am satisfied that we are moving forward and I hope we get some updates. I congratulate the Minister again on bringing the measure forward, but will the Government please look at some of the things that so many of us have been saying for such a long time, and make sure that they are properly addressed as we go forward?

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I whole- heartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on the customarily forthright and direct way in which he opened the debate. I agree with all the points he made; he would expect that of me, as his loyal deputy on the all-party parliamentary group. It is great that we have heard so many solid and significant contributions today.

Once we are a couple of hours into a debate, we start to get a feeling for how it is going, the emerging themes and the sense of direction. We all acknowledge and appreciate the huge progress that has been made. When I started out on this campaign more than 20 years ago, I would never have believed that we could get to this point, at which payments are being made to those impacted and those affected.

The Minister is starting to hear that the same issues are emerging. Constituents are experiencing the same complications and difficulties, and the same representations are being made. I will not touch on those, because so many have been raised, but I might just reinforce some of the points made. The Minister is beginning to hear a chorus of things that need to be addressed—and addressed they must be. We are on the cusp of having something of which we can be proud—of this House having addressed one of the biggest scandals that we have ever experienced in parliamentary life. We took control of it; we handled it; we got a report and an inquiry; and we got billions of pounds of compensation. We have the opportunity to pay that compensation right now, and I hope that the Government grab it.

I pay tribute to IBCA for the work that it has done. It is amazing that we have put together the infrastructure and a support scheme as quickly as we have. IBCA has done remarkable work in such a short time. It is starting to deliver, and I think we are all immensely pleased and proud that this House has collectively been able to construct it, and to make sure that it is functional and works. I have visited IBCA on a couple of occasions, and I have met the staff and discussed many of these issues with them. I recognise their sheer dedication to the work that they are pursuing, in the best interests of everybody whom they serve; and their commitment, as an arm’s length body.

It is amazing that we have got here, but it was not always like this. I remember what happened back in the early 2000s. I am looking at the chair of the APPG, my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, and he will remember this, too. We were fobbed off, disregarded and lied to when we took up the cases of our constituents. They presented to us at our various surgeries with these unexplained difficulties and complications. They would say, “How did I get HIV?”, or “I’ve got hepatitis. I do not know how on earth this happened.” We would write to successive Ministers in the Department of Health, making representations, and asking for assistance or acknowledgement, only to be told that they were not interested, and that there was nothing to see here. They would say, “Move along. We are not prepared to take this up. Believe me, we are doing everything in our power, and there’s really nothing to acknowledge.” For years, we were fobbed off and disregarded, and for years, we fought on.

Over the years, I have got to know the campaigners. They came together with a common purpose, determined to get to the heart of the issue and to support each other. We call them the community, and we could not find a better community than the campaigners who have led this, been at the forefront, and refused to accept “No”. They are people with different lives from different backgrounds, but they all carry the burden of what happened to them. All of them are still here, fighting the good fight, determined to get justice for the whole community, and that whole community is the key thing today.

I was the APPG chair for all those years, and the community has some of the finest people I have ever encountered. I have seen lots of campaigns in this House, and I have seen how people approach these issues, how they take them forward, how they engage and how they access their Members of Parliament to make sure that things are done. It is the most fantastic campaign we have ever had. Unfortunately, I could not make the ceremony at St Paul’s, as I was recovering from an illness, but I know from friends, colleagues and campaigners who were there the importance to them of that ceremony, where they were recognised as a community for their work.

There have been high points, and we should acknowledge that. Few of us would have expected Theresa May to have made the announcement back in 2017 that there was to be a full inquiry. A lot of us were surprised that she chose Sir Brian Langstaff to lead it, and lead it he did. Like many people in this debate, I listened to lots of the evidence in the inquiry sessions, and I cheered along with the community when the report was produced. I was in this House when the report was launched, and the Government took full responsibility and said that there would be a full repayment scheme and that people would get what they should. Those were great days, met with real enthusiasm and euphoria by those who have campaigned.

There have been good days, but we have to address the biggest issue. It has been mentioned on several occasions, so I will not labour the point, but people have been waiting decades. Even at this point, the majority of these people are still waiting just to start their claim. That is not to receive compensation—we might think that we would be at that stage now—but just to get into the system. Even at this stage, only a relatively small number have been paid. People have mentioned that these are real people—people who are unwell and who know that time is not on their side. I do not know which Member mentioned it, but people are dying weekly because they are not having their situation attended to and their payments made.

Families still have no clarity about when their case will move forward. That is made worse by what is being asked of them. I have been surprised—I have listened carefully to colleagues who have raised this—that we see people being asked for evidence that in many cases simply does not exist. They have been asked for records from decades ago, such as proof of cohabitation between parents and children in the 1980s. Those things were probably never properly recorded in the first place, and if they had been, it may have been lost over time. That means that so many people are being delayed or sometimes shut out completely because they cannot meet requirements that are not realistic. In some cases, people run into a purely arbitrary administrative date, rather than when harm was actually suffered. Members have mentioned the bereaved families in whose cases support can stop at the point of death rather than reflecting the full impact of what has been lost.

Another theme that has developed—I think it was the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) who raised this in particular—is the growing concern about those with hepatitis C who were treated with interferon. That has to be addressed. Of all the issues that have started to emerge, that is the one that the community in general wants us to press as strongly and as directly as we can with the Minister. I hope that we get some satisfaction.

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am grateful that my hon. Friend has reiterated that point, and I will do likewise. Many of my constituents who have been affected and infected by this scandal have asked me to emphasise the point that even the updated scheme does not properly recognise the long-term consequences of interferon treatment.

[Pete Wishart]

Interferon was introduced as almost like a chemotherapy drug back in the day, and some of its impacts and consequences have been similar to the side effects and impacts of chemotherapy. Physically and mentally, the effects are often severe and long-lasting. When the Minister is on his feet, perhaps he can explain a little more about what he intends to do with this group and this community. The Government have introduced a new level 2B to recognise some of these harms, and my understanding is that it provides a temporary uplift, but it seems to apply only in certain circumstances. What it does not seem to do—I have read about it carefully—is reflect the long-term reality for many. The argument appears to be that the higher category covers just about everything else when it comes to interferon treatment for hepatitis C, and that levels 3 and 4 already take interferon into account. My colleagues in Haemophilia Scotland asked for the evidence showing how that was factored in, and none was provided, so can the Minister tell us a more about that evidence in relation to levels 3 and 4?

A similar set of concerns relate to unethical research, as we have heard. The Government have expanded eligibility and increased awards. That is welcome in principle, because it means that people are recognised without having to jump over additional evidential hurdles, but there is still a lack of clarity as to whether the level of award properly reflects what actually happened to people. The issue seems to be the arbitrary 1985 cut-off date. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarity. Officials say that there is no evidence of unethical research beyond that point, but the inquiry itself referred to evidence beyond that date, and even up to the 1990s, of children being recruited without proper information or consent. Why did the Government arrive at 1985 as a cut-off date for eligibility for unethical research awards, given that there is evidence that unethical trials and research continued well into the 1990s?

There are also ongoing concerns about estate claims, because the structure of the payments could disadvantage those who died earlier, and about unpaid care over the years. That, again, has been reflected by several hon. Members.

A few people referred to some of the different schemes around the devolved nations. I am particularly proud of what we did in the Scottish Parliament, and the Minister will be aware of the bespoke schemes across the whole United Kingdom, not just in Scotland. The one that particularly worked in Scotland—I want the Minister’s response regarding what has happened to it—is the special category mechanism known as the severely affected category. This was open to people who had significant problems and issues; they could apply, and were given an increased payout and support. That has since been subsumed under the general supplementary scheme; that scheme is welcome, but this is disadvantageous compared with the superior scheme in Scotland. Those who were initially on that superior scheme have been kept on it, but those who wished to apply for it have to go through bigger hoops and hurdles to get there. We need to know that scheme will still be available and that it will be easier for people to apply to it, because we were particularly pleased about the way it operated in Scotland.

Let me turn finally to accountability. Throughout the decades, the Government repeatedly dismissed those asking questions and trying to achieve justice. The final report acknowledged that the infected and the affected were fed lies and lines, and that serious concerns were dismissed outright. We have to address this. We cannot leave it. We have to look at how we get round some of the things that were encountered. I remember the letters I got from various Government Ministers: “The Government do not accept that any wrongful practices were employed and do not consider that a public inquiry is justified.” I got that for years, every time I raised these issues on behalf of a constituent.

I listened carefully to the infected blood inquiry. The evidence I found most compelling was from a certain Andy Burnham, who was Health Minister at one point during that period—I believe he is in the news today for some other reason, not particularly related to this. I remember Andy Burnham candidly telling the inquiry that he now knew that the lines he had been given by senior officials in the civil service were wrong, and that he had sent lies to me and other Members who raised these issues in Parliament. That is what he said, in effect, in evidence to the inquiry. That is simply unacceptable.

The current Ministers are probably much better than their predecessors, and will look carefully at what comes across their desks, but this must not be allowed to happen again. That is why we need a statutory duty of candour on all public officials, including civil servants and senior civil servants. More than that, we need an independent compensation body to oversee all Government compensation schemes. Such a body would retain expertise and experience, would save time and money when schemes are set up, and would be capable of ramping up and down according to need. The Hillsborough law must be enacted without delay, introducing a duty of candour for everybody involved in public life. A national oversight mechanism should be established to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of recommendations from all public inquiries and hold the Government to account.

After all this, it is hard to believe that the first meeting I had about the issue was back in about 2004, with a lovely lady from Blairgowrie, in my old constituency. She came to see me in what could only be described as a hell of a state; she could not account for why she had HIV following a blood transfusion after a medical emergency. It was because of her that I started to get involved in all this, tried to find answers and tried to ensure that campaigners got justice. The name of that lady was Tricia Titheridge. After contracting HIV, she died in 2013, without seeing the huge progress that we have made. It is because of people like Tricia that we are all still here—still fighting to ensure that everybody is included and that there is a scheme that works for all our constituents. Looking at the Minister and knowing the qualities that he will bring to this job, I am pretty certain that he is going to be the man who delivers this for everybody, meets our concerns and looks at the difficulties we have presented today.

Belfast: Violent Disorder

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, not least because I know that he also has a very long-standing affection for Northern Ireland, and I join him in praising the bravery of all those involved in the actions we saw a couple of nights ago. He is also right to raise significant concerns, which link to the point I made earlier about words having consequences. While the usual suspects, as he describes them, will come forward to try to derive some kind of political advantage from circumstances such as these, I genuinely believe that the majority of the public expect us to act in a sensible, consensual way—to address the problems about which people are rightly angry, but to do so in a way that brings people together rather than driving them apart.

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

In my 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I never thought I would see a situation where masked men would go from door to door, seeking to drive families from ethnic minorities out of their homes. What happened on Monday was truly barbaric, but nothing in the world could ever justify that type of behaviour. I and others in this House have been warning about the rise of the far right and those pernicious people who would influence this type of behaviour on our streets. Will the Minister now acknowledge that we have a new, emerging problem with elements of the far right, and will he commit to ensuring that we tackle it effectively?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the hon. Member that the scenes he describes were utterly abhorrent and not something that any right-minded person would ever want to see, whether in Belfast, the United Kingdom or anywhere else. I hope that there is shared agreement about that. On his second point, I acknowledge as the Security Minister that to keep our country safe we have to deal with a range of different threats that sit across the spectrum. That includes extreme right-wing activity, as well as a range of other specific threats. In truth, my approach is always to be ideologically agnostic, in the sense that it does not make a difference to me what the particular motivation or ideology is of those who would do us harm. I will make sure that we have the defences to stand against those threats, regardless of where they come from.

Hatzola Ambulance Attack

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his important points. Immediate steps are being taken by the Metropolitan police, because it is vital that there is that presence, reassurance and engagement at community level. Having spoken earlier to the assistant commissioner, who I have previously worked with closely, I know how seriously the Metropolitan police are taking this issue, and I know that work is under way as we speak. I can therefore give my hon. Friend the reassurances she seeks, but we can never be complacent about these things. While there is clearly a focus on this activity today, we need to ensure that that continues tomorrow and for as long as is necessary.

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

What happened at Golders Green this morning was simply sickening and abhorrent, and the rise of antisemitism should alarm all of us in the House. The recent attacks on the Jewish community have been national and international in scope, and we simply do not know where the next attack might be. Will the Minister assure me that he is working with police forces right across the United Kingdom and doing everything possible to share information and seek co-operation when required?

[Dan Jarvis]

The hon. Member makes an important point. He is right that it was sickening, but not surprising. He also made the important point, which perhaps has not been reflected on previously, about the truly international scale of the challenge. Yes, there are significant challenges that we are grappling with here in the UK, but that is a shared endeavour with our international partners; we want to work incredibly closely with them on it. His basic point about co-ordinating activity with the police around the country is a good and fair one. I will ensure that that activity is under way.

Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend’s question on transparency is answered by the fact that the independent adviser’s conclusions and advice to the Prime Minister will be published in the normal way, and they will be available for the public and this House to see. On whether the Prime Minister is the appropriate person to decide, as he is the only person, constitutionally, who advises His Majesty the King on which Ministers to appoint or dismiss in the circumstances set out, it is right for the Prime Minister to come to that judgment.

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

What is of no doubt whatsoever is that countless Labour MPs took money from Labour Together. Anas Sarwar and his now estranged Scottish Labour MPs must come clean about their close financial and personal relationships with this sullied organisation, but for some reason they have all developed collective amnesia. They have forgotten about their links with this rotten organisation, their only defence being that they are utterly clueless. Will the Minister now insist that Scottish Labour hand back the £100,000 that it took from this dodgy and disgraced organisation?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said to the House, individual donations will be declared in line with the rules in the normal way. It is for those individuals to decide what they do with those donations.

Standards in Public Life

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are different processes for the different types of role that we have in government, from due diligence through to developed national security vetting, which he mentions. The important thing is that the right process is applied to the right person at the right time, and that is what we are reviewing right now.

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

The only statement that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform that they want is the reform that takes this Prime Minister out of No. 10 Downing Street, and it does not matter how many reviews, inquiries or fireguards the Government put in the way. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. We need a Government who will end this chaos. This Government promised to end the chaos when they came to power, but instead, it has gone through the stratosphere. The Prime Minister knows, everybody in this House knows, and everybody in this country knows that he is toast, so why do the Government not just get on with it and get rid of him?

Lord Mandelson

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

That is a significant representation from a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee. It must be said that a failure of transparency at each stage of the process appears to have compounded the problems that the Government are now dealing with.

What do we know now about the Prime Minister’s judgment and the process in No. 10 around this appointment? We now know that the Prime Minister was aware that Peter Mandelson had an ongoing friendship with Jeffrey Epstein that continued beyond the conviction for awful offences against children. Not only was that in the public domain, but a Financial Times journalist told the Prime Minister about it in January 2024. The Prime Minister admitted in the House today that it was part of the briefing note that he received from the Cabinet Office propriety and ethics team. We fully expect the report compiled by that team—the due diligence report—to appear for this House to consider.

Reports on that document have appeared in the New Statesman this morning. We are told that the due diligence report contains warnings of

“potential conflicts of interest surrounding Global Counsel”,

the lobbying firm established by Peter Mandelson, in which he retained a stake of around 28%. We know that Global Counsel had Russian and Chinese clients, about which, according to the reports in the press this morning, the propriety and ethics team had serious concerns. We know—or at least we are told in the press—that the due diligence report also referred to Mandelson’s ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, stating clearly that Mandelson’s relationship had gone over the point of conviction, and drawing attention to the fact that Mandelson had used Epstein’s hospitality in America and Paris while the latter was in prison.

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

The shadow Minister is absolutely right in his summary of all Jeffrey Epstein’s misdoings. We heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister’s questions, such as the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s position is becoming increasingly untenable?

[Alex Burghart]

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister’s judgment is being called sharply into question at this moment. It is becoming harder to see how any of us can rely on his judgment in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Mullan]

I would like to see the detail of it, but that was a helpful intervention from the former Deputy Prime Minister. I think there is a way forward for us, potentially.

I also want to highlight that it was not just this one issue of whether the Prime Minister knew that Mandelson was in touch with a paedophile. We also know what was publicly reported. Before Mandelson was appointed, Epstein was discussing Government business from jail, if we can believe the reporting. What more could we have known? We are Five Eyes partners with the United States. We share the most secret and confidential information with the United States, so what was preventing the Government from approaching the US Department of Justice prior to the public release of these emails and asking whether there was anything in them that we needed to know before we appointed Peter Mandelson as ambassador? We could have asked those questions, and I would like the Minister to say whether we did ask them and to give us any response we might have had. We are talking about what has been in the public domain, and the Government could have had that information beforehand.

[Pete Wishart]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my opinion that Labour Members just do not seem to get it? There is rising anger right across the country, and it is directed at Jeffrey Epstein and all the things that have been going on, but this is now primarily becoming focused on the Prime Minister. His position is becoming increasingly untenable but they are not seeing what is happening in the commentariat and the press. This is happening in real time.

[Dr Mullan]

I think some Labour Members do get it, which is why we are seeing furious activity with the usual channels at the moment. I think there is a whole movement of those Members who are not going to be willing to support the Government in voting for their own amendment today. I think some of them get it, and the rest of them need to catch up quickly. Those first movers who spoke out and were clear that they were not going to support it will be able to hold their heads up high.

Let us also be clear about Mandelson’s disrespect for this House. We have heard from the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry). She has now left the Chamber, but I will refer to her remarks. She gave a pretty poor account of why she wholeheartedly endorsed his appointment. As Chair of that Committee, she is supposed to be independent and to act on behalf of the House. She was happy to explain all the reasons why she felt that the vetting was not complete and the processes were not up to scratch. Why, then, did she not say at the time that this person should not have been appointed? We know that other members of the Committee said the same thing, and they were similarly thrown under the bus by the Chair of the Committee, who endorsed the appointment. I think that is also a disrespect to this House.

House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

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

For the completeness of history, it is 115 years since the Labour party promised to abolish the House of Lords, and I think we will be waiting another 100 before it even gets close to that. The Minister is absolutely right that the public cannot stand the hereditaries—it is something they are bitterly opposed to—but they are also opposed to prime ministerial patronage. It is almost as unpopular as the House of Lords. Now, 57 new peers have gone into the House of Lords since Labour came to power, and The Guardian has reported that dozens more are set to follow. Are we just going to be replacing the old nobility with new Labour nobility?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Absolutely not, because the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a Member of Parliament who enjoys the confidence of this House. That is entirely different from the situation of having places in the House of Lords on the basis of an accident of birth.

I should say, though, because I do not want to just criticise the Conservative party today, that I do appreciate that should the hereditary Lords finally be given leave, the title of “the most ancient and outdated relic” will then be awarded to the modern-day Conservative party, so I guess self-preservation is the Conservatives’ real motive. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) spoke about our majority—we will not allow the Conservative party to block this change.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Sewards]

The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position. When it comes to Scotland, the figure is about 2% or 3%—I cannot recall the actual figures, but I will check.

The point remains that we have to make the House of Lords more representative of our nations and regions. We could address this issue in a piecemeal way, in the same way that we have addressed the hereditary issue over many decades. We could slowly introduce reform after reform on who gets appointed, where they come from, what proportion have to come from Yorkshire and so on, but I am not a fan of that approach. We should be as bold as possible and do the difficult work now, because we were elected to do the difficult work in this term and set out an ambitious plan for the wholesale replacement of the other Chamber, ready to be made up of people from all our nations and regions. It should be a truly democratic body that draws on the same golden thread that should always exist between the people we serve in this place and those who should sit in a second elected Chamber. [Interruption.] Hon. Members chunter that this point is off topic; I probably agree, because the Bill does not cover that.

I will draw my remarks to a close. The Bill in front of us will remove the archaic right of somebody to sit in Parliament because of the family they were born into; I find that principle very hard to disagree with. The Bill shows our determination to make our democracy stronger and more representative, and it should be just the start of our commitment to reform the other place and improve our ability to do what we were all sent here to do: serve the public.

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

I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here.

[Sir John Hayes]

I want to inject some energy. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why I am energetic about this matter. It is preposterous to abolish the hereditary peers in the House of Lords, on the basis that they give good service that, as I have already described, legitimately can be derived from a variety of sources. Many of them are disproportionately active in that Chamber. I accept that there is a manifesto commitment, but this could be done in a much more measured, sensible and moderate way. Is that enough energy for him?

[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.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I will start by setting out some context for why the Bill, though small, is so important and why I am delighted to be speaking in its support. I will then address Lords amendments 1, 3 and 8 directly. As has been mentioned in the debate, in 2024, Labour promised to end the right of hereditary peers to sit and vote in the other place. In 2025, that is exactly what the Government are delivering, and not a moment too soon. The principle at stake here is simple, and it is about the principle, not the process. No one should make laws for the British people, claim a daily allowance or influence the future of this country purely on the basis of who their great-great-grandfather was. In my estimation, that idea belongs in the history books, not in a modern democracy. It is incompatible with the Labour party’s values and anathema to the values of the British people in 2025.

Of course, the Conservative party will resist. We have already heard diversionary tactics today, with talk about the Blair Government’s reforms in 1999, when we all know that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future ones. We have heard about next steps and whether a statutory Committee or a Select Committee is the right thing to do. Having asked the Opposition about their official policy, I am still unaware what it is. Indeed, we heard from the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) about his concerns that this is all a numbers game. I remind him that UCL’s constitution unit has done the maths. In fact, were the changes to come into effect, the Conservative peers would still be the largest group of all the parties in the other place—larger even than the Cross Benchers. The Conservatives would see a minor reduction in composition from 34% to 32%.

The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) mentioned that he is not supportive of an elected upper Chamber. I am still at a loss about exactly what a gradual change in the composition of the upper House means.

[Phil Brickell]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. That is exactly the concern that I and many Members on the Government Benches have. Long-standing reform is well overdue. We also heard about the principle of monarchy, and mention was made of constitutional monarchies.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Phil Brickell]

The right hon. Member will have heard me mention previously that previous Governments do not bind the hands of future Governments, and that this Bill was a manifesto commitment last year.

That leads me on to the amendments that have come back from the other place. Lords amendments 1 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord Parkinson, propose ending the by-elections for hereditaries but retaining the current cohort. The amendments would hollow out the Bill and perpetuate the very problem that we are trying to fix. I urge colleagues in the other House to respect the Salisbury convention, which has already been mentioned today: this House has primacy on election-winning manifesto pledges. Conservative colleagues have ample opportunity this afternoon to confirm that they respect that constitutional convention, and I wait with bated breath to hear them speak to that, but we cannot scrap only the by-election process. As I say, it is the principle of hereditary peers that is so objectionable, which is why I will be voting to make sure that this Bill gets on to the statute book.

Many hereditary peers have made valuable contributions —I have worked alongside some already in the short amount of time I have spent in this place—but those who want to continue serving can and should do so on merit. They can stand for elected office, they can be nominated for life peerages, and HOLAC can continue to recommend strong Cross-Bench candidates. This Bill is not an attack on individuals; it is an attack on the medieval principle of privilege by birth. No one should sit in our Parliament because of the deeds of their ancestors centuries ago. Lords amendments 1 and 8 are not about accountability and they are not about democracy. They are patronage dressed up as Parliament, and the Conservatives, in 14 years in office, did absolutely nothing to change the hereditary principle.

Lords amendment 3, from the noble Lord True, is about so-called non-sitting peerages. Let us be clear: peerages should not be sinecures. If the idea is simply to allow hereditary peers to retain their titles without sitting, what social value does this amendment provide? If we want to honour people’s contributions, we already have a system for that—the honours process, with knighthoods, CBEs and MBEs—as the Paymaster General stressed. This amendment looks less like reform, and more like a way of preserving influence. We have already seen the pattern with titles handed out as bargaining chips or rewards for party donations. This debate has been quite good-humoured, but I do have to flag the Conservative party’s tradition of ennobling its treasurers. I take no pleasure in quoting this, but as one former Conservative party chairman admitted in 2021:

“Once you pay your £3 million, you get your peerage.”

That is not public service; it is politics for sale, and it is exactly what the public are fed up with.

In summary—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Phil Brickell]

I will give way on that final point.

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, there are of course some appalling practices with the Conservatives rewarding their donors with peerages, but does the hon. Member not remember cash for honours? There was a police investigation, and Tony Blair was actually questioned by the police. This goes on in all parties, and each of them is a disgrace.

[Phil Brickell]

In summary, this Bill is about rebuilding trust in politics. It is about ending practices that belong to the 18th century, not the 21st. It is about showing the British people that Parliament works for them, not the privileged few. Let me also say that this Bill is just the beginning, and I am committed to wider reform of the second Chamber: to improving its national and regional balance; to introducing, yes, a mandatory retirement age; to requiring meaningful participation; and, ultimately, to replacing it with a more modern second Chamber fit for the 21st century. That is the path to a fairer, more accountable and more democratic politics. It is what Labour promised, which is why I am proud to see the Government delivering on it.