Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Ellis]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Michael Ellis]

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

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

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

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

Easter Recess: Government Update

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

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

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

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

[The Prime Minister]

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

Committee on Standards: Decision of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 8th November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

[Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab)]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

[Wera Hobhouse]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I know that there are over 40 distilleries in his constituency, so I understand why he feels very strongly about this issue. I agree with him. We were successful in taking the 25% tariff away, but it needs to be removed completely and not just suspended for a number of years. The way to do that is for us to also remove our tariffs on bourbon. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss that.

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

Brexit has been nothing other than an unmitigated disaster for Scotland. We now have food shortages, labour shortages, businesses unable to export their products and food rotting in the fields. Is it not about time, instead of all this mealy-mouthed nonsense, that the Secretary of State got to his feet and apologised to the people of Scotland for dragging our nation out of the European Union against its national collective will?

[Mr Jack]

I simply do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman says. We have been through the pandemic and it is far too early to say what any impacts are to make predictions, but what we do know is that our economy is growing. We are doing fantastic trade deals around the world, which will benefit the Scottish economy, and Scottish food and drink. He just needs to get positive about that: stop talking down Scotland’s businesses, stop talking down Scotland, and start to get optimistic about the opportunities we face.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 8th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend and his colleagues have come up with an excellent policy in this area, and it would be to the great advantage of people in Scotland that the Scottish Government take up the proposals that it contains.

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

The Scottish Affairs Committee conducted the most extensive inquiry ever undertaken into drug use in Scotland, taking evidence from practically everybody with an interest and a stake in this issue. We concluded that we need every tool in the kitbag to address the scale of this problem, from an increased resources position to adopting evidence-based solutions with best practice from international examples that have worked, such as drug consumption facilities and decriminalisation. Why did the UK Government reject nearly all of our conclusions and recommendations?

[Iain Stewart]

I understand that the report from that Committee, which I think was done in 2018, was not a unanimous one and the Committee divided on it, which illustrates the fact that there is not the unanimity of view on the proposals to which the hon. Gentleman refers. As I say, we keep an open mind on this as regards fresh evidence that shows that policies work. My colleagues in the Home Office have discussed this with their counterparts in the Scottish Government and those discussions will continue.

Debate on the Address

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 11th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[David Mundell]

In the constituency ballots, that is indeed the case, but the point I have just made is that many people who voted SNP did so on the basis of the handling of the pandemic, not in a call for an immediate independence referendum. That is why the SNP now needs to listen to the Scottish people and focus on getting our country through this crisis.

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

I am very much enjoying the right hon. Gentleman’s speech, as always when he makes these points, but I remind him that the Conservatives lost two seats in the constituency vote. Perhaps he could outline to the hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) exactly what happened in the list vote and which of the groups—the pro-independence referendum parties or the anti-independence parties—won that one.

[David Mundell]

I know that the hon. Gentleman does not really want to focus on the election result because, in reality, it was a failure for the SNP. Only weeks ago, the SNP was riding at 58% in the polls, and we were told that 78 MSPs would be returned; he was quoting those polls in the House on a regular basis. The SNP moved forward by one seat—that is what happened—and that is not, in my view, a landslide or a major change in the political environment in Scotland.

The Scottish Conservatives will continue to oppose nationalist plans for a damaging referendum that could wreck our recovery. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) has made it clear that, over the next five years, the party he leads will not just be a party of no to indyref2. For the last two Scottish Parliament elections, the Opposition have not been so seriously contending to be in government. In 2026, after two decades of SNP government, the Scottish people deserve the right to choose a real alternative and end the obsession with independence.

Strong as the result was for the Scottish Conservatives last week, starting from now, we are on the long road to becoming a broader movement and building Scotland’s real alternative to the SNP. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray will lead a patriotic Scottish party that has at its heart a belief that Scotland best succeeds and prospers by working within the United Kingdom. We will continue to be a strong Opposition at Holyrood while aspiring to be an ambitious Government dedicated to growing our economy, restoring our schools, rebuilding our communities and supporting our NHS. Today I say to anyone in Scotland who shares our dream of removing the SNP from power and delivering a real alternative focused on the priorities of the people of Scotland, rather than a divisive referendum: join us in the Scottish Conservatives on that journey.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I suppose there is something nice and elegant about following the great-great-grandson of Queen Victoria, the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger), who is himself 339th in line to the throne. It would not be a speech from the hon. Member unless we had the council wars, and we could almost see King Ian leading the line and charging into the local authority he tells us about on a regular basis.

This must be just about the thinnest Queen’s Speech of recent years. It is certainly the thinnest one I have had in my 20 years here. It was full of work in progress and things to be determined, and, in one case, the Government still have to work out the details. I know that we do not want to overburden Her Majesty under current conditions, but she had to sit there for eight minutes and recite some 937 words, which meant that this was one of the shortest Queen’s Speeches since the second world war.

This seems to be the great Johnson Brexit Government consolidating their place with the British people with a legislative programme that is about as palatable as diluted gruel and about as interesting as last week’s dishwater. It was a Queen’s Speech whose stand-out features seemed to be voter suppression—actually trying to depress voter turnout at elections—and taking revenge on the judges they did not like during the Brexit process. Of course, it would not be a Tory legislative programme without some immigration measures just making life that little bit more miserable and intolerable for those in the most desperate need who are coming to our shores for some support, and of course the necessary muscle has to be injected just to ensure that there will be no further protests against all of this and things will get done as easily as possible for this Government.

This is a programme designed to expand the power of this Conservative Government and undermine all who may challenge them. It is a Queen’s Speech that prepares the way for more austerity, a public sector pay freeze, cuts to universal credit, and a savings and efficiency review of public services. There is a procurement Bill that threatens our NHS in Scotland, but no employment Bill and no social care Bill. What is abundantly and absolutely clear is that there is practically nothing in this legislative programme for Scotland. To me, more than anything, this simply demonstrates that we are now living in different and diverse countries that are going in different directions and that require different priorities to secure the different futures that both our populations are calling out for. That is fine, as long as both our respective nations get what they want, so there is one Bill that I want to see brought through in the next three years, and that has to be the Scottish referendum facilitation Bill—the Bill that allows the Scottish people to secure what they voted for only five short days ago.

Let us have a cursory look to remind ourselves exactly what happened in Scotland just last week. We had an endorsement of Scottish democracy, with the biggest turnout that we have ever seen at a Scottish Parliament election. The Scottish people gave their verdict and it was as emphatic as it was overwhelming. We heard a little bit from the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) about some of the details, but there were a few things that he probably did not feel were necessary to tell us, so I feel it is incumbent on me to remind the House of exactly what happened.

The Scottish National party secured 62 out of the 72 constituency seats available. We actually won three extra seats on the constituency ballot: two from the Conservatives and one from the Labour party. Just for completeness, the Liberal Democrats also lost one seat—on the list ballot. It was the highest number of constituencies ever won in a Scottish Parliament election. In fact, it was the highest number of constituencies ever won in any election in the United Kingdom, such was the whole overwhelming nature of that success. Had this been a Westminster election, we would have won 552 seats out of the 650, with a parliamentary majority of 454. Members should just let that sink in, so they can understand the scale of the victory that we secured last week.

Of course, the one that this Government like to tell us about is the list vote, because the Scottish Parliament votes in two ways—on constituencies and the list ballot—to give that proportional representation factor. Now, this is where the Conservatives got all their seats; they only got three on the constituency side. The list is where they got everything else. Thank goodness there is a PR election, because we need an Opposition in Scotland, and thankfully the Conservatives were able to secure that on PR. They have taken comfort from this, but it is cold comfort because, as I reminded the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, for the first time ever in a parliamentary contest, parties that supported an independent Scotland secured a majority—a slender one, but still a majority.

This is all before we even get into the business that there are Labour supporters and Liberal Democrats who support independence. There might even be Conservatives who support independence. The result has to be respected and the Scottish people must secure what they voted for. How will this Government respond? Well, probably with their trademark chaos and confusion.

Over the weekend and this week, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has practically been based in the TV studios of Scotland. He has been going around those studios, being as clear as mince. Let us see whether we can figure out a couple of things he has told us. He told us that it is possible for Scotland to become an independent nation. Great! We did not need him to tell us that; we know that we can become an independent nation if we choose to.

The other thing that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said that was very curious was that this UK Government would not oppose a referendum Bill designed and delivered in the Scottish Parliament; they would not take it to the courts and would let it pass. But then he went and spoiled it by almost contradicting himself the next day. The Government are utterly paralysed over what to do in response to this dramatic victory for the Scottish National party. They do not know whether to clobber us, make things worse for the Scottish people and deny us our rights, or try to cuddle us. This is the tension that they are in just now. They have no idea how to respond.

Let me make a suggestion to the Government: let’s get together. We have to resolve this, because we are now at about 50:50. This cannot go on year after year, election after election. The Scottish people are going to have to decide whether they want to remain in a Brexit Britain determined and designed by a Government they did not vote for, or whether they want to become an independent nation run by people who they directly elect and who will make the decisions about their future.

They call this the great levelling-up Queen’s Speech; for Scotland it was the hollowing out of our democracy and the powers of our Parliament and a direct attack on the institutions that run our country. The UK Government have the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 and the levelling-up fund, but the Scottish Government should be in charge of determining the priorities for spending in our nation, not the Conservative party, not the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and not the Prime Minister.

One thing was decided and determined in the recent election, and that was that the Scottish people must have their say about the future of our country. The only people who can make that decision are the Scottish people themselves. We are going to have to sit down, work together and determine a way to take the matter forward. For goodness’ sake, let the people decide.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jack]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is brilliant news for the Scotch whisky industry, in the same week that the Chancellor announced a freeze on alcohol duty. The UK Government have fought incredibly hard on this issue, petitioning the highest levels of the US Administration to remove these tariffs, which were harming our Scottish exports.

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

During the comprehensive economic and trade agreement talks between the EU and Canada, little Wallonia, as part of Belgium, managed to block the agreement until the concerns of its Parliament were resolved. Meanwhile, the Canadian state legislatures were in the next room to the Canadian federal delegation during those negotiations, putting their case. Will Scotland, with the most powerful Parliament in the world, as we are always told by the Secretary of State, have similar powers? If not, what will be the role of the Scottish Government in these trade talks?

[Mr Jack]

It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman could not bring himself to welcome the suspension of the US tariffs, in the same way that the Scottish National party has not welcomed any of our trade deals, but maybe he and his colleagues have other things on their mind at the moment. I also noticed that he did not raise separation, for the first time in my almost two years at the Dispatch Box—always separation, but not today. I think he has finally thrown that broken record away. We consult the Scottish Government on these trade deals, but they are a reserved matter and they are for the whole United Kingdom. As I stressed in my earlier answer, they will be very beneficial for the Scottish agrifoods industry.

Covid-19

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting suggestion. I should stress that we have no plans to make vaccines compulsory in this country; however, we want to make it as smooth and as easy as possible, which I think is her objective, and I think she would join me in encouraging everybody who is offered a vaccine to take it up as soon as possible.

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

I wonder whether the Prime Minister has had a cursory glance at Scotland and seen the massive approval ratings for our First Minister and her handling of the covid crisis. Has he observed the clear leadership she has offered our nation? Does he ever think about comparing his poor performance with hers and wish that he could offer the same type of leadership to the UK?

[The Prime Minister]

I must confess I have not given that particular matter any thought, because I have been occupied entirely with protecting the NHS, fighting coronavirus and saving lives. I respectfully say that that should be the hon. Gentleman’s priority as well, if I may say so, rather than these slightly abstract political considerations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can we have the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart?

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

You most certainly can, Mr Speaker, and thank you.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s answer, and yes, we are grateful for the vaccine, but I did not hear a response as to why he thinks that Scottish independence has now become the settled will of the Scottish people. This is not like him. He is usually quick to give his views about certain things, so why does he think that Scottish independence has sustained majority support, reaching a height of 58%, and is now the settled will of the Scottish people? Why is that the case?

[Michael Gove]

It is great to have the hon. Gentleman here, live and unplugged, rather than having to rely on a distant video screen, because his performance is always one that we savour. Sadly, however, I fear that his reliance on opinion polls is no substitute for his aversion to hard arguments. Why will he not engage with the facts? The facts show that, in Scotland, per capita spending including on our shared NHS is greater as a result of the broad shoulders of the UK Treasury. As I pointed out earlier, but as he declined to acknowledge, folk in Scotland are being vaccinated now, thanks to the efforts of the UK Government in a world-leading programme. I hope that, in the spirit of Christmas, he will acknowledge that this is a time for giving, and that he will, just once, give the benefit of the doubt to the UK Government.

[Pete Wishart]

I am likely to be the ghost of Christmas future, because it is not going the right hon. Gentleman’s way. Let me try to give him a few reasons. Let us see if he agrees with any of these: the disastrous Brexit that Scotland did not vote for; the attacks on our democracy; the undermining of our Parliament; and the Prime Minister—him. Maybe they are some of the reasons that we are now in the lead, but the main one is the arrogantly Trumpian way in which the right hon. Gentleman says no to a majority in a democracy. Does he think that constantly saying no to a majority in Scotland will drive support for independence down, or will it only further drive support for independence up?

[Michael Gove]

The Scottish Parliament is enjoying more powers now as a result of our departure from the European Union. Those powers allow the devolved legislature to have its own agriculture and environment policy, to supplement the leadership that it has been showing in other areas. As we move towards the elections that are coming next year, many people will focus on the record of the Scottish Government. Of course there are admirable Ministers in the Scottish Government, but people will be asking why the UK Government are responsible for vaccinating people in Scotland and yet the Scottish Government are responsible for a decline in educational achievement in Scotland’s schools and a growing divide between the well-off and less well-off. Social justice matters, and that is why, in the forthcoming Scottish parliamentary elections, the Scottish Conservatives will be making gains at the hon. Gentleman’s expense.

Oral Answers to Questions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Iain Stewart]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those comments. I know of her hard work especially in helping the Eden Campus project in her constituency to be a leading part of the deal. I had hoped to be up visiting it a few weeks ago, but unfortunately covid restrictions precluded that. I very much look forward to visiting in the new year when circumstances allow.

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

I too thank the Minister for the reprofiling of the Tay cities deal from 15 years to 10 years. That will really help the projects. We now need to know when it will be signed. He will also know that we have an issue with the internationally renowned James Hutton Institute in my constituency. That is primarily a UK Government-financed project, but its place in the Tay cities deal has been put in jeopardy because of all the delays. To ensure that it can be started in year one, the Hutton needs the Government to draw down its funding early. Will the Government do that? If not, how do they intend to ensure that this crucial project can be guaranteed?

[Iain Stewart]

I have had many constructive dialogues with the hon. Gentleman on the Tay cities deal, and I am happy to confirm that we look good to go next Thursday to sign the deal. The delay was for a very good reason: as he alluded to, we were trying to get the UK Government side of the deal down from 15 years to 10 years. I am aware of the specific circumstances at the James Hutton Institute. I had a very constructive meeting with it on Friday last week, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are exploring every option to ensure that it gets its funding but that all the other very worth- while projects in the deal do too.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his achievement and on his anniversary. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is looking very seriously at the project that he mentions. I know that the Department is going to be assessing that application very carefully and will keep him informed.

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

  The Prime Minister did not quite answer my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) on why support for independence is so high, so maybe I can tempt him with a couple of reasons. First, there is the leadership of the First Minister, which Scots contrast with him. Then there is his crazy, chaotic Brexit—a Brexit that Scotland did not vote for. But it is also down to him personally. He is probably the biggest single recruiting sergeant that we have, and for that we mightily thank him. So can I ask him, on behalf of all of us who want to see an independent Scotland: could he please take a bow and accept our many thanks?

[The Prime Minister]

I am delighted to accept the thanks of the hon. Gentleman. I have to say that it is really thanks to him and the Scottish National party that we have been able to keep our wonderful United Kingdom together, because it was the sheer incoherence of their position, their refusal to address the tough questions of what breaking up the UK really means—the impact on our budgets and our economy and the impacts on Scotland and on our whole country—and their manifest inability to explain what they actually mean that meant that the people of Scotland voted in 2014 to remain part of the UK. They were right then, and they will be right in the future to stay.