Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Commons Chamber

[Paul Blomfield]

I have elaborated our position clearly: we expect the Government to deliver on the deal that they promised the British people. I understand the anxiety among those on the Conservative Benches when they see how the talks are going and see that they—those who were elected on that pledge—may not be able to turn to their constituents and say that they have done that job.

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

That really is not good enough from the hon. Gentleman. Not one Labour Back Bencher is down to speak in this important debate. They may not care about these issues, but our constituents do. As part of the official Opposition, surely he should be doing better than this?

[Paul Blomfield]

There is great concern and great appetite to have a serious discussion about the negotiations on the future relationship with the European Union. We have brought the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the House twice through urgent questions when he had refused to report to Parliament. Some of my colleagues may have anticipated that this debate would not be the one we needed to have, but instead would be framed by the leader of the SNP at Westminster as being about independence, as he did in his final words. We want a serious discussion about the negotiations.

The Government should also listen to voices in every part of our country, and they need to engage effectively with the devolved Administrations—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 25 minutes.

[Douglas Ross]

I have been speaking for 25 minutes—the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber spoke for 35 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), even from this slightly disconcerting and unusual location. That, however, has nothing to do with the fact that I have become increasingly frustrated on the Opposition Benches this afternoon. The debate has been more about political point-scoring than the interests of the people of Scotland, or any other part of the United Kingdom for that matter.

I find myself increasingly torn—torn between my belief that our Government really should have asked for an extension and my recognition that the time when it was possible has passed; between my belief in the European Union and my acceptance that that particular battle has been lost—we are leaving; and between actually supporting the SNP in this last-ditch attempt and turning my back on its frankly hypocritical self-serving, narrow, nationalist argument.

There is no good outcome to this debate for Scotland; the people of Scotland cannot gain anything from it. When I saw that it was a nationalist Opposition day debate, I expected that we would talk about the state of our oil industry, the pressure on our airlines and airports or the state of our health and education. No—we have another process debate aimed at independence. I am tired, so very tired, of listening to the nationalists claim to speak for the people of Scotland. The nationalists speak for fewer than half the people of Scotland. They do not speak for the majority; they speak for 45% at the last count. The people of Scotland deserve so much better than that.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Christine Jardine]

I will not, thank you.

We have heard SNP Members claim today that tearing Scotland out of the European Union will be bad for its economy—and yes, I agree that it will be dreadful for its economy—but I am then astonished that they can keep a straight face and tell the people of Scotland that tearing Scotland out of the UK will not be just as bad, if not worse, for its economy. Please, give the people of Scotland the credit we deserve.

The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) had a lot to say about democracy, but what about the democratic decision in 2014? Did the nationalists not turn a deaf ear to those 55% of the people of Scotland —the same 55% who did not vote for them in 2019? There is a familiar ring to that: 45% and 55% against.

We have been warned from the SNP Benches about zealots with no thought for anything but the project, and I have to ask myself: which zealots are they talking about? Perhaps they are pointing in the wrong direction. I also have to ask myself about the amount of time that we are wasting in talking about process. I am tired of listening to this vision of British politics that has no Scots in it. There are Scots in the current Government and there were in the last Government, and there are Scots on the Opposition Benches and in Committees throughout this House. Can a party obsessed with Scottish history not stretch their minds back a decade to when a Scottish Prime Minister was standing at the Dispatch Box?

At the conclusion of this debate, I will in all probability —in fact, I shall—support the SNP in the Lobby, but not because of anything that they have said today: not a single word. It will be in spite of every word that they have said today. I believe that our Government should have asked for an extension, but I also believe that it will be in the best interests of every person in this country—I mean the United Kingdom, of which I will argue to my last breath for Scotland to remain part—that we put the argument behind us and move on to building a stronger economy, creating a better society and getting us through what we are told will be the worst recession in 300 years. Those of us north of the border will need all our friends in the south to help us through it together.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What can one say? It has been an absolutely fascinating debate. We have learned so much about where we are with the Government’s chaotic and tortuous Brexit. I think we have also learned a little more about what Conservative Members feel and believe about Scotland. [Interruption.] Take it easy. Relax. I say to those Members that Scotland is watching this debate. Scotland is observing all the insults, all the disparaging remarks, all the putdowns and all the attempts to take our powers. They have no idea how that comes across in Scotland. They can bawl, scream, shout and disparage. They can shout us down and ignore us, but do they know what it does? I will tell them exactly what it does: it drives support for independence sky-high.

Let me tell them a couple of things in case they have missed them, both to help them a little bit and to help diplomatic relations, because this has all gone badly wrong for them. We in Scotland are now at 54% support for Scottish independence. Let me tell them what else has happened this year. Every opinion poll since the turn of the year has suggested that we are now at majority support. For the first time ever in the history of Scottish independence, we are in the position where there is sustained majority support for the proposition. That has never happened before.

After today, that support is only going to go up. We do not need to do anything in this place. I do not need to get to my feet and make a speech. All we need to do is to show the contributions made by Conservative Members to the people of Scotland. My main job, as a supporter of Scottish independence, is just to get them to make speeches like that, and then show them back to the Scottish people. The thing is it does not matter; they will keep on doing it.

A couple of things are going to happen in the next year. We have a Scottish parliamentary election in less than 10 months. If Conservative Members think that support for independence is bad for them, wait until they hear how well the Scottish National party is doing in opinion polls. Do they know where we are? We are at 55% support. Do the Conservatives want to know where they stand for the next election? They are at 20%. [Interruption.] They say, “Wait for the day.” Absolutely. We will take nothing for granted, and that is why I am getting all the little clips of all those speeches and making sure that they are transmitted to the Scottish people, because support for the Scottish National party will then just go further up.

[Aaron Bell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am intrigued to know about the opinion polls in Scotland—they are great—but would he care to answer any of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) made about the record of the Scottish Government?

[Pete Wishart]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman something about the record of the Scottish Government, because it will come as a bigger disappointment to him. Not only is support for Scottish independence at 54% and not only is support for the Scottish National party at 55%, but does he want to know the satisfaction rating for the Scottish Government? He does not want to know, but I will tell him anyway. It is 74%. That is the satisfaction rating for the Scottish Government. We are a popular Government doing things on behalf of the Scottish people that the Scottish people overwhelmingly approve of.

[Douglas Ross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman as he took half an hour, sorry.

This is where we are in Scotland, and I thank Conservative Members from the bottom of my heart for helping me in my ambition and quest to deliver independence for Scotland.

It is so unnecessary. There are a couple of ways that we could do these things. We could have a separation of the ways peacefully and amicably, respecting each other, or Conservative Members could do the thing of shouting us down, disparaging us and trying to take the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I suggest this to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches: why don’t we do it the friendly way? I will tell them something. They won their Brexit; have it. Please have it. If that is what England wants, please have it. I will be the first person to applaud them, cheer them and wish them all the best. We do not want it. We don’t want it—that is the simple thing. Why can we not both have what we both want? Why can’t they have their Brexit, have their splendid isolation and have their fantastic trade deals that they have in the bag? What we will do is reflect on what the Scottish people want, which is to be an independent nation within the European Union.

I am here to sum up today’s proceedings, so let us see if I can make a little bit of a job just about that. There have been some fantastic contributions. Looking around, even the Tories, with their disparaging remarks about Scotland, have been pretty interesting. [Interruption.] They have been great. They have been fantastic for us and we are so looking forward to putting a compendium together.

The opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was a trademark tour de force accurately summarising the situation in and condition of Scotland: talking about the power grab, the threat to the Scottish Parliament in terms of the devolution settlement, talking about where the Scottish people are in relation to Brexit, and saying why it is necessary to have an extension to Brexit. That is what he laid down so very effectively in his speech today.

We then had some fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Stirling (Alyn Smith), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). From Glasgow to Aberdeenshire to Lothian, there were fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends. “They do not speak for Scotland.” I do not know which one of the disparaging remarks that was from. But my hon. Friends speak on behalf of nearly every single community in Scotland. We have 80% of the Members representing Scotland in this House. From Ayrshire to Argyll to Aberdeenshire to everywhere, we have SNP Members who will put the views of their constituents. On no issue do they speak on behalf of those people more than on Brexit. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit. Every single constituency in Scotland voted to remain in the EU. What my hon. Friends did here today was to stand up for their community, represent their views, and make sure that they were properly represented and that their voice was heard. They did a fantastic job of that today.

Then, of course, there were the Conservative speeches. I am not going to say any more about them, because that was just great. But there is something I have observed—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Okay. They are saying, “More.” How about this, then? I have been in this House for 20 years and I have never observed a Conservative party quite like it: the new model Conservatives, the red wall Tories, the Commons commandos—how about that one? That is the way to describe them, or Boris’s Brexit bombardiers! How about that one? I cannot tell them apart. They are all the same. They are nearly all male and they are all standing there. They all beat the Labour party and they are all really thrilled about that. Well done. Gosh, we tanked the Labour party 10 years ago! It is not a big deal or a big feat.

The poor hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), sitting there having to take all this. I actually feel sorry for him. The Labour party could not even be bothered to turn up. It was just appalling. For goodness’ sake, they must have something to say about Brexit. Even if they turned up and just asked to open the window or something, at least they would have been on the record, but they could not be bothered to even do that. Does he want to say something? I’ll give way to him.

[Paul Blomfield]

indicated dissent.

[Pete Wishart]

He doesn’t. I do really feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. There is the one Scottish Labour Member, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who always has lots to say about the Union. He is not even here today—I would have thought that he might at least have turned up.

[Paul Holmes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

Okay, for this last time.

[Paul Holmes]

Does it surprise the hon. Gentleman, as it has me, that, according to what I hear, the Labour party are actually on a one-line Whip? Does that not show that although we come from opposing sides of the argument, the Labour party do not take the future of Scotland seriously?

[Pete Wishart]

Well, they never really have. They are no longer a force in Scottish politics—they been well beaten into third place. But we do not really bother about the Labour party in Scotland, just as we are increasingly not bothering about the Conservative party, who we are now beginning to trounce once again.

Then there are the Liberals, none of whom have turned up. [Interruption.] No—the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) may have turned up to make a speech, but she is not here for the wind-ups—which is rather discourteous, Madam Deputy Speaker, though I say so myself. She is not here, and neither are the other Scottish Liberals who made speeches today.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. May I clarify? Due to social distancing restrictions, people are not always required to be here, as previously. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to cast any aspersions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I note that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. But there are empty seats; if any of them want to come down, they will still find a few seats where they could sit down and participate in this debate.

The curious thing about the Liberal Democrats and their speeches is that they were not congratulated by these Benches but cheered on by the Tories. They made better Unionist speeches than you Tories! Probably the most thorough Unionists in the whole of Scotland just now are Liberal Democrats. Again, it is no wonder that they are down to God knows how many Members.

Back to the Conservative speeches. There is one that I have to single out, by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont). It was absolutely and utterly appalling. He tried to suggest that a constitutional political party that has done nothing other than promote our cause civically and democratically is somehow anti-English and racist. That was an appalling slur, for which he should apologise. He is not here, but I tell him something—[Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Please—no yelling at each other. It is very unseemly.

[Pete Wishart]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman something about condemning things. I condemned what happened on the border a couple of weeks ago within an hour. I will condemn any of that type of activity: whether it is Unionists and loyalists protesting in Glasgow’s George Square, or whether it is activists on the border, I will condemn them. I invite the Scottish Conservatives to condemn those other protests too.

We all have great fun observing what is happening with the “negotiations”—these things that the Government turn up to with the EU. We in Scotland, I suppose, are just a bit more dispassionate about these things. We observe what is happening.

On the one side, we see the EU negotiating team, briefed to the eyeballs, with intimate knowledge of every detail of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration, negotiating in good faith and determined to protect the integrity of the single market and the institutions that have built up over the decades. Then the UK team turn up, and before they have even had the chance to lace up their clown shoes, the EU are running all over them.

The UK team are clueless—no idea what they want, constantly shifting the goal posts. I will tell the House what it is like: it is like the Scotland team of the 2020s out there on the field against the Brazil team of the 1970s. It is that one-sided. It is no wonder that the Europeans are running circles around them just now. It might all just be a clever ploy: perhaps the Government are setting things up to fail so that they get their coveted no deal, which is exactly what they are after. Nobody could be negotiating as badly and poorly as the UK team just now.

Scotland is making up its mind. A majority of people in Scotland now want it to be an independent nation; we have now reached sustained majority support. The thing is that we are doing well in not just the traditional communities—middle Scotland is joining us now. Do Members know who the most passionate supporters of Scottish independence are now? They are “no” voting remainers, who are flooding to our cause. I thank them for being the biggest recruiting sergeants for Scottish independence that we could possibly get. I thank them for driving many more people to the cause of Scottish independence.

[Ian Blackford]

Will my hon. Friend join me in giving some friendly advice to the Government? Devolution has been around for only 20 years—it is a relatively short time in our history. We are proud of our Parliament, and we want it to be independent. People have a real sense of pride, right across Scotland, in what our Parliament has achieved. I have to say in friendly terms to the Government that tomorrow they will introduce a White Paper—we know more about that now, and crucially, in that White Paper, they set up an unelected body that will determine whether or not the Acts of the Scottish Parliament are competent within the new framework that the UK is establishing. It is really quite remarkable—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I know they are, but there should be—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman must resume his seat. Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right and spot on to be absolutely furious about what is planned for Scotland. Let me tell Government Members something. They are all bawling and screaming. Put the cameras on them—we want Scotland to see them screaming at us. We want to see them screaming at us—that builds support for us. [Interruption.] Keep on doing it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way, as I have heard enough screaming. Can I say one word to my hon. colleagues over there: super-state?

[Gary Sambrook]

The EU.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman says the EU. The super-state has arrived, and people will not find it in Brussels—they will find it in Whitehall, because the unelected body that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber described is coming Scotland’s way. Remember unelected bureaucrats? Remember that one? We have found their offices. They are not in Brussels, Frankfurt or Paris. They are sitting in Whitehall. An unelected advisory body will determine what type of Scottish parliamentary legislation will or will not be introduced. The super-state has arrived; unelected bureaucrats have arrived. That super-state is not dressed in gold stars on a blue background. It is coming to Scotland, presented in a Union Jack—that will be the arrival of the super-state for Scotland—and God help them trying to get it through the Scottish Parliament.

We have made it clear that we are not going to participate in that. We are going to do everything in our power to thwart it. No longer will they impose their view on Scotland, which has rejected them and their Brexit. Those days are passing. They are leaving—they are in the departure lounge. Scotland is deciding that it wants an entirely different future from the one that they want to project on us. We are going to make up our mind and Scotland will become an independent nation in the next year. Again, I appeal to them—work with us to do this. We could do it two ways. We could do it easily, conveniently and democratically in participation and partnership. We could do that—we could arrange a referendum to make sure Scottish people have a choice, or they can dig in for a process of attrition that will not serve either of our nations and countries. It will end up the same way. Whatever they decide to do, we win. You cannot beat sustained majority support. It is all over. Why do they not work with us to deliver and achieve that result for Scotland, which the Scottish people want?

I have thoroughly enjoyed myself—I think you can tell, Madam Deputy Speaker—and I am absolutely going to sit down. All that I can say to Government Members is, keep going. Every disparaging put-down is a badge of honour for SNP Members here. Every time you talk down Scotland and try to deprive us of our powers, our support builds. I say one thing to you: keep going.

Future Relationship with the EU

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The areas where we still need to make progress will be helped when the EU remembers that we are a sovereign equal.

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

Surprise, surprise: there is no Michael Macavity; when the going gets tough, the tough get gone in this case. It now looks like the Minister for the Cabinet Office will secure the no-deal Brexit he has always coveted. It will be misery heaped on misery, as covid and Brexit appear like the twin horsemen of the economic apocalypse trampling over any prospect of recovery.

Whose fault will that be? Obviously, not the Government’s: “Nothing to do with us, guv. It’s all these nasty, invidious Europeans. How dare they hold the Government to the commitments they’ve already given in good faith? These fiendish Europeans, asking us to deliver on what we’ve already agreed to.” When they sit down to negotiate, it is like watching Scotland’s B team take on Brazil of the 1970s. It is almost cruel to observe them with their screeds of documents and facts, and Team GB with its ill-fitting clown shoes.

We are having nothing more to do with this. Scotland is wanting out of all this. Another opinion poll at the weekend showed a majority for Scottish independence once again. The Union that we covet is not their failed variety; it is the European Union one. Does the Minister concede that we will have no deal, and that there is no way Scotland will be part of that impending disaster?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is disappointed to see me here today. I am always delighted to see him, and he will know that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster needs no encouragement to come to the Dispatch Box. My right hon. Friend has come to update the House and appeared in front of Select Committees, and he is committed to doing so. I am here because he is unable to attend today.

I am not sure there was a question in the hon. Gentleman’s remarks, but I reassure him of my commitment to working with the Scottish Government to ensure the best possible outcome from these sets of negotiations. I have been changing the format of how that is done, and we have put more time into key areas such as fisheries, to ensure that the Scottish Government have everything they need to contribute. We must ensure that we work together, constructively, and get what our businesses and citizens need.

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

On the basis of assurances that we have had on Second Reading and the ongoing conversations between the Opposition and the Government, we do not intend to oppose the Bill at this stage.

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

It is great to be back once again in the English Parliament. It seems a bit similar to the UK Parliament that we usually use this building for, but it is fantastic to be here, because I now believe that the English Parliament is a treasured piece of our democratic infrastructure, where English Members of Parliament can secure debates on English-only issues. We so look forward to the many English members of this Committee coming forward to discuss and consider all the great issues of state, free from Caledonian interference.

What has the English Parliament roused itself for today? What great state of the English nation issue do we need to discuss? It is the two clauses of the Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Some may say that the English Parliament is but an illusion, a mirage and a fake, and that this English Legislative Grand Committee does not properly represent and speak for England, but we say no to those doubters and deniers. This is not a sham Parliament. This is the English Parliament.

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

I wanted you to get that on the record, but this debate is about the Bill’s clauses. You have made a good point, and quite rightly. It is a well-rehearsed point that you make on every occasion, and I welcome that, but we now need to talk about the clauses.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely, Sir Lindsay, because this Bill gets to the heart of English horticulture and all the associated democratic quandaries that need to be properly resolved and considered in this fantastic English Parliament.

This Bill rightly seeks to introduce powers to grant a lease over land at Kew for a term of up to 150 years. We can almost feel all the great Members of all the ancient English Parliaments saying, “Yes, we need to make sure that this is properly considered. We wholeheartedly agree that there should be not be a restriction in section 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1702 in relation to a lease of land at Kew.” We can almost hear the Stuarts, the Plantagenets and the Roundheads. If they knew that section 5 of the 1702 Act currently prevents the sale of Crown land such as Kew and limits the length of leases over it to a term of 31 years, which is clearly insufficient, they would be turning in their decorative, medieval graves—they would be demanding 150 years for Kew Gardens, and by God this English Parliament is going to secure that for them today!

I want to make it abundantly clear before I go any further that I think that Kew Gardens is a wonderful institution. Of course it deserves to be treated properly, and the Bill sets out how to do that perfectly. We squatters are not members of this august body; we are not Members of the English Parliament. We get to participate in it and make speeches, but our vote is subject to the double majority—

[The Chairman]

Order. We are wandering again. There is a lot of time afterwards for you to speak, but we are discussing the clauses, not whether you have the right to vote. I accepted it earlier, but I will not allow that debate to be generated again. I know that you would never repeat yourself, but you are in danger of doing so.

[Pete Wishart]

I was just getting to the really important point. If we are going to consider the Bill properly, we have to look at what is in Kew Gardens. We have to—

[The Chairman]

Order. We are not going to go through individual plants. I was a little bit worried at the suggestion that we go back to the Plantagenets. As we know, Kew is a royal palace, and it was not Kew Gardens then, so I have allowed a little leeway, but I will not allow much more.

[Pete Wishart]

We are going from the Plantagenets to the plants, so perhaps we could skip a few generations if that would help. Maybe you could help me, Sir Lindsay. I thought we were considering all the clauses in the Bill in the Legislative Grand Committee. Is that correct?

[The Chairman]

Yes. Both of them—there are just two clauses.

[Pete Wishart]

Well, let us see what is in Kew Gardens—

[The Chairman]

Let us be honest: this Bill is purely about the extension of a lease—it is pretty straightforward. Other Members wanted to generate debate in other areas, quite rightly, but I want to ensure that we get through this stage, because I recognise that you want to move your amendments on Report, and it is important that we give you time to do that.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Sir Lindsay, for mentioning the amendments. I understand that I cannot move them at this stage because I am not a member of this Committee. Is that correct?

[The Chairman]

No, you absolutely cannot.

[Pete Wishart]

So I cannot move the amendments at this stage. It has to be done on Report.

[The Chairman]

Order. It is not about you personally, but I think we are getting into a debate that neither of us really wants to have. I know you have great plans ahead, but this is what we are dealing with today. The fact is and the reality is that I am in the Chair, and I will be taking the decisions. Let us get back to where we were.

[Pete Wishart]

I hope that I will be able to make some sort of speech just to talk a little bit about what is in Kew Gardens, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) from the Labour party did.

[The Chairman]

Order. It is not about what is in Kew Gardens. You are a bright chap, so let us not test each other’s patience. This is about the Bill, not what is in Kew Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

May I say that we very much support this Bill? We understand that the two clauses will help significantly in trying to generate some extra funds. We believe that seven residential properties may be impacted by the Bill. We look forward to ensuring that this is dealt with adequately, so this can be moved on and the money can be generated. I think that there was talk of up to £40 million that could be disposed of if this money was available to Kew Gardens, so we very much support that.

Sir Lindsay, you are obviously not going to let me talk about anything to do with the environment of this place, what we are doing in particular and how we cannot raise particular issues, with me not being a member of this Committee, so what we will do is look to bring forward our amendments later, if we can, and on that basis, possibly to divide the House when our amendments come forward. It is just unfortunate that we are not able to discuss properly what this place and this particular institution is. I see you rising to your feet again, and you are going to stop me—

[The Chairman]

Order. I do not want us to fall out. I do not make the rules of the House; I am here to ensure the rules are kept. If you have a problem, please do not take it up with the Chair, but change the rules of the House. It is quite simple.

[Pete Wishart]

I am not taking up anything. I listened to the Labour party spokesperson speaking about these particular issues, but, because I am not a member of this Committee, I am obviously not going to be allowed to do so.

I will conclude my remarks, Sir Lindsay. The last word is that it is really unfortunate that we cannot make a point about this ridiculous institution of the English Parliament. It is unfortunate that we cannot make our points about that today.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Clearly, this is the political box office today. I am not sure what else is going on outside the confines of this Chamber, but this is where the action is taking place. We have just seen it with my hon. Friend—he should be my right hon. Friend—the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) attempting to explain why the two clauses of this Bill are in fact relevant to those of us from Scotland. We are being excluded during this Legislative Grand Committee stage, which we like to see as the English Parliament. It was created by David Cameron when he introduced the EVEL Standing Orders in 2015. And now we rejoice in it, for the first time, in its full glory, and here they all are—all the Members from England who are having their say under the changes brought forward that were going to transform democracy in the United Kingdom.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

British citizens living in an EU country will be able to continue living in that country. They will not necessarily have the automatic right to relocate to another EU country.

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

rose—

[Mr Hammond]

At the same time, EU citizens living in the UK will have the right to continue living here.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is very persistent. I will probably regret giving way, but I will do it anyway.

[Pete Wishart]

Let us hope not. I have tried this with the Prime Minister: can the Chancellor look the young people of this country in the eye and tell them that all the restrictions we will impose on EU nationals the EU will impose on our young people? The rights that he and I have to live, work and love across a continent of 27 will be lost to our young people. Will he now be straight with them and tell them that there will now be restrictions on their freedom of movement?

[Mr Hammond]

The deal we have negotiated will ensure the greatest possible level of freedoms and rights for UK citizens so that they can carry on living their lives and we can carry on working, collaborating and trading with our EU partners. I am completely convinced that of the options open to us this is the right way for the country to go forward.

If anyone on the Opposition Front Bench genuinely believes that there is a magic deal available that would see us retain all the benefits of EU membership but with no free movement, no payments into the EU’s budget and no state aid rules, they are sadly deluded. Labour calls for a Brexit that delivers the “exact same benefits” as we currently have. That is called remaining in the European Union and it means being in the single market as well as the customs union, and last time I checked that was not Labour policy. A customs union alone would not deliver those “exact same benefits”. It would not maintain supply chains, remove regulatory checks and non-tariff barriers, or deliver frictionless borders. So Labour’s policy fails its own test. The time for trying to have your cake and eat it has passed. It is now time for tough choices and practical solutions and for a focus on the things that really matter. It is time to deliver a “jobs first” Brexit, and that is what the Prime Minister’s deal does.

Treasury Spending: Grants to Devolved Institutions

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Douglas Ross]

That is amazing from a Member of the party that brought about the collapse in the financial markets, which is why we have had to have good governance of our finances in this country—to deal with the mess left behind by Labour.

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

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

In her opening speech, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a number of assertions about spending in Scotland, and I want to refute a few of those. By 2020—these are facts available from the House of Commons Library, as she quoted—the block grant will have grown to over £31.1 billion, which is a real-terms increase over the spending review period. In the 2018-19 financial year, the devolved Administration’s budget will increase by £500 million. Capital will increase by £566 million—£273 million of which is financial transactions, which I will come back to—and there will have been an overall increase of 17% since 2015-16.

The hon. Lady talked about financial transactions. She said that they were not real money and that they could not be spent on real things. That is interesting, because we took a look at the latest draft budget for 2018-19 and the SNP is planning to use £489 million of financial transactions. The funding includes the following: £40 million for the higher education budget, including innovation, low carbon and energy; £68.5 million for Scottish Enterprise; £26.5 million for the energy budget; and most importantly and specifically, since she talked about housing, £221.3 million for housing programmes, including the Help to Buy scheme and the open market shared equity scheme. If she was being truthful and saying that this money is not real and has to go back, has she told everyone back home?

The hon. Lady also talked about farmers. My constituency being predominantly a rural constituency, I speak to farmers every week, and I can say that under the SNP they have not received the support they need. The IT system does not work, they have not had the right rural funding and, to top it off, they now face record levels of farmers debt. That is the legacy of the SNP Administration in Scotland.

[Pete Wishart]

On financial issues, will the hon. Gentleman explain from who the Scottish Conservatives got the £390,000 donated to them over the past few years? It was from a group called the Scottish Unionist Association Trust, which supports his hon. Friends. Where are their addresses, who are their registered shareholders, and are they registered with the Electoral Commission?

[Luke Graham]

This debate is about devolved funding for our constituents. If the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about that, he should go somewhere else.

We have just ascertained in the Chamber that Scotland has received more money from the UK Government. It is now important to look at how it is actually spent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Kirstene Hair) said, about one third of the 2018-19 budget went on health and sport, but one of the next biggest areas of funding is finance and the constitution, where 11.8% of the budget is being spent. Now, finance and the constitution are all perfectly fine and important things, if they want to make those choices, but it is more relevant when we consider the percentage of spending that goes on education and skills, which is 8.4%. The No. 1 priority for the SNP Administration only gets 8.4% of the funding, versus the—wait for it—12.4% from the Westminster Government that goes on education and skills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Grady]

Precisely. If we want to talk about wasting public expenditure, we have only to look up the corridor.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham) was quoting from his Whip’s note about what financial transactions money was being spent on, but he neglected to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North pointed out at the very start, is that financial transactions money has to be paid back, so it is not money that the Scottish Government have the kind of discretion over that they need and deserve.

The hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) is not in the best position to lecture us about the payroll vote. We salute the fact that he holds a place of greater esteem on the Government Benches than his hon. Friends, but I want to take him back to my modern studies class at the Inverness Royal Academy way back in 1996 and 1997 where we talked about why funding per head is greater in Scotland than in the other parts of the United Kingdom. There are two good reasons, as some of the Scottish Conservatives should know. First, we have higher costs on account of having large rural areas that need to be served. Secondly, the figures are for identifiable public expenditure, and we all know that the vast amount of unidentifiable public expenditure is spent here in the south-east of England in London on Departments and large-scale infrastructure projects that are of no benefit whatsoever to the people of Scotland.

The name that allowed me to tick off my Scottish Tory bingo sheet was that of the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr). He said that Scotland is the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom, which everybody was delighted to hear. Perhaps the Scottish Tories at the Hurlingham Club Tory summer ball last night were weeping into their warm prosecco over the leadership plots and the fact that they now have to pay, like all SNP Members, an extra 60p a month because tax is going up in Scotland. For what we get in Scotland, such as free prescriptions, more bobbies on the beat, investment in education, free tuition and mitigation of the Tory bedroom tax, I think that that is pretty good value for money. In addition, everyone in Scotland earning less than £33,000 a year, which includes squaddies, nurses and teachers at the start of their careers, is paying less. That is the simple fact of the effect of the Scottish Government’s budget, so we do not need to hear any more about that.

As this is an estimates debate, I want to reflect on a couple of points about how spending decisions are made in Scotland once the grant has been agreed and the tax revenue collected. As Members who have previously served in the Scottish Parliament will know, we have an open and full legislative process to agree Government spending during which Members can make suggestions. The Opposition parties in Scotland are good at explaining the things on which they would like more to be spent, but they are not so good at explaining where they think cuts should come from or what should be reduced. Nevertheless, they have the opportunity.

[Pete Wishart]

The one thing that the Scottish Tories did not want to talk about is where they are in control in Scotland. They are in control in Perth and Kinross Council, where they are closing schools and depriving leisure facilities of hard-earned money. That is the reality of the Tories in power. A Tory vote is not consequence free.

[Patrick Grady]

There is no danger of a penalty shoot-out this evening; the goals are quite clearly being scored by Members on this side of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Elizabeth Truss]

I can indeed confirm that the money allocated by the UK Government to the Stirling and Clackmannanshire deal is £45.1 million. I thank my hon. Friend for his hard work on that deal. I will be looking at the issues across Government to make sure that we deliver these deals in the best possible way to deliver real value for local communities. That is what MPs have been campaigning for and I will look into that very carefully.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Chief Secretary tell us when the Tay cities deal is finally going to be agreed and concluded? Will she confirm that the UK Government will match the funds that the Scottish Government supply to that deal?

[Elizabeth Truss]

I have already had some discussions about the Tay cities deal with the Secretary of State for Scotland, and we will look at the details. We constantly have to make sure that every piece of Government spending has the best possible value for money. It was significant that in the speeches from SNP Members we heard nothing about value for money or the fact that taxpayers pay for spending.

Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]

Pete Wishart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report: 3rd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate. I call the Minister to move the consent motion.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Programme Order, 22 January, and Standing Order No. 83M(5)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of, and schedules to, the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill [Lords]—

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

Clauses 29 and 31 of the Bill as amended in Public Bill Committee (Bill 160), and Schedule 4 to the Bill as amended on Consideration—(Guy Opperman.)

Question agreed to.

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

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

Third Reading

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for all the onerous contributions that you had to make to provide certification, but what can be done to ensure that the huge numbers of English Members who wish to speak in the English Legislative Grand Committee get their opportunity to do so? This is Dave’s legacy, for goodness’ sake. English votes for English laws was supposed to be the most important issue possible. It seems that, once again, English Members have been totally denied their opportunity. Is not this just the greatest waste of time that this House has to endure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak on Third Reading, he is able to do so.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Paul Maynard]

I know that I cannot go far without my hon. Friend pursuing me to the Dispatch Box. He is obviously a doughty defender of the people of Southend, and his expertise on this issue is noted across the House. As he will know, we have commissioned Matthew Taylor to review employment practices across the country. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is currently reviewing the responses to the consultation, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in looking forward to hearing the views at the end of the process.

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

Mr Speaker, I wish you and all the staff of the House a happy new year.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing the business for next week. Dazzled as I was by the overwhelming success of the Cabinet reshuffle, I thought that I had missed the announcement on the deputy Leader of the House, but one had not been made. We are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for filling in. Who knows, he might just dazzle us enough today to be given the job permanently—and who would not jump at the chance to respond to the pre-recess Adjournment debates? I am relieved to hear that the Leader of the House is still firmly in her place. It has not been a “Cruel Summer”, in the words of Bananarama, but a cruel winter, given some of these reshuffles. The reshuffle was supposed to restore the Government’s diminished authority, but it has left them between a Hunt and a hard place. Never before has a Cabinet reshuffle actually diminished the authority of a Prime Minister in quite such a way. It is an outstanding feat, even for this chaotic Government.

The repeal Bill returns next week, and there is profound disappointment in Scotland that no amendments have been made, as promised, for the devolution-threatening clause 11. It was the Secretary of State for Scotland who set himself this timetable, and the failure to deliver has even disappointed and frustrated his own Scottish Conservative colleagues. What will be totally and utterly unacceptable is for these issues to be considered in the unelected House of Lords. The nation’s aristocrats, Church of England bishops and party donors and cronies will now have more say on these critical issues than directly elected Members of Parliament from Scotland. In what sort of tin-pot democracy could that possibly be acceptable? It is a big test for my friends in the Scottish Conservative party, because they cannot possibly vote for this, knowing the flaws, in the hope that the be-ermined ones might fix it for them. [Interruption.] Is all this blind loyalty really worth it? For all their commitment to the Lobby-fodder cause, not one of them was thought to be of sufficiently quality to be promoted—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has completed his contribution. We are deeply obliged to him.

Telecommunications Infrastructure (Relief from Non-Domestic Rates) Bill

Pete Wishart Excerpts

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 5th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I am pausing, lest anyone wishes to intervene at this moment.

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

Come on!

[The First Deputy Chairman]

The hon. Gentleman must not tell the Chair to come on. I am anticipating some great speeches. I have stopped anticipating such great speeches.

Question put and agreed to.

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

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

Third Reading

Select Committees

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

rose—

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harriet Harman. [Interruption.] Oh, I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. Let us hear first from Mr Wishart.

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

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I do not want to detain the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for long. I have just a couple of remarks about the motions. I very much support motions 4 and 5 about the Women and Equalities Committee and the Exiting the European Union Committee. They are welcome additions to the list of Select Committees we have in the House.

I also want to support your remarks, Mr Speaker. We should get down to the business of making sure that the election of Chairs and members of Committees is done as speedily as possible. It is important that we get these scrutiny Committees up and running as soon as possible so that the Government Departments are properly scrutinised on the work they undertake. I note that the ordinary membership set-up of Select Committees will be five Conservative Members, five Labour Members and one Scottish National party Member. That is something we very much support, which reflects the fact that this is a House of minorities. That is reflected in the work of Select Committees.

There will probably be a little bit more of a detailed conversation—I am putting it as elegantly as I can—about the legislative Committees in the House. My understanding is that Committees will have nine Conservative Members, seven Labour Members and two Scottish National party Members as the ordinary membership, which again reflects the fact that no party has a majority in this House. That should be reflected in the House’s Committees. I know that that is perhaps a little bit of a concern for the Government in getting things through, but I hope that any proposal is brought to the Floor of the House so that it is properly debated and not stitched up behind closed doors. It is important that, when we debate the Committees of the House, it is done on the Floor of the House, and that all Members of Parliament have an opportunity to contribute.

I also note your ruling, Mr Speaker, on the tenure of the Chairs of Select Committees. You were absolutely right. There was a conversation in the Liaison Committee, where a concern was raised about the eight-year or two Parliaments rule, which impacts on two or three Select Committee Chairs. My understanding was that that was passed to the Procedure Committee to do a quick, detailed and brief report to try to resolve some of those issues. I hope that that Committee comes forward with that at an early opportunity so that this is resolved once and for all.

I very much support the motions. We should get the Select Committees up and running as quickly as possible to get down to the ordinary, good business of scrutinising this Government and Government Departments.

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes with concern the size of the unelected House of Lords which, with more than 800 members, is considerably larger than the elected House of Commons; believes that there is no case in a modern democracy for the number of members of an unelected chamber to exceed the number of members of the democratically elected House; cannot condone any Government action that may increase the number of unelected members while reducing the number of elected Members of Parliament, particularly when there are no published plans to concurrently reduce the number of Ministers or amount of support to Government departments; believes that, in the event of an exit from the EU, the return of significant powers will mean additional work for a smaller number of Members of Parliament; calls on the Government to put in place plans to significantly reduce the number of unelected Lords; further calls for a full review of reform of the House of Lords; and calls on the Government to abandon any plans to reduce the number of Members of Parliament until the issue of the size of the unelected chamber is resolved.

May I be the first to congratulate the worthy winners of the Select Committee elections? I also congratulate everybody on making it such a little festival of democracy within these hallowed chambers. Everybody appreciates the opportunity to have a say in who sits on these Select Committees once again.

What on earth is going on in our so-called parliamentary democracy? How can we possibly reach a state in which we have more parliamentarians in these Houses of Parliament appointed by a Prime Minister than elected by the people? In what sort of parallel political universe can it be a good thing to continue to increase the membership of an unelected House while simultaneously seeking to reduce the number of directly elected Members of Parliament? Has anyone had a look at that place down the corridor? Has anyone taken a cursory glance at its membership? It is an utter undemocratic disgrace. It is an antiquated, absurd Chamber stuffed full of cronies, donors, placemen, former MPs and failed MPs.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

It is early in proceedings, but why not?

[Michael Fabricant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He asks whether anyone has seen how the other place operates but—come on!—has he heard any of the debates? Has he heard the contributions from distinguished lawyers, surgeons, architects and others, some of whom have more expertise than those in this place?

[Pete Wishart]

I want to go on to forensically look at the membership of the House of Lords, and I hope the hon. Gentleman listens carefully to the type of people we have assembled in that place because they are undemocratic horrors. There are now 812 Members of the House of Lords, making it the second largest legislature in the world behind the People’s Congress of China.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should reduce the size of the House of Lords and that we could do so simply? We could get rid of 21 of the 26 bishops, along with 92 hereditary peers, and we could have mandatory retirement, whereby peers retire after 20 years—this would be based not on age, but on length of service. That would easily take care of 212-plus peers and the House of Lords would be smaller than House of Commons.

[Pete Wishart]

I say to the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in this issue I recognise, that that would be a start but that much more needs to be done to address the anomalies of the political circus down the corridor. I take the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). He is right to say that there are people serving in the Lords who are technocrats and the great and the good. These people have been appointed by the independent Lords Appointments Commission, but they are a tiny minority. The House of Lords tries to project this image of itself as inviting in the great and the good to help us with our legislation, but the overwhelming majority of the membership of that House is appointed by a Prime Minister from the list supplied by the leaders of the UK parties. That is why we find the cronies, the placemen, the donors and the failed or former MPs.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I find myself discombobulated in agreeing with some of the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments. Do I infer from his comments that if the other place were to take a decision in the future with which he agreed but then set its face against the Salisbury convention and a commitment enunciated in our party’s manifesto in government, he would not support the Lords and would reiterate his view that peers are unelected and that they lack democratic accountability and authority?

[Pete Wishart]

I would support Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and their many hordes if it helped to defeat this Government. I have no issue or problem with supporting the House of Lords when it gets something right, but that does not make it any better on these issues. I have sensed the pain in the past few months of so many Conservative Back Benchers who have looked at this place and got increasingly upset that the Lords has defied its will. This Government do not particularly like to be challenged, but the fact that they are being challenged by an unelected, undemocratic House is beginning to disturb the Conservative party, and so I say join us in dealing with this undemocratic disgrace.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I agree that we should be doing something about the House of Lords quickly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an intelligent character, so perhaps he can help me out with some maths. The current Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister have wanted to cut the number in this place from 650 to 600 to save £12 million, yet they have stuffed the other place, costing £34 million. To me, that sounds like a cost, not a saving.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on, although actually it is worse than that, as the last figures we have are for 2014-15, when the cost of the House of Lords was approaching £100 million—that is what we are actually spending on it. Instead of reducing that, this Government’s sole intention and ambition on the House of Lords is to continue to increase the size of that place.

Let us take a cursory look at our latest batch of new parliamentarians—the 16 new appointees from the former Prime Minister’s resignation list. This list was oozing and dripping with patronage and cronyism. We now have 16 shiny new parliamentarians to welcome to these Houses of Parliament, but let us look at who they are. Thirteen of them are Conservative—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Let me tell people exactly what they are like before they say that. Five of them were senior members of staff in the former Prime Minister’s office, with one a former special adviser to that Prime Minister. One was a special adviser to the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. One is a Conservative treasurer who just so happened to have given the Conservative party millions and millions of pounds over the years. Curiously—this is the one that gets me—one is the former leader of the Conservative remain campaign, who, I suggest, is not getting a peerage for any great success that he has delivered to the Conservative party.

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

I rise to correct the hon. Gentleman. The Conservative leader of the remain campaign is a she, not a he. If the hon. Gentleman professes to be an expert on appointments to that Chamber, it would at least be appropriate for him to recognise that it achieves gender balance as well as having many other virtues.

[Pete Wishart]

There are many things that can be defined as redeeming features, and that is one that I accept, so I thank the right hon. Gentleman for pointing it out.

The new parliamentarians of Great Britain are strangers to the ballot box, but very good friends of the former Prime Minister.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Following the right hon. Gentleman’s point on gender balance, may I help the hon. Gentleman by saying that, among the hereditary peers, there are currently 91 men and one woman?

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Sir Desmond Swayne]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The new creations are exactly the savvy sort of people that we should have in the House of Lords. However, the reason why we are in this position of an unreformed House of Lords is that there was insufficient consensus in this place on how to replace it. Is he going to set out his plan for the other place?

[Pete Wishart]

If anything, that sounds like a manifesto from the right hon. Gentleman to get himself a good place in the House of Lords, and I wish him all the best in that ambition.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) for mentioning the hereditaries, because that brings me on to my next point. Although the new appointees are bad enough, there are some other cracking undemocratic horrors skulking in the corridors down the road. They are the aristocrats, the 91 Members of Parliament who have the opportunity to design, fashion, shape, issue and supervise our laws because of birthright—because they are the first son of a family that won a decisive battle in the middle ages. The one thing I do like about the hereditaries is that they bring an element of democracy to the House of Lords—did Members know that? It is the surreal and bizarre contest that they have when one of their number dies. The earls, the counts, the barons, the lords and the ladies of the land get together to replenish their numbers. It is the weirdest electorate in the world. It may be the poshest and most exclusive electorate that can be found anywhere, but at least there is that element of democracy in the House of Lords.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Among the posh selectors was a group of three Liberal life peers who chose one of their number. On the point about bringing democracy to the Lords, would not a small improvement be a ballot of the life peers, so that we at least have a natural way of getting rid of some of them while perhaps injecting some democracy into their veins, despite them not liking it?

[Pete Wishart]

Only land-locked Lesotho has elders as a feature of its democracy. This is the mother of all parliaments for goodness’ sake, and we still have people here because of birthright! It is absurd.

[Michael Gove]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman before. [Interruption.] Oh, well, I will give way.

[Michael Gove]

Once again, I will have to correct the hon. Gentleman on a point of fact. This is not the mother of all parliaments. The original phrase the “mother of parliaments” refers to this country, not to this institution, and the “mother of all” is a prefix associated with the Iraq war. If he is going to pack so many factual errors into his speech, how can we possibly take him seriously as a constitutional or any other sort of authority? He was a marvellous player and lyricist for Runrig, but as a constitutional theoretician, I am afraid that, sadly, he falls short.

[Pete Wishart]

On a positive note, I am very grateful that we have the right hon. Gentleman in this Chamber to correct me. I always thought that he had an issue with experts, but, clearly, he is a self-appointed one himself. We will let him get away with it just now.

[John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)]

On that point, perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. The department of economics at Oxford has a breakdown of the average cost of each peer in the House of Lords. It is very interesting reading: £100,000 for Conservatives, £140,000 for Labour and £99,000 for Liberal Democrat Members of the House of Lords.

[Pete Wishart]

Again, that is probably average estimated figures.

There we have it. Those are the aristocratic Members of the House of Lords. Just to make it even more surreal —I think that somebody has mentioned this already—26 places are reserved for bishops in their cassocks. They are not just any ordinary bishops in their cassocks; they have to be Church of England bishops in their cassocks. Again, this is the only legislature in the world that has a place reserved for clerics other than the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The coup de grâce, the ultimate horror of the membership of the House of Lords, is not the aristocrats or the bishops. It is the fact that we still have 104 Liberal Democrat peers. Roundly rejected by the electorate, the Liberal Democrats are kept alive in that crypt on a political life support system. People of Britain, welcome to your legislators! We have aristocrats, bishops and unelected Liberal Democrats. Is that not a great contribution?

[Sir Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

If the hon. Gentleman is serious about reducing the size of the House of Lords, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) mentioned a moment ago, has he thought of a system whereby we have indirect elections based on the number of votes cast in the general election, with each party having an electoral college, with perhaps a ceiling of 500 peers, as an interim measure? That would suit the hon. Gentleman’s party and it would remove the outrage of 104 Lib Dem peers in the House of Lords.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable suggestion, but I am not going to suggest how we conclusively deal with the issue. All I am saying to the House today is that we must deal with it. We cannot continue to increase the numbers in the House of Lords while decreasing the numbers in this place. I would respect any suggestion that came forward, as long as it deals seriously with that.

While describing the other place and all its undemocratic horrors, we still have the audacity to lecture the developing world about the quality of its democracies. We have the gall to tick developing countries off about corruption, patronage and cronyism when we have a Chamber down the corridor that is appointed by a Prime Minister. How dare we suggest that to the developing world when we have such an absurd, chaotic system?

Because the House of Lords is a stranger to democracy, because it is in the hands of a small elite and because it is an appointed, created Parliament, there will always be a temptation to delve into the outer edges of corruptibility. The only qualifying characteristic and feature that some of the appointees seem to have is the ability to give large amounts of money to one of the main UK parties. This was tested to the limit by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) when he raised the question of cash for honours, one of the biggest political scandals of the past decades, where we saw a sitting Prime Minister being questioned by the police and some of his key members of staff and fundraisers actually elected. That is what we have done. We have created a Chamber that is immensely corruptible, and we should take that on board.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I intend to vote for the hon. Gentleman’s motion this evening because I agree with much of what he is saying. He said that money was the only qualification. Does he accept that one of the other qualifications that appears to be gaining ground is to have been rejected by the electorate? On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I was always a big supporter of the House of Lords because it was full of people who were the most eminent in society. Now it is becoming full of second-raters and people who have been rejected by the electorate. Perhaps that is why the Lib Dems are not represented in this debate—maybe they are embarrassed about their representatives down in the other place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

They should be thoroughly embarrassed about their membership there because it is the only thing that sustains them as a political force.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I will vote with the hon. Gentleman tonight and I think it is a good motion, but I am not certain where this will lead. He talks about a reduction in numbers. Would not the best course be to abolish the other place? I had the privilege in a previous Parliament of proposing that, so that we start from zero. Will the hon. Gentleman outline a plan to replace the House of Lords?

[Pete Wishart]

I shall suggest certain things that we could consider to replace it. The House of Lords is unreformable and there is nothing we could do with it. It has got out of control. It is like a huge undemocratic leviathan cloaked in ermine that would continue to feed on patronage and cronyism. It has very few redeemable features.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I, too, find myself entirely in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. Is not the real issue for constituents and our democracy not just the absurdity of the House of Lords, but the boundary review that sees the number of seats in this place being reduced, the use of an out-of-date register leading to people being disfranchised, a political system that does not represent our nations or regions properly in our constitution, and a Government who have taken away the powers of civil society to criticise them? There is a package of things damaging our democracy.

[Pete Wishart]

I thoroughly agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am grateful for his support. I will come on to the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in this House, because it is important. I thought it was important to link the issues of us growing an unelected House while shrinking the number of representatives of the people. It is right that those issues are linked, because they are going on concurrently. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

May I make a bit of progress, if that is all right? I have been very generous in giving way. I will try to give way later.

I want to speak about one of the other major features of the House of Lords: the deference—all the forelock-tugging to all these lords and ladies, and this idea of the high and mighty. We still have this political culture in the 21st century of showing deference to these people in ermine and of knowing your place and respecting your betters. Imagine designing a Chamber where that was still a feature of how we conducted our parliamentary debates.

I actually looked for the House of Lords TV channel the other day, and I came across the fantasy adventure “Game of Thrones” instead. I was listening to some of the language being used, and it struck me that the House of Lords is so like “Game of Thrones”, but without the dragons, beheadings and the proper bending of the knee— that is how ridiculous that institution down the road is. One of the first things we have to do is get rid of all this 13th-century, medieval deference and create a modern, 21st-century establishment, to make sure that we get proper representation in the second Chamber.

[Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are countries around the world that we can learn from? Countries such as Australia, ironically enough, have upper Chambers that are based on ours, but they have managed to leap ahead and to have elected Chambers. Actually, the Queensland Parliament has abolished its upper Chamber, which is now a tourist attraction. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do not make progress, we will fall behind in the world in terms of the democratic process?

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would love to see that place as a tourist attraction. We could stuff some of its Members so that we could see them. They are all dressed like a demented Santa Claus. It would be fantastic: maybe we could have a Christmas fantasy or something as a feature of a visitor attraction. That is where we are, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

What is the Government’s intention when it comes to the House of Lords? Well, there seems to be only one ambition, and that is to stuff it full with even more cronies and donors. We have seen the latest additions. I do not know whether this is the Government’s intention—perhaps the Minister could clarify—but I get the impression they are trying to secure a majority in the House of Lords, because they are unhappy with the defeats they have experienced at its hands in the past few months. I have not done my sums properly on that, but I suspect that it would still involve another 30 to 50 new Members, taking its membership up to 900. That would bring it very close to overtaking the People’s Congress of China. Is that what the Government really intend to do?

At the same time—this is the point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty)—the Government seek to reduce the number of elected Members of this House. This House—this nation—should be appalled at that prospect; we should be demanding that it is addressed and reversed. How on earth can we, as a Chamber, agree to the idea of stuffing that place even fuller, while the Government reduce the number of representatives of the people—us, the directly elected Members of Parliament.

[Dr Murrison]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I quite like his motion, as it happens; it certainly has the virtue of being better than the previous one we debated. He has hit on exactly the point, which is the oversized nature of the House of Lords. It is a serious point. Does he agree that, in the context of the diminution of the expertise that appointees to the House of Lords are able to bring, there is nothing more “ex” than an ex-expert? Does he agree, furthermore, that one way of dealing with that lack of contemporaneous knowledge and understanding that the Lords bring is to limit their term of office? As a short-term measure, we could create something called a “term peer”, which would reduce the numbers and make sure that those in the House of Lords are actually contemporary.

[Pete Wishart]

There is very little about that that I cannot agree with—it is a very good suggestion. The reason we brought this motion to the House was to invite such contributions from Members.

I know that lots of Conservative Members will not support our motion, but—I am taking this as a positive—I am beginning to sense a desire to address this, and we should work together as a House to do so. We first have to accept that there is something drastically wrong with the second Chamber—that it is not working and is starting to embarrass us. In the past, Conservative Members have always said that it is not an issue for them—“Why touch something that people are not concerned about?”—but I am beginning to sense a turnaround in that sentiment. A number of national newspapers have taken this up as a campaigning issue that they want to have addressed. As I have seen in my mailbag, more and more people are concerned about the quality of our democracy. If we allow a political circus like this to stand, we diminish our own role as the nation’s representatives. We are allowing it to continue as a feature of our democracy when we should be tackling it. I encourage hon. Members, even if they are not going to support us tonight, to look seriously at how we start to do so.

I was in the House when we previously looked at this—I am going back about 10 years now—and I voted for all the proposals that suggested replacing the Lords with a majority of elected Members. There was another failed attempt to address it at the time of the coalition Government. It is now incumbent on the Leader of the House—I am glad that he has joined us—to come forward with solid proposals on how we address this, because we have to do it: we cannot let it stand.

Today I, along with all my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who has left us, found out about our new constituencies. The Government intend to reduce the number of Scottish Members of Parliament from 59 to 53—six will be lost under their proposals to reduce the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. I had a little look to see how many Scottish Lords there are. I found 61 who have registered addresses in Scotland, and that is apart from the aristocrats and landed gentry who have lands and estates in my country. The number of Members of Parliament in Scotland has been cut from 72, when I was first elected, to 53, so we now have more Scottish peers than Scottish Members of Parliament.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the starkest illustration of how bad things have become is that if the United Kingdom—or what was left of it at the time—tried to get back into the European Union at any point, it would be disqualified from membership because countries that were under Stalinist dictatorships 25 or 30 years ago are more democratic?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I will let stand on its own merits.

The Government say that they are reducing the number of Members of this House to save money. Of course, if the number is reduced from 650 to 600, savings will be made—that will happen as a natural consequence of spending less.

[Mr Jackson]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, so I will try to make a bit of progress and come back to him later if I have time.

We are reducing the number of Members of this House to save money, but at no point do we look at what is going on down the corridor. As I said earlier, the cost of the House of Lords is now a cool £100 million—that is the operating cost for a year. Members of the House of Lords get £300 just for turning up or £150 for working from home, and these are tax-free allowances. That figure of £100 million works out at about £100,000 per peer. For the same cost as these 800 part-time peers, we could have 300 democratically elected and accountable peers on an MP’s salary.

[Steven Paterson (Stirling) (SNP)]

Two of my constituents, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean and Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, sit along there in the House of Lords. Last year, Lord Forsyth cost £46,346 and Lord Robertson cost £19,708. I was on the front page of the local paper because of how much it costs for me to come down here and do my job and employ staff. I wonder when newspapers will print that kind of information about how much our Lords are costing us.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend makes an important point that brings me on to my next subject—value for money.

We know how hard we work in this place. We have constituents whom we have to represent and make sure that their interests are brought to this House. The Lords have none of that. Some of them barely turn up. Some of them have barely been in for a debate or made any parliamentary contributions at all. Yet we are prepared to have this huge expense to sustain that place while the number of Members of Parliament who come down here and work hard for their constituents day in, day out is being cut.

I want to say a couple of other things about the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament. The Government are in the process of taking us out of the European Union, and when the 73 Members of the European Parliament, who have significant powers, are no longer there, we will be expected to take up that work. An increased workload will fall on a smaller number of Members of Parliament when we no longer have Members of the European Parliament working for us in Brussels and Strasbourg.

Although the Government intend to reduce the number of Members of Parliament, they have absolutely no plans whatsoever to reduce the numbers in Government. Instead of attempting in any way to reduce the size of Whitehall, they have made sure that there are more Departments, more special advisers and more civil servants. If there is to be any reduction in the number of Members of this place, surely there should be a reduction in the number of people who serve in this Government.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very interesting point. Our workload will increase if and when Britain withdraws from Europe and we no longer have any Euro MPs, and the change in the boundaries will increase the workload further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely, and we have an increasing population. I still do not know the Government’s case for the reduction in the number of MPs—well, I think I know why they decided to reduce the number of MPs. I think it was an attempt to stuff the Labour party, but the Labour party does not need any favours, help or assistance in that regard. It seems to be doing a pretty good job of that on its own.

[Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is being very unfair on that point. I think that the decision was made to reduce the number of MPs because in 2010, when the policy came forward, there was a great deal of public feeling that MPs had become too expensive. It was a response to the national mood at the time.

[Pete Wishart]

Of course there is a national mood in favour of such a cut. If we were to ask any member of the public whether they would like to see the size of Parliament and Government reduced—I am sure I will find this when I go back to my constituency at the weekend—they would say, “Yes, of course.” My point, and I believe that the hon. Gentleman might respect this, is that we seem to be reducing the number of elected Members but letting the other place grow exponentially. That is the key point. I am beginning to get the sense that the public are starting to look at what we have got down the corridor and deciding that we have to do this. Enough is enough.

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend has mentioned that there are 61 peers from Scotland but the number of MPs is going down. Is that not simply more grist to the mill and another reason why people will, this time, vote for independence in the second referendum that will come within two years of the triggering of article 50?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has been generous to a fault in giving way, and I think that that is appreciated by the House. May I very gently make the point that 11 Back-Bench Members wish to contribute, and the Chair will be looking to call the Front-Bench wind-ups at approximately 6.40 pm? There will have to be a very tight time limit on Back-Bench contributions, a fact of which I know the hon. Gentleman will wish to take account in the continuation and conclusion of his eloquent contribution.

[Pete Wishart]

As you say, Mr Speaker, I was coming to my peroration. I have been as generous as possible when it comes to interventions.

Enough is enough. Surely, now is the time to address this matter. We have to look at what we are doing with the House of Lords. I am immensely proud of my party for failing to take places in the House of Lords, and I appeal to the Labour party to take no more places in the House of Lords. Several things have to happen almost immediately. There must be no more new Lords. We need a moratorium on appointments to the House of Lords. The Leader of the House must bring forward plans to reduce significantly the membership of the Lords, with a view to abolishing that place.

The House of Lords is a national embarrassment that should shame the country. It needs to be looked at and it needs to be reformed. Let us make this nation proud by creating a second Chamber that represents this country. Let us start to look at ways to address this. No more cronies in ermine; let us have a democratic Chamber.