Progression of Bills through Parliament

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

When the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) introduced the debate, he said that it was not about the assisted dying Bill; he proceeded for the next 25 minutes to talk about little else. It is quite clear that many of that Bill’s supporters, out of a sense of churlish resentment of the House of Lords daring to do its job, have come today to give vent to that view. Of course, for some of them, it dovetails with their aversion to the very existence of the House of Lords in the first place.

In the most compelling and effective speech that we have heard, the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) pointed out that when we talk about parliamentary democracy, we do not have the luxury of just talking about the House of Commons. Ours is a bicameral situation—we have an elected House of Commons and a House of Lords, and both have an essential and irrefutable function in passing the laws of our land. That is a fundamental component of our parliamentary democracy. It might cause some to resent the existence of the other House, but it is the reality. Just as we, as Members of this House, are entitled to have our say and to vote as we please, Members of the House of Lords, so long as they exist, have the same right to express themselves, and to move, speak to, and ultimately, if they ever get to the end of the process, vote on amendments. That is how that place works, for better or for worse.

I suspect that if we had a Reform or a Conservative Government in two or three years’ time who decided to extract the United Kingdom from the European convention on human rights, the very people complaining the loudest today about the functioning of the House of Lords would be cheering it on as it attempted to filibuster that. We need to dissect their argument and discover that it is not quite as altruistic as some would have us believe; there is a lot more self-interest at play. The complaint amounts to a desire to have an unsafe Bill forced into law—that is the real complaint. Of course, it is the function of the House of Lords to apply rigour and scrutiny. I salute the Lords for the rigour that it supplies, and the many notable peers with expertise on these issues far beyond that of anyone in this Chamber. [Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Jim Allister]

Was it not so obvious that not a single royal society of experts supported this Bill, just as not a single Member of this House was elected on a manifesto to support it? Yet we have this cry that it should be railroaded through—where is the democracy in that?

We hear this audacious demand to use the Parliament Act, which has never been used for a private Member’s Bill and is only ever used for Government Bills, to ram the Bill through. If we take scrutiny seriously, we must not bring Parliament into disrepute. Passing a flawed Bill that allows the state and doctors to end vulnerable lives would most certainly bring Parliament into disrepute. This was a Bill riddled with flaws—my goodness, look at what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order. This has been a very good-natured debate and we have allowed everybody to be heard. Mr Allister expects the same courtesy.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

The House of Commons expressed its view. The Bill then went to the House of Lords for further consideration. I know from conversations with a number of MP colleagues that they supported the principle of the Bill to allow it to progress, so that the House of Lords could look at it further and in the hope that improvements would be made. I reflect on what happened in the Scottish Parliament, where a similar Bill achieved the support of MSPs at the first stage. After it received further scrutiny and further amendments, it went back to the Scottish Parliament, and it was rejected—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[John Lamont]

That was because amendments could not be secured to satisfy people's concerns.

This was a private Member’s Bill. In such circumstances, there was no constitutional obligation on the Lords—as I stated earlier in relation to the Salisbury convention—to ensure that it completed its passage through Parliament. Indeed, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of private Member’s Bills do not become law. That is not a constitutional failure; it is a long-standing feature of our parliamentary system.

Similarly, scrutiny should not be confused with obstruction. One reason why many peers believed that further scrutiny was necessary was that significant issues remained unresolved after the Bill left the House of Commons. More than 500 amendments had been tabled during Public Bill Committee, but only a small proportion not supported by the sponsor were accepted. On Report, 88 amendments were deemed in order, but only seven were selected for debate and decision by the House as a whole. That was the wrong approach to take.

The breadth of concerns, underpinned by expert testimony, should have prompted deep reflection on what more needed to be amended. The Cabinet Office’s guide to making legislation is very clear: if a private Member’s Bill is to make it on to the statute books,

“As far as possible, amendments should be made at Committee Stage in the first House.”

It is therefore hardly surprising that many peers concluded that further scrutiny was required. Indeed, several Members indicated during proceedings in the Commons that they expected the Lords to undertake detailed scrutiny and improve the legislation where necessary. The Lords therefore performed precisely the role that many MPs expected it to perform.

It is also important to recognise that the nature of the concerns that were raised. This was not simply a handful of peers attempting to delay legislation; more than 140 peers expressed opposition to, or serious concerns about, the Bill. Those concerns came from individuals with substantial expertise, including former leaders of the medical profession, senior NHS figures, specialists in psychiatry and palliative care, legal experts and representatives of vulnerable groups. Whether one agreed with their conclusions or not, those concerns deserved careful consideration. That is exactly what parliamentary scrutiny is intended to achieve.

Some supporters of the petition have pointed to opinion polling as evidence that Parliament should ensure legislation progresses. Public opinion is, of course, important, and Members of this House are elected to represent the people who send us here, but our constitutional system has never operated on the basis that polling alone determines whether legislation becomes law. Parliament is a representative democracy, not a system of government by opinion survey. Members of both Houses are expected to exercise judgment, consider evidence, scrutinise proposals and weigh consequences. If legislation were to acquire a special constitutional status simply because it polled well, we would fundamentally alter the balance between public opinion and parliamentary scrutiny. That would be a profound constitutional change, and it should not be undertaken lightly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Chowns]

I thank the Leader of the House for allowing me to clarify my point. My point is not about the specific content of the Bill; it is about the constitutional crisis caused its blockage. Is it really okay that the only way out of that is to wait for another private Member’s Bill? Is there a role in ensuring that it comes through the Commons?

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Thank you, Mr Wishart.

I am sorry if it was not explicit, but implicit in what I said was that I think the Lords need to reflect on what they have done. [Interruption.] Hang on. The stakes are quite high and we need to be careful that the conventions and rules in place are being used properly, so that the trust that we want to see is engendered in our political system. I want to address something else: the constant theme that, despite however many hundreds of Lords there are, there was a cabal—a handful of people—in the House of Lords who somehow managed to hijack this process and stop it all.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman says that that is exactly what happened. There have been five private Members’ Bills and one amendment on this matter in the House of Lords. They did not go anywhere. That was not because the person proposing them at the time did not believe that they had merit. That person did not push them because they did not think there was support in the House of Lords.

We can pick whichever side we want on this issue. We have talked all afternoon about how the issue was never tested. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) explained why it was never tested. Members can say, “Oh, it was never tested. We do not know.” If I wanted to, I could argue that it was never tested and we do not know either. We do not know whether there was a majority in the House of Lords for the Bill. Let us just be careful before we go out chasing those arguments.

I will conclude because I want to leave my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central some time. Business managers made it clear that had the Bill returned from the Lords before the end of the Session, the Government would have sought to provide time to consider changes. As I have already said, the Lords play an important role in scrutinising legislation, but it is clear that people do not view the Commons and the Lords as being in isolation from each other. The actions of each House directly impact on the perceptions of this place more broadly. It is about what my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central described as a question of trust. I am sure that Members of both Houses will wish to reflect on that and ensure that the actions of one House do not detrimentally affect the other.

I am sure that this debate will continue. I welcome that because at its heart is a Bill of profound importance to many of us, whatever side we sit on. It is also a debate of profound importance when it comes to the relationship between the elected House and the upper House. I am sure the debate will continue.

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Mr Atkinson, as you can see you have two and a half minutes.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I will certainly draw my hon. Friend’s remarks to the attention of the relevant Minister. The payroll contract was signed following a robust 12-month procurement process, but it was undertaken prior to the recent issues with Capita’s administration of the civil service pension scheme. Whether it is pensions or payroll, our priority is to ensure that we get continuity of service and value for money for the public.

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

Can we have a debate about the rise of the far right across the whole UK? There is barely a constituency in the country that is not touched by its poison, hate and misinformation as it tries to continue to divide our communities, but on Saturday we fight back. The Together Alliance—an alliance of political parties, trade unions and cultural organisations—will take to London’s streets with the message of love, hope and unity in what will be the biggest ever march against the far right we have ever seen. I am pretty sure that the Leader of the House will want to wish this endeavour well, and maybe we will even see him along with us on Saturday.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

It is important that people make their voices heard with their concerns about the far right. It is important that we stand up to the division that the far right seeks to bring not just to our local communities, but to our nation, particularly in the run-up to local elections. It is important that we expose not only that, but—where the far right is present in local government—its record, which is invariably appalling.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Absolutely, the council should do that as a matter of urgency. It is a gross discourtesy to a Member of this House for any council not to take these matters seriously enough. It seems that we are not just criticising Reform councils on these matters; we are now quite rightly condemning Conservative councils. Where they are not listening to their residents, they should listen. As I said in my previous answer, a record amount is going in from Government to fix potholes. The money must be used effectively so that our constituents see those benefits. I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the House, and I encourage her local Conservative council to listen to her important contribution and the views of their community, and to get back to her with the information that she rightly seeks.

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

It is absolutely right that student debt has been one of the main focuses this week. Students are graduating with an average debt of £53,000. That simply is an appalling and debilitating financial burden at the start of their working lives. But the Leader of the House will know that this is not the story in the whole of the UK; in Scotland, under the SNP policy of free tuition, students graduate with an average debt of £17,990—a third of what students graduate with in England. Will he ensure that that is pointed out when this issue is debated and student debt is referenced? I have heard about U-turns on student debt. If those happen, will he encourage his Ministers to look at the Scottish system of free education and ensure that graduates in England have the same opportunities as graduates in Scotland?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we inherited the current system from the previous Government. They designed it, they delivered it and they caused the problems that are there now. We are trying to put them right. We have made changes to try to make it fairer. We continue to look at ways of doing that, and we will look at examples wherever they happen to be. We are focused not just on that, but on improving the cost of living to benefit young people. I very gently say to the hon. Gentleman that of course the situation is different in Scotland, because money is available to put into it. I would simply ask him where the money comes from. We have put a record funding settlement into Scotland, and it is up to them how they use it, but I am afraid the idea that there is a magic money tree in Scotland is from his imagination.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue, which many of my constituents raise with me as well. I recently did an unannounced visit to one of my sorting offices to meet staff there, and I saw at first hand that staff morale is low, and people feel unable to provide the service that they are there to deliver. I encourage him to continue to raise that issue directly with Royal Mail. He has other opportunities to raise it in the House, perhaps with the Select Committee and its Chair, and I am sure it would make a very popular topic for debate.

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

The city of Perth is still recovering from a devastating fire, which unfortunately resulted in loss of life. Residents were evacuated, and people were unable to access their properties. Last week, together with local MSP John Swinney, I hosted a meeting with affected residents and businesses, and we found that support from insurance companies is nothing other than a lottery. Can we have a debate about what people can rightly expect from insurance companies in such emergencies, and can we look at insurance companies being obliged to offer support to all customers who are unable to access their properties?

[Lucy Powell]

I am really sorry to hear of the incident in the hon. Member’s constituency, and I am sure his constituents are very grateful for the leadership he has shown in tackling the after-effects of it. He is right to raise the challenge of insurance companies. We need to make sure that there are rights of recourse for customers and consumers, and that insurance companies are offering the service we need them to offer, because it is vital that people can rely on insurance.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. Personal stories bring into the light—if any more was needed—the true horrors happening in Gaza at the moment. That is why this Government have taken a very strong stance on some of those issues. I am really sorry to hear of the struggles his hope-to-be constituent is having in getting a visa, and I will make sure that the Minister gives him a full response about this case.

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

Can we have a statement about political advertising and what is and is not acceptable? A disgusting, racist advert has been released by Reform in the Hamilton by-election in which a speech by the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, is selectively edited to question his identity and loyalty. We may disagree profoundly with Anas Sarwar on a range of issues, but he is a proud Scot, who always tries to put the interests of his country first. We in Scotland are united against that sort of gutter politics. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is everything that we in Scotland are not?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way he asked that question and for putting on the record his disgust at how people warp what others say and edit things together to give a different impression of their values and opinions, as sounds like has been done to Anas Sarwar. I thank him greatly for that.

We have to tackle mis and disinformation, especially in our political discourse. Parties that purport to be mainstream really should know better than to engage in this type of activity. The Electoral Commission has powers in this regard, but we recognise that those powers and some of the laws around such matters need strengthening. That is why we are bringing forward an elections Bill next year. I hope that Reform heard the hon. Gentleman’s question and takes down the video he described.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

My hon. Friend makes a strong case for the expansion of HS1 services, and all the benefits that that boost to cross-channel rail links would provide to his constituents and, indeed, the wider economy. I will ensure that the relevant Minister updates him, and that the House is updated when there are important developments in this regard.

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

Today, the consultation on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—introduced by Boris Johnson to constrain devolution at the height of the Brexit chaos—closes. That Act is equally loathed by the SNP Scottish Government and the Labour Welsh Government. For some reason, abolition of the UK internal market was not included in the consultation’s terms of reference, so when the Government respond to the consultation, will they make sure that that option appears and that we get the opportunity to get rid of that awful, devolution-destroying Act?

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

First, I thank my hon. Friend for the fantastic job she did when she stepped in as my Parliamentary Private Secretary in an emergency last week; I could not have got through business questions without her great support. I know that she has been raising the issue of last week’s water outage strongly for her constituents, and my sympathies go to them. She will know that it is the responsibility of water companies to manage such disruption. They do not do that well in many cases, and that is why we have brought in the Water (Special Measures) Bill, which will drive meaningful improvements in the water industry. The Cabinet Office will soon issue guidance about how to better respond to these local emergencies, and I will ensure that she gets the meeting she has asked for.

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

The EU offered the UK a youth mobility scheme that would give the invaluable opportunity for our young people to live, work and love across our continent. It was rejected out of hand. Since then, the EU has offered a customs arrangement for the UK Government, which again has been rejected out of hand. Can we have a debate about how the EU reset is going, and will the Leader of the House confirm that we are forever doomed to this chaotic and self-defeating hard Brexit?

[Lucy Powell]

As the hon. Member will know, we have been absolutely clear that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement, and we have no plans for a youth mobility scheme. That is because we feel that we can make great progress in resetting our relationship with the European Union, which is under way, and that the country does not need further disruption in this area but needs us to make sure we get the trade agreements and the relationship with the EU that will get better outcomes for those in Scotland and elsewhere.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

Breathing new life into our high streets and town centres is a real priority for this Government. After years of neglect and decline, that is much needed. We will bring forward an English devolution Bill later this Session, which will grant communities a new right to buy derelict buildings such as the one my hon. Friend mentions. I hope that will help him and his constituents to take back control.

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

Scottish Labour Members like nothing more than getting to their feet to drone on about the Scottish Government, and asking the Minister questions about matters that have absolutely nothing to do with them. Can we have a debate about the spectacular fall in the polls of Scottish Labour, and we could perhaps determine whose fault that is? Is it the hapless Anas Sarwar, or is it because the Scottish people have seen a Labour Government in action?

[Lucy Powell]

It is not Labour Members droning on—in fact, none of them has today raised a point of the kind he mentions—but we would all welcome a debate in this House on the performance of the Scottish Government and whether they are delivering for the Scottish people, because they now have the powers and the funds, so they have no excuses.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter; I know he has raised it many times in the House. Many of the compensation schemes that we, as a Government, have inherited are still taking far too long. I will raise the matters he talked about with the DWP on his behalf. The subject would make a good topic for debate in the future.

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

The Labour and Conservative parties are getting down to the business of deciding who should serve on Select Committees. That is an important task and good luck to those who get those jobs. However, one group is effectively excluded from participating in cross-party scrutiny in this Parliament: Members of the smaller parties of this House. For the first time since Select Committees were established, there is no place for Members of any of the smaller parties, except if the Government gift us a place through their largesse and generosity. We are effectively barred from participating in Select Committees. How can that be right or acceptable?

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. As I hope he is aware, there is a long-established convention and practice that the smaller parties have representation on Committees, especially Members from the devolved nations on their relative Select Committee. That process is still ongoing. Some names are mentioned on the order paper today, but they only relate to some of the places that are to be allocated. Those conversations are continuing through the usual channels. It is my understanding that there will be places available on some of those Committees for Members of the Scottish National party and some of the other smaller parties.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 18th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Powell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his best wishes and for that important question. Libraries and access to them play a vital role in our communities, supporting local people and children with their education. I am afraid that the previous Government hollowed out local government funding over their 14 years in office. They promised levelling up, but in fact we got years and years of cuts. I will make sure that the Culture Secretary has heard my hon. Friend’s question and supplies him with a reply.

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

Mr Speaker, congratulations on your re-election. I welcome the Leader of the House most sincerely to her position; I always think business questions is the most illuminating and refreshing part of the week’s business.

One of the most pressing pieces of business that we considered prior to the general election was, of course, the compensation scheme for those infected and impacted by the infected blood scandal. Can we have an urgent statement to detail the Government’s progress in ensuring that the compensation scheme is put in place and their progress towards the creation of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority? Victims are still dying weekly, and I am certain that the Leader of the House will want to do everything possible to ensure that these matters are addressed as quickly as possible.

[Lucy Powell]

I thank the hon. Member for that question; he and I both know, after sitting through these sessions in the last Parliament, that the infected blood scandal is probably the single biggest issue raised in business questions. It is absolutely important that we take action and follow through on the commitments that have been given. I assure him that there will be an update to the House at the earliest possible opportunity on the Government’s progress in dealing with the compensation scheme.