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.

Privilege: Conduct of Right Hon. Boris Johnson

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Monday 19th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, it is quite wrong that this weak Prime Minister waved through that dishonourable honours list. He should really have thought again.

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

I am still confused about Labour’s position on the former Prime Minister’s honours list, because I have never heard anyone on the Labour Front Bench say they would abandon the practice. Surely, after all this, they cannot agree to a Prime Minister’s honours list. Will the hon. Lady now take this opportunity to clarify Labour’s position?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I suggest the hon. Gentleman listens to the “Today” programme on catch-up, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, made it very clear. Tony Blair did not have a resignation honours list and Gordon Brown did not have a resignation honours list. We believe this Prime Minister should have stood up to the former Prime Minister and his dishonourable honours list. This is no way to run a country. It is time the Conservatives stopped squabbling among themselves and focused on doing the right thing by the people who put them here.

As I mentioned earlier, Johnson attacked the Privileges Committee. The severity of the sanction imposed on him takes this into account, but it was not just him. Other Tory MPs have labelled the Committee a “kangaroo court”, so would the Leader of the House be able to tell us at some point, such as at business questions on Thursday, whether the Prime Minister understands the significance of these comments? What is he going to do about his own MPs who are undermining our democratic institutions? As this weak Prime Minister fails to step in to protect Parliament’s standards systems, I ask the Leader of the House whether she could step up. Will she explicitly condemn colleagues who have acted in this way? As Parliament’s representative in Government, will she demand that Ministers respect the institutions and practices of the House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, as always.

They knew exactly the character of that man. They cheered on his buffoonery. It was them that foisted him upon our nation, and it is going to be them who will have to be held responsible and accountable for all the Johnson mess that he has left behind. We have four by-elections coming up in the next few weeks—three of them because of Johnson’s legacy. What does she think their chances are in those by-elections?

[Deidre Brock]

I never like to guess anything, but I would suggest that given the behaviour we have seen in recent weeks, those chances look pretty slim.

At the very least, Government Members should show some remorse for that cynicism, accept the recommendations of the report and vote to approve them. If they do not, I hope their cowardly refusal will dog them for the rest of their political lives. If ever there was a moment for them to stand up and be counted, it is now.

However, it is too much to expect apologies from all those who defended Johnson and kept him in his place. Unbelievably, the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Jack), continues to support him, claiming he was not as unpopular in Scotland as was thought. The month before Johnson resigned as Prime Minister last year, an Ipsos MORI poll found that 83% of respondents had a negative view of him. If the Secretary of State for Scotland thinks opinions of the man have got better in Scotland since then, he has another think coming.

The Secretary of State for Scotland also claims, astoundingly, that the decisions Johnson took for Scotland will

“serve Scotland very well for decades to come”.

What a statement, when we consider the disastrous impact of the Brexit that Johnson was instrumental in persuading people to support on individuals and organisations up and down Scotland. Then there is the inadequacy of a replacement for EU funding, Treasury funds being ransacked like a sweetie jar to reward MPs, the Internal Market Act 2020, and the constant interference in devolved responsibilities. We are seeing the consequences of that with the UK Government effectively having a veto over legislation passed by our democratically elected Parliament in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is right in one way: Johnson’s toxic legacy of the decisions made by his Government and imposed on the Scottish people will certainly be affecting them for years to come, given Labour’s refusal to ditch Brexit in any Government that comes after this one.

As we know, some Members will not even be attending today’s debate. I hear that the Prime Minister is swithering —perhaps it is all a little too close to home given his own fixed penalty fine. What a spineless dereliction of the responsibilities of his office if he does not show active support for the Committee’s recommendations. The Committee’s conclusions are that Johnson deliberately misled the House and the Committee, breached confidence, impugned the Committee thereby undermining the democratic process of the House, and was complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee.

What of the Prime Minister’s mantra of integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level? This House must not only endorse the report in full, but recover the legal fees wasted on Boris Johnson’s lies, rescind the honours he bestowed in disgrace, and prevent a single penny more of public money entering his pocket. We have suffered enough at his hands and at the hands of his Government. Boris Johnson lied to Parliament, deliberately misled the country and has shown no remorse for his behaviour. While time, money and energy have been spent on examining what was a self-evident truth a long time ago, the cost of living crisis continues to balloon and our constituents are suffering.

Is it not shameful and depressing, Mr Speaker, that it has taken this prolonged, detailed scrutiny by the Privileges Committee to force some Conservative Members finally to admit to Johnson’s faults? It is shocking that, even now, some of them are refusing to accept its conclusions. Scotland deserves better than this corrupt, outdated Westminster system that allows the likes of Johnson to rise to the top. I fear that even these recommendations from the Committee, decisive as they are, will not prevent the same from happening in the future. I worry that some Conservative MPs think that, by accepting the recommendations and taking some medicine, this will all go away again, and that cannot be allowed to happen.

In conclusion, yes, it is clearly beyond time that Westminster abandons the damaging traditions that protect those who lie in Parliament, reforms protocol, and enables MPs to accurately hold Ministers to account. All Members of the House should of course vote for the Committee’s recommendations. The question is this: is anything going to change—really change—on the back of the report. If Parliament fails to reform after this most egregious and obvious case, it will just prove that Westminster is incapable of even the most basic scrutiny of power, reform, or improvement. Are we confident that standards here will keep other Ministers to account when they stand up at the Dispatch Box? I am afraid that I am not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend is a very good friend of mine—he really is—as indeed of some Members on the other side of the House. I would simply like to say this. I am not in control of whether there is going to be an amendment. [Interruption.] No, I am making the point that, as far as I am concerned, there is an issue here that is being debated. Many people are absenting themselves for what they believe to be very good reasons. I am simply taking the view that somebody may decide that they are going to divide the House and I am leaving that as an open question for the time being. However, the statements made by Boris Johnson on the Floor of the House—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir William Cash]

Not just now, thank you. I want to get on to this other point.

The statements made by Boris Johnson on the Floor of the House were in fact about legal interpretation of the covid rules and the guidance in respect of No.10. The Justice Committee conducted an excellent inquiry, reporting in September 2021, on the meaning and effect of the covid rules and guidance, several months before partygate emerged as an issue. That report is of great importance because it endorsed the incisive legal analysis of the former counsel for domestic legislation, the present Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. He highlighted the legal uncertainty of the regulations and guidance, stating in evidence to the Committee that

“there has been a lack of clarity as to what regulations applied to specific situations at what times…The combination of regulations and guidance, and the lack of clarity as to where one starts and the other stops, have been recurring themes of the coronavirus regulations.”

I strongly recommend that Opposition Members listen to that. It is very important in deciding whether a person can lie in those circumstances, because the same applied to subsequent regulations. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards emphasised that that lack of clarity undermined the rule of law. That could not have been more apparent than in the differences in approach between that of the Durham police authority on the Barnard Castle incident and that taken in relation to the Leader of the Opposition and beer drinking at a particular event, which led to no action and, on the other hand, the Metropolitan police in relation to No. 10, which did lead to action. The essential point about all of this is that no one, not even the lawyers, knew what the law was. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards made that crystal clear. Even the civil servants who drafted the regulations were fined for non-compliance.

I now come to the fundamental issue of whether Boris Johnson can be accused of knowingly lying to the House. It is clear from what I have said that the accusation that the former Prime Minister had deliberately or knowingly misled that House, as set out in the current and existing 1997 resolution, put together by Tony Blair and John Major and endorsed unanimously by the House as a whole, can only be derived from a proper legal interpretation of the words on which Boris Johnson was relying and of the legal advice he had received inside No. 10 on each occasion on which he is accused. I find no publication of that legal advice in this report. Boris Johnson therefore, in my view, cannot have been found guilty of knowingly misleading Parliament if no lawyers, let alone the Prime Minister, who is not a lawyer, could get the legal position right. The regulations and the guidance entirely lacked legal certainty. Therefore the Prime Minister could not have knowingly misled the House.

Why, as I believe to be the case, did the Committee not obtain evidence from those lawyers in No. 10 who provided legal advice when it was so crucial? If it did, why has that evidence apparently not been published? Boris Johnson cannot therefore have knowingly misled the House, and that should have been the end of it. I do not see how contempt can be attributed in these circumstances, for he simply could not have knowingly misled Parliament on any rational interpretation of the word “knowingly”, which the original motion left out.

Those who argue that now the report has been published it is all over and done, and those who say that the dogs bark but the caravan moves on, miss the wood for the trees. The caravan of this House, having moved on, will certainly come back. Then the dogs will not merely bark, but they will bite, and Parliament will be the victim, and it is likely that any future Labour Government will get caught up in it—although heaven forbid one should ever be elected. I therefore do not approve of this motion.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Boris Johnson is a liar. It would have been unthinkable to say that in this House only a few short months ago: Boris Johnson is a liar. There is something still fundamentally and profoundly shocking about saying that in this hallowed setting of the House of Commons—this institution that we revere so much. But there is no other way to put it: Boris Johnson lied to this House.

We were saying that long before that concept became fashionable. The SNP even held a debate on that very issue several months ago, to highlight that point and to ensure it was heard loud and clear in this Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was grandly marched out of this place for asserting something that is now a profound truth, as was the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). She is absolutely right that a retrospective apology should now go to both of those Members for getting it absolutely right. There is a stain on their parliamentary records for the fact that they were asked to leave this place for saying something that we now know to be a conventional truth.

SNP Members were some of the first to bring up issues about the parties. We wanted to ensure that the House understood clearly what was going on: we had a Prime Minister who was happy to have drinks parties for his staff in a number of locations in No. 10, when he had overseen the introduction of legislation that everybody else in this country diligently followed. Constituents of ours missed christenings and weddings—for goodness sake, they missed funerals—while seeing newspaper photos of that Prime Minister standing with glasses of wine in his hand. We said that his cavalier attitude towards interpreting the rules—rules that he himself had set—made him unfit for public office. We knew that a reckoning would be coming and that, eventually, his reign of chaos would come to an inevitable and disastrous end. This report vindicates us utterly and absolutely for everything that we have been saying for 15 or 16 months. We even predicted his response to this report: his refusal to take responsibility; his lashing out at others who had correctly judged him; his attempts to undermine others who had adjudicated on this process; and his attempts to divert attention and to obfuscate.

Although this report is bad enough—and it is awful—his behaviour since has compounded everything that we thought we knew about him. It is hard to believe that there has ever been anyone so ill-equipped for high office or so ill-disposed to lead a country. He is a man-child playing politics. He invented this bizarre persona to sustain him through the day, creating a smoke screen to divert attention from his real essence.

Johnson’s inevitable defenestration and removal from public life could almost have been scripted. Not for Boris Johnson a casual and easy departing into the night, but the screaming and shouting of someone who just cannot leave the scene. Not for him any hanging around to accept his punishment and the verdict of his peers. He was such a coward when it came to this decision that he quickly resigned his seat so that he would be beyond the clutches of this Parliament. Almost unbelievably, though, he still hankers after this notion—this fantasy—that he will have some route back to elected politics. It is hard to imagine a situation where that would be allowed in this House. I think that we can conclude today that he is toast and thank God he has gone.

Let me turn now to some of the responses of Conservative Members. They knew everything about Johnson. He is a serial sackee. There are very few places where he has worked that he has not been sacked from, but they still made him Prime Minister. I made my maiden speech the same day as Boris Johnson. I actually followed him from these Benches the day he made his maiden speech. Even at that point there were doubts about his character—his ability even to be just a Member of Parliament. But not for Conservative Members; they went on to make him Prime Minister. They celebrated him. They cheered him on through his bizarre and boorish speeches. They credited him with the 2019 victory and they made sure that it was him who delivered the disaster that is Brexit—something that my constituents, as well as constituents right round this country, are still paying for.

We are in the end period of the Johnsonian era. Regardless of how much Conservative Members want to move on, they will never be able to move on from him until they take decisive action to cleanse their party from the stain of him—something that they do not seem prepared to do. But they have an opportunity to do so tonight. There will be a vote. Here is the challenge to every single member of the Conservative party: line up with us and back the Privileges Committee report and ensure that we have a decisive outcome in this House. Every Member has an opportunity to express their opinion.

We do not share the reverence for this place that other Members on both sides of the House have. We want to leave it. We do not share the value that people place on this House of Commons. We are not dewy-eyed about it. But there are things that we do believe in: democracy, truth, and doing the right thing. Those are the fundamental values of politics that should determine the actions of everybody here. Failure to live up to them should have a consequence—a consequence that should be taken forward right now. I do not think that the report of the Committee of Privileges went far enough. I would have had Johnson banned and excluded from ever getting back into elected politics, but I welcome what the Committee has done—the thorough job that it has undertaken on behalf of everybody in the House. I now say to everyone in the Chamber: back us this evening. Let us speak with one voice, with everyone trooping through the Lobby. There should be no return for Johnson. Let us pledge that loud and clear.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

If people are paying for a service, they should actually get that service. At the risk of repeating myself, I will advertise to the hon. Gentleman the service that the Home Office is providing for Members of Parliament. If he has had any difficulty in accessing those surgeries, I shall be very happy to assist him in doing so.

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

I know that I upset the Leader of the House the last time I was here by bringing up her embarrassing belly flop at that daft diving contest that she was a part of, but even I was impressed by her sword-wielding at the coronation. Somebody who can carry a sword and stay mute while advertising Poundland deserves my admiration. But may I say to her that it serves absolutely no one for her to criticise a political party for hate and division, particularly when it is her Government who have brought forward that hateful Illegal Migration Bill and divided the nation with their extreme hard Brexit.

[Penny Mordaunt]

The manner in which the hon. Gentleman has asked his question prompts the exact response that I shall give. I am afraid that he has just provided us with a prime example of why the SNP has no credibility on these matters, why it always stokes division and why, even though there was a slight degree of humour creeping into his question, it was still rather obnoxious.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 27th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in saying thank you to Adrienne for all she has done, and also to say pob lwc for her future, particularly the coronation event she is organising. I also note that my hon. Friend has done her constituency a huge service in providing a mile of free bunting to anyone putting on a coronation event. Historically, because of political differences in the area, such bunting has not been readily available, and I am glad she has rectified that and hope everyone has a wonderful time.

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

The Leader of the House’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara) was just about as disastrous as her bellyflop in that daft diving contest she was part of, because we do need that debate on the real intentions about devolution, because we know they opposed its creation and we know they tried to undermine it over the past few years and have heard Lord Frost saying it now needs to be reversed. Will the Leader of the House tell me exactly what it is she does not like about a Scottish democratic institution that keeps rejecting Conservatives?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am very proud of my bellyflop on “Splash!”: I have a lido to show for it, and although it has a considerable number of views on YouTube, that is dwarfed by the number of views I get for my exchanges with the Scottish National party every Thursday. I have no objection to democratic outcomes; I object to the Scottish National party’s objection to democratic outcomes.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I was not quite sure whether the hon. Gentleman had actually asked for a debate or a statement. Just a little reminder that this is about the forthcoming business and the Leader of the House’s responsibilities.

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

Can we have a debate about the quality of the responses of Leaders of the House? I had the great pleasure of being in the shoes of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) for something like eight years, and I saw a variety of Leaders of the House, but I have not seen one who comes prepared with a script that she then proceeds to read out, taking no notice of any question asked of her. Can I perhaps suggest that she has a quiet word with the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) or even the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), and learn how to be Leader of the House?

[Penny Mordaunt]

Well, I am always happy to receive feedback, and I shall do my best to do much better next week.

Privilege

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That the matter of the actions and subsequent conduct of the hon Member for Ochil and South Perthshire in relation to correspondence from the Speaker on a matter of privilege be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

I have been advised by the Clerks that this is a very narrow motion, so I will stick strictly and exclusively to the matter at hand. Before I come to the substantive motion, however, I want to say something to those members of the public who may think that this is an arcane or even abstruse issue.

Ever since Speaker Lenthall told King Charles I that

“I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me,”

the Speaker has been the spokesman, champion and protector of the Members and institutions of this place, as well as being the impartial arbiter of our proceedings. If hon. Members think that that is just a piece of ancient history, they ought to consider more recent times. Mr Speaker’s more recent predecessors have been criticised on issues of impartiality or for failing to protect Members: for example, Mr Speaker Martin’s failure to protect my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) was highly controversial at the time and very important.

As for upholding the rights of Back Benchers and Opposition Members, we need only look at Mr Speaker’s fierce criticism of the Government during the statement yesterday, when he upheld our rights. It is therefore vital for Members to protect the integrity, impartiality and apolitical nature of the Speaker’s office. That point is clearly recognised in “Erskine May”—hardly a polemical document—at paragraph 15.14, which states that

“reflections on the character of the Speaker or accusations of partiality in the discharge of their duties”

are a punishable offence. “Erskine May” also recognises that a Member’s behaviour and conduct outside this House count towards that.

I turn to the substantive motion. Following an appearance by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) before the Select Committee on Digital, Culture, Media and Sport while she was Secretary of State, the Committee opened an investigation into several claims that she made, but ultimately it decided against any action. The Committee as a whole published a special report—[Interruption.] [Hon. Members: “He’s turned up.”] Oh, right.

The Committee as a whole published a special report, which said:

“we may have sought a referral to the Privileges Committee but, as her claims have not inhibited the work of the Committee and she no longer has a position of power over the future of Channel 4, we are, instead, publishing this Report to enable the House, and its Members, to draw their own conclusions.”

It is crucial in this matter to remember that the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) sits on that Committee. He did not ask for a Division before the report was published; he did not vote against it; he did not publish a dissenting opinion on that report. Instead, he wrote to Mr Speaker asking him to give precedence to matters reported on by the Committee, even though the Committee itself was not seeking such precedence. As would be expected, Mr Speaker did the usual thing, and—in his own words—decided to

“respect the Committee’s assessment of the situation.”—[Official Report, 23 November 2022; Vol. 723, c. 291.]

After Mr Speaker had replied to the hon. Member privately, as is the convention with privilege issues, the hon. Member took to Twitter. He brandished a copy of Mr Speaker’s letter in his video. He broke all the conventions on the privacy of Speakers’ correspondence on privilege, and disclosed a partial and partisan account of Mr Speaker’s letter. He said on Twitter:

“He’s considered my letter, but he’s decided to take no further action.”

In doing so, he implied that it was Mr Speaker’s unfettered decision not to refer the matter to the Privileges Committee. Nowhere in his filmed statement did he tell his followers that Mr Speaker was following normal procedure by accepting the will of the DCMS Committee—I imagine that is why Mr Speaker described his action last week as giving a “partial and biased account” of the correspondence—and nowhere in his statement did he tell his followers that it was he himself who sat on that Committee and signed off the conclusions.

All of us in this House have a duty to uphold its rules and institutions, but by knowingly breaching the confidentiality of the Speaker’s correspondence, the hon. Member has done the opposite. This is a clear breach of our rules. The proper response after Mr Speaker’s censure of him for his behaviour last week was for the hon. Member to accept the seriousness of his actions, apologise properly to the House, and delete the offending tweets. If he had done so, I imagine that would have been the end of the matter; indeed, I would not have made my point of order on the day. However, he failed to apologise, and instead compounded his misdemeanour. Taking to Twitter once again, he claimed that he

“offered no apology as there was no misrepresentation.”

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

He claimed that he

“didn’t ‘release’ the Speaker’s letter. I summarised it entirely fairly.”

That is untrue. He misled the country by deliberately withholding the way in which this decision had been arrived at and his part in it. He also retweeted an account that was directly critical of Mr Speaker, saying that Mr Speaker’s statement had been merely “Ermine pursuing theatrics” and that Mr Speaker was placing his

“integrity above that of parliament”.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire had again compounded his misdemeanour by deliberately attempting to undermine the impartiality and integrity of the Speaker’s office. It is the role of the Speaker of this House to protect Members and stand up for its Back Benchers, and it is the Members’ duty, on our part, to uphold the dignity of the Speaker’s office.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Davis]

I do not believe any of this conduct to be appropriate for a Member of this House. However, that is not for me to judge, as a single, ordinary Member, which is why this is not a motion to condemn, but a motion to pass the matter to the Privileges Committee of the House of Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Nicolson]

People are watching this, and I am pleased that they are. I think they will draw conclusions, having heard both sides of the argument.

[Pete Wishart]

I have been in this House for 21 years, and as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been a member of the House of Commons Commission for something like four years. I had absolutely no idea that we could not reveal that we had had correspondence with the Speaker or summarise what it was. How on earth was my hon. Friend supposed to know that, when I, with my 21 years in this House and my service on the Commission, did not know it? All of this seems to be, at best, some sort of means for retribution and, at worst, institutional bullying, because that is what it is starting to feel like right now.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Interventions can be made, but they should be brief. I would also remind hon. and right hon. Members that if the House decides to refer this matter to the Committee of Privileges, these sorts of arguments can be made there. This debate is on the simple matter of the motion. Other arguments can be made to the Committee if the House decides it wants the matter to go to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Penny Mordaunt]

I am afraid that the way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased it, and the way in which he has not appreciated—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

I will continue.

The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire has not appreciated the damage that has been done in these circumstances. The Speaker’s role in this is integral, including in avoiding—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

No, I will not give way. I am going to have my say.

The Speaker’s role in this is integral, including in avoiding frivolous complaints. It is important that his role is respected.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the Leader of the House give way?

[Penny Mordaunt]

No.

Correspondence on such matters must remain confidential and, in this place, we all suffer if that does not happen. As Mr Speaker noted, it is not for him to determine whether a contempt has been committed. I therefore support the motion and the need for the Committee of Privileges to thoroughly and correctly investigate any potential breach. I think we all regret where we are today. I am sorry the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire did not make a full and frank apology, and I support the motion.

Question put.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

Can we have a debate about rats in a sack? There is a confrontation going on just now that makes those much maligned rodents seem like sedated gerbils on tranquilisers. This is ferocious, unrestrained stuff, with no mercy shown—they are going for the kill. Accusations, poisoned barbs, simmering resentment—and that is just what they are saying about each other in their own camps.

Mr Speaker, I offer myself as a peacemaker. I think I could bring some calm to the proceedings. Where there is discord, may we bring harmony. Where there are Tories kicking seven shades out of each other, let us bring offerings of tax cuts. The leadership circus is coming to Perth. Already, we have put the city on an amber warning, with the threat of flying debris. This could be even worse than what we had in the heatwave.

For the third time in as many years, a Prime Minister is going to be chosen by a small group of right-wing Conservative party members—a tiny constituency with almost the exact opposite of the mainstream values of my nation. While democracy will count for that tiny demographic, the democracy of my nation is to be denied. Scotland will have another Prime Minister we did not vote for, while the referendum that we most clearly and decisively voted for is to be rejected. That is not lost on the people of Scotland; this democratic absurdity will be challenged.

I fear for the Leader of the House. I hope this is not his last business question. He is my sixth Leader of the House in as many years. In his short tenure, we have rubbed along quite well together, so I really hope that he will come back. He is perhaps just a little too close to Big Dog and just a little too forgiving of some of the more suspect and dodgy practices, but we hope to see him here when we return in September. I wish him well, and I wish all Members—and, of course, all the staff, as you said, Mr Speaker—well for the recess. I will not go over all the staff again, but we on the Scottish National party Benches hope they have a happy, relaxing and peaceful recess, and we will see you all back here in September.

[Mark Spencer]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments—I, too, pray for my survival. Of course he wants to talk about independence again; he does it every week. He did not mention the new plan for independence—the glorious vision for Scotland that the Scottish Government produced, which happened to have an English wind farm on the front cover. I do not know if that is a sign that, even though they do not want to say it out loud, they actually do acknowledge that Scotland is stronger in the Union.

Perhaps it is time the Scottish Government stopped their ideological fixation on independence, but we know why they are doing it. We know what they want to cover up. The CBI and KPMG have produced reports showing that Scotland lags behind the rest of the UK on nine out of 13 productivity indicators. On education, the First Minister said that she would be judged on her Government’s ability to narrow the attainment gap between schools in poorer and wealthier areas—she even said that she would be willing to put her “neck on the line” for that pledge—but then she dropped her promise to help poorer students in Scotland.

The Scottish Government are receiving more funding than they ever have since devolution. The question is, what are they doing with it? I think the answer goes some way to explaining why the hon. Gentleman is so agitated when he comes to the Chamber; it is because he is so frustrated with his colleagues. Today, The Times published research showing that the SNP is hiding behind endless commissions, inquiries and working groups to avoid making the hard decisions required to help its Scottish voters. Since it came into power, we are talking about almost 400 advisory groups under a whole range of different names that it has used to put off taking any action. Five of the nine public inquiries commissioned by the SNP since 2007 are still ongoing, including the Edinburgh tram inquiry and the child sexual abuse inquiry, which have been sitting for more than six years. Maybe they could ask their input-output expert user group for some advice on how to get something done.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

It would be remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and welcome him to his place. He is the very epitome of bizarre Brexitism, and he is now finally part of the payroll that up to now he has always loathed. When they have got so far down the pecking order to fill places in this ramshackle Government, we know that they have finally reached the bare Bones.

We need a debate about squatting and forced evictions, because we have a problem here in central London that we need to resolve. At the bottom end of Whitehall, there is someone we just cannot get rid of: Schrödinger’s Prime Minister, simultaneously gone and apparently still here. His latest wheeze is this vote on Monday: a Government tabling a vote of confidence in themselves. It would be great to think that they have finally got it and that they will be joining us in relieving this nation of this appalling Conservative Government, but actually it is more ridiculous than that. Knowing that any motion specifying the Prime Minister would probably be passed in this House, they have decided to make it a motion about a Government they can barely fill—a motion of confidence in themselves. Denying Labour’s legitimate motion was just shocking; it was against every principle of House democracy. Any Opposition must be able to table a motion of confidence in the Government at any time and in any way they want.

Wednesday was an appalling instance of democracy denial, but at least it was a diversion from the tedious, grotesque Tory anti-beauty parade. The “I’m the Most Right-Wing Candidate…Get Me Out of Here!” franchise is making Margaret Thatcher look almost like Mary Poppins. One of those people is going to be Prime Minister. For the third time in a row, a small group of Conservative party members will determine who governs Scotland. Is it not therefore timely that today our First Minister will lay out the democratic case for an independent Scotland? I do not know what will be in it, Mr Speaker, but I can tell you something: it will be almost the exact opposite of what happens in this place.

[Mark Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. When he had a pop at my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough, I think he lost the Chamber. My hon. Friend is very popular in this place.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

To those who were late, please do not embarrass me by standing. I call the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

And the Leader of the House is away! Has he not been curiously quiet over the past 24 hours? He was one of the few Johnson loyalists left standing last night. I thought we might find him in the bunker this morning, chained to the radiator with his beloved Prime Minister—but I can reassure him that he is a rank outsider to take over from the Prime Minister, at something like 80/1, which is a long shot even for him.

What a mess they have made of this. This Prime Minister cannot even leave the scene without almost burning down the House. He is the first Prime Minister in history who, when receiving that tap on the shoulder, told the men in grey suits to get stuffed. Surely there is no way on earth that he can remain as any sort of caretaker, particularly given all the big issues we have to consider and address as we go through the summer. He is more of an undertaker than a caretaker.

What a joke of a business statement, with a Government at half capacity! There are barely enough Ministers to respond to debates and to answers the questions, and business has been cancelled for the rest of the day. What happens to all the vacant positions? Will people all now return to their posts? Does the former Levelling Up Secretary now get his job back?

We need to debate this Prime Minister’s legacy. He will go down as one of the worst Prime Ministers in history, at one of the worst possible times. In just three years, he has managed to decimate our international reputation, our economy and our democracy. We will now have our fourth Prime Minister in six years, so perhaps the problem is not with whoever leads that shower over there. People ask the SNP why we want independence for Scotland. I am not asking that this morning. Independence would mean that we would never again get another Prime Minister whom we had not voted for, like him. Isn’t it funny that one of the last acts of the man who has trashed so much of the democracy in the UK was to write to our First Minister to try to deny democracy to our nation. He has now gone, and Scotland will soon be gone too.

[Mark Spencer]

Once again, there was not much in there that was relevant to the business of the House. We await the Prime Minister’s statement this afternoon. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that vacant positions will be refilled as the reshuffle progresses today and tomorrow, and the Government will continue to function in a professional way and deliver for the people of the United Kingdom.