Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I know how strongly my hon. Friend feels about this and how expert he is at working at parliamentary procedure. Perhaps he might like to give the shadow Leader of the House a lesson afterwards. It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman. I am going to have to make my hon. Friend wait for a few days. I will give the matter careful consideration. Whipping is not a matter for me—it is for the Chief Whip, and I am sure he will make that point as well. I do understand the point he makes.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I paid tribute to Michael Meacher last evening at the start of the debate on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, but I associate the Scottish National party with your comments this morning, Mr Speaker.

This is not a particularly good week for those who are poor or struggling to make ends meet in Tory UK. The tax credit whammy will be followed by the remaining stages of the Welfare Reform and Work Bill next week as this Tory Government up their assault on the poorest, most marginal and most vulnerable in our society. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) raised the issue of suicides related to changes to benefit arrangements for disabled claimants right across the United Kingdom. Apparently, something like 60 live investigations have been undertaken by the Department for Work and Pensions into the circumstances surrounding these suicides and deaths. May we have a debate—that is the only thing we can do—to assess what is happening to the poorest, most vulnerable and most marginal in our society? Will the Leader of the House publish the results of those DWP investigations?

One thing that happened in the past week—like Brigadoon, it appears once every 100 years—was the emergence of compassionate conservatism. The remarkable speech from the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) showed that there was some element of that within the callous heart of this Tory Government. We also hear about concerns from the Mayor of London, but such signs of compassion are to be chopped down just as they appear.

The Leader of the House is even considering suspending the work of the House of Lords because it dares to disagree with the Government. I am not a friend of the donors and the cronies in that place, but at least I respect their right to have their view on these issues. The Leader of the House seems to want either to suspend the business of the other place or flood it with even more Tory donors—a place that is already bloated with more than 800 Members. Here is another solution that the Scottish National party might support: how about just abolishing the place? That would solve the problem at once, because the Tories would get their way and face no opposition, having stamped down on dissent on their Back Benches. We would give that proposal a sympathetic hearing.

Mr Speaker, this is the last business questions at which I will be addressing you as an equal Member with my English colleagues, if the Leader of the House gets his way and consigns me and my colleagues to second-class status in this House following today’s EVEL vote. Indeed, a week on Monday we might see the first certification from you, Mr Speaker, on the Housing and Planning Bill, which I know you are looking forward to with great interest. Can the Leader of the House confirm that that will be the first EVEL certification? While we are on the Bond theme, I think I prefer Austin Powers, because after today’s vote the right hon. Gentleman will forever and a day be known as this House’s Dr EVEL.

[Chris Grayling]

I think that I still have fractionally more hair than Dr Evil.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have great affection for him as a parliamentarian and very much enjoy debating with him, but I cannot help but feel that today we are getting some slightly mixed messages. For one extraordinary moment I thought that he was about to reinvent himself as a champion of the House of Lords, but then he returned to his view that it should be abolished, raising my expectations and then dashing them at a stroke. Whatever my views might be—I happen to have great regard for the other place, as well as for him—I am afraid that I do not have the power to suspend the House of Lords. Therefore, I counsel him not to believe everything he reads in the newspapers.

I also encourage the hon. Gentleman not to be quite so cynical about compassionate conservatism. Let us look at a couple of things that have happened under this Government. We are seeing child poverty come down, not up, despite all the warnings from the Labour party. One of the achievements I am most proud of is the fact that our party, both in coalition and now in a majority Government, has overseen a rapid drop in unemployment and in the number of children growing up in workless households. To me, that makes a crucial difference for the development of the next generation. That is something I will always be proud of, and something that I think lies at the heart of a compassionate Conservative party and what it is achieving for this country.

The hon. Gentleman also talked about the debates on tax credits, but I am afraid that he has a rather misguided view of our approach to the poor. I remind him that we are cutting the rents of social tenants, increasing childcare, perhaps to the tune of £2,500 a year, cutting taxation for people on low incomes and boosting the national living wage for people on low incomes. This is a Government who care about people on low incomes and are doing practical things to help them. However, we cannot continue to have a high-tax, high-welfare and low-wage society. We have to change that, and that is what we are doing.

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I have just said that there are grievances, and there are English grievances too. I believe that we need to come to a proper constitutional settlement in this House—and across the whole of Parliament—that delivers an elected House of Lords so that the whole country is represented and so that we do not have the anomaly of a baron who was born in Scotland, lives in Scotland and claims expenses for travelling from Scotland to Westminster—[Interruption.]

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The shadow Leader of the House has been on his feet for half an hour. The House will not hear from a Scottish Member of Parliament until the sixth speaker. This is being done to us, because it is we who will become second-class Members. Is there anything you can do to speed up proceedings so that we can hear from Scottish Members of Parliament?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. Many Members are waiting to speak, and they have legitimate points of view that the House must hear, which is why I have appealed for brevity and for short interventions. The shadow Leader of the House has another minute until he reaches half an hour, at which point I will raise my eyebrows at him.

--- Later in debate ---

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

After an hour and 40 minutes, and six speeches, we are actually getting to hear from the Members of Parliament who this is being done to—the Scottish Members of Parliament. This will, I hope, be the last instalment of what can only be called the sorry saga of English votes for English laws. Never has such massive and significant constitutional change been undertaken on the basis of plans that are so meagre, so threadbare, so inept, and so stupid.

I have searched the documents for all the statements that have been made about these plans and all the various words that have been used in these debates. I came up with a word cloud, because I hear they are quite popular just now, to see the favourite words used—namely, “shambles”, “disaster”, “mess”, “dog’s breakfast”, “unnecessary”, “won’t work”. There are some really good Scottish words that sum this up perfectly, with apologies to my friends in Hansard: “boorach”, “guddle”. Even those words do not do justice to the mess that has been created by these plans.

In the course of the past couple of months since the Leader of the House’s plans were first introduced, he has managed to convince absolutely nobody about their quality. Not one political party in this House supports these plans other than the Conservatives. Not one devolved legislature, Assembly or Parliament throughout the United Kingdom supports these plans; in fact, they are resolutely opposed. Even the donors and the cronies down the corridor do not support these plans. Even the Procedure Committee, with a Conservative Chair and a Conservative majority, finds massive difficulties with what is proposed. An exercise in building consensus and working in partnership this most definitely is not. To proceed with such historic constitutional change without even a shred of consensus is probably about the worst way possible to embark on such plans.

We will, of course, oppose the plans in full. We have not tabled any amendments because we do not want to dignify the proposals with any suggestion that they should be approved. We will vote them down altogether. We will support some of the Labour amendments, which are marginally better than what is on offer, but we will do so half-heartedly, because we object to the basic principle.

The Leader of the House tries to convince us—he did it again in his speech today—that these are tiny, eensy-weensy little tinkerings with the constitution of the House. “What are all you Scots getting upset about?”, he wails at us. “What are you bothered about? It’s only a little veto you’re going to be exposed to.” Well, let me tell him: how dare you give us second-class status in this place. How dare you disrespect the views of the Scottish electorate and diminish the role of Scottish Members of Parliament.

[Mr Rees-Mogg]

It is most important that the proposal does not create a second-class tier of Members of Parliament. Given that it comes under Standing Orders, in the event of there being a Government who are dependent on Scottish votes for their majority, they could repeal the Standing Order. Therefore the basis of the authority of each MP remains identical.

[Pete Wishart]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Gentleman’s views, but he is quite simply wrong. The basic principle of the plans is that I and my hon. Friends will be second-class citizens in the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. That is unacceptable.

Scotland is watching this debate and the mood is darkening. If this is an exercise in saving the Union, the Government could not have contrived a more inept way to do so. Support for independence is increasing. The Conservatives got 14% of the vote in Scotland at the general election. It was an historic low. They have not secured such a vote since the 19th century. Once this has been done to Scottish Members of Parliament—our elected representatives—just watch their polls continue to plummet.

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

The proposal was a clear manifesto pledge by our party and we were voted in by the people. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is the people who want this to happen?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think that English Conservative Members quite get it. The United Kingdom is supposed to be a partnership of equals. There are issues and difficulties—fair enough—and I know they are upset about what is going on with English votes for English laws, but we are a nation. Does the hon. Lady know how many Conservative Members there are in Scotland? One, and he barely scraped in. Our view is legitimate and we reject being made second-class citizens in this Parliament. This is our Parliament as much as the hon. Lady’s. This is the unitary Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and yet we have to accept second-class status. No wonder the mood is darkening in Scotland.

[Mr Hanson]

Andrew Bonar Law, Campbell-Bannerman, Asquith, Lloyd George, Gordon Brown, James Callaghan, Gladstone, Winston Churchill and a range of others had constituencies in Scotland or Wales and served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Does the hon. Gentleman envisage a Scot or a Welsh MP ever again being Prime Minister?

[Pete Wishart]

I say candidly that I do not envisage that happening again. It would be absurd for a Scottish Member of Parliament to be a Secretary of State for Health or Education, because they would be debarred from full voting entitlements on getting legislation through the House. I do not foresee there ever again being a Scottish, Welsh or possibly Northern Irish Minister in one of the great devolved Departments of state. I do not think there will be another Scottish Prime Minister. I am sorry to upset some of my hon. Friends, but I cannot think of any circumstance where that would be possible. This is the beginning of the process of creating two classes of Members of Parliament in this House and it will be instinctively followed by a hardening of those positions.

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I want to make some progress, because I am conscious that a lot of my hon. Friends want to speak.

This is the fourth time these hastily redrawn plans have been presented to the House, which says absolutely everything we need to know about them. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) want to intervene? He is chuntering away.

[Mr Graham Allen]

I will gladly intervene, but very quickly, in view of what I said earlier. The hon. Gentleman is posing as a second-class Member of Parliament, but he is getting a first-class allocation of unlimited time. Perhaps he would care to give those of us who are second class a go as well.

[Pete Wishart]

May I say ever so gently to the hon. Gentleman that this is being done to us and it has taken an hour and a half and six speeches before a Scottish Member of Parliament has been allowed to speak? We will take our time and I will not rush for his sake.

I have scoured the fourth set of Standing Orders to see whether they change the first set significantly. Perhaps one curious thing could be explained to me. On the Speaker’s certification, the Speaker is now required and obliged to speak to two members of the Panel of Chairs before deciding whether a Bill will be English-only. I have a lot of respect for those on the Panel of Chairs—they do a fantastic job chairing the Committees of this House—but I have never known them to be an authority on the constitution. Surely it would be as well to ask two random members of the public for their views. The people that should be spoken to are the Scottish Government, the Welsh Assembly Government, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. They are the bodies that this is being dumped on and it is their devolution settlements that will be impacted, but there is no requirement on the Speaker to consult them.

The most invidious thing about the proposals is what they will do to the Speaker. The Speaker will be politicised, which is almost unforgivable. That could set the Speaker in conflict with Scottish Members of Parliament. If we do not agree with and reject one of the certifications, what are we supposed to do? We are here to represent our constituents, so of course we are going to do what we can to ensure that their voice is heard. The proposal could lead to a challenge that goes all the way to judicial review and the Supreme Court. We know that the rulings of the Speaker are unchallengeable because of parliamentary privilege, but if constituents who watch what is going on here feel that their rights are not being represented properly, we will end up in the Supreme Court and judicial review.

One of the daftest things the Leader of the House has said—I say this candidly, because I have a lot of affection for him—is that there is no such thing as Barnett consequentials. He told the Procedure Committee:

“I have looked long and hard at the issue of Barnett consequentials and I think they are a bit of both an illusion and a side issue. I don’t actually believe that Barnett consequentials exist.”

According to the right hon. Gentleman, Barnett consequentials are up there with Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and the tooth fairy. What he said about Barnett consequentials is absurd and I will give him the chance to take it back.

[Chris Grayling]

I have asked the Scottish nationalists to offer one example of a piece of legislation outwith the estimates process that has had a direct financial impact on the budget for Scotland. So far, neither he, his colleagues nor my officials have been able to come up with one example.

[Pete Wishart]

After the Leader of the House made those remarks, we went to the Scotland Office to look at the annual report and found that about 56 Barnett consequentials were enacted in the course of one Parliament. Of course there are Barnett consequentials. It is absolutely absurd to suggest otherwise.

I think the Leader of the House is trying to refer to downstream Barnett consequentials, but he is totally and utterly wrong about that as well. On the supply and estimates procedure, they are called estimates for a reason: they are an estimated departmental spend, and the Barnett consequentials from any subsequent legislation are simply consolidated in the next set of estimates.

[Mr Jenkin]

The logic of the SNP’s position is to advocate an English Parliament, but what would happen to Barnett consequentials then?

[Pete Wishart]

We would then have a federal system, which would allow us to collect and retain our taxes, and England would be able to do that, too. That is much more elegant. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees with the principle of taking responsibility for ourselves. We are happy to do that and I am pretty certain that my colleagues in England are more than equipped for the task of looking after their own country. There are some very talented people who could probably lead that devolved Parliament. It is up to them to secure and achieve it. We did the hard work: we built the consensus, had a referendum and instituted a Parliament. Why cannot they do that, too? What is wrong with making sure that they have their own Parliament? All these issues would then be solved. There would be no such thing as Barnett consequentials ever again. They can do their thing and we will do ours, and we could come together in a federal arrangement to discuss all the big, reserved issues.

The Leader of the House’s comments on Barnett consequentials were absurd. The Procedure Committee corrected him by saying that

“in reality, the estimates and supply procedures of the House validate prior decisions about policy, including those which have been given effect through primary legislation.”

That proves that spending in the next set of estimates will be consolidated, proving that there are downstream Barnett consequentials. It is totally and utterly absurd to try to suggest that there is no such thing.

If we are to open up procedures for estimates and supply, we must find a lot more time because all issues of Barnett consequentials are wrapped up in that. We must spend day after day looking at total departmental spend across all Departments, because what has happened thus far is not good enough any more. The Liaison Committee decides on two or three Departments whose spending will be rubber stamped. We will have to spend weeks, if not months, resolving that, and the Procedure Committee will have a big job when it comes to supply and estimates procedures.

We object to this measure on three principles: it is making us second class; it politicises the office of the Speaker; and because of the new provisions and the legislative guddle that will be created. This is probably the one issue that will drive the demand for Scottish independence. I have heard some hon. Members say that it will save the Union, but this is not saving the Union—what we are doing in the House is creating division. If the Government want a solution, they must do the work and create an English Parliament—that is the way to proceed with such matters. This measure, and the mess, the bourach, the dog’s breakfast of these proposals, will only help me and my hon. Friends, damage the Government’s cause, and divide the House. The Government should take the proposals away, think again, and come back with something that it is sensible for the House to consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I did not have it in mind to make any such statement on Monday. I am aware that there is a relative urgency about these matters, and before long there will be a practical requirement to address cases that will arise under the revised arrangements. If such matters are to be addressed by me and others, and if there is an implication for the House as a whole, the necessary administration will need to be put in place.

It is not immediately obvious to me that the matter is so urgent that it requires a statement to the House on Monday. It may be that this issue is what we in the Speaker’s office call UIMOM—urgent in mind of Member—and that is not necessarily the same as being urgent for the House on Monday. However, if on the basis of further and better advice I decide that the matter is urgent for Monday, I will do my duty—of that the shadow Leader of the House need be in no doubt.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This matter may be urgent because future business contains two pieces of legislation and matters for consideration that may be subject to the EVEL procedure. Will there be guidance for Members on how we approach the Divisions if certification is to be put in place? The House needs to know and be entirely clearly about how this will work.

[Mr Speaker]

Again, thinking on my feet I would say that such guidance as is necessary to facilitate Members in the House and ensure that what they are expected to do is intelligible to them, shall be provided. Whether it will be necessary for written guidance to be provided, or whether oral guidance from the Chair can be issued on the appropriate occasions, remains to be seen. I make that latter point not least because there was an obvious example of that at the start of today’s proceedings on these matters. I provided oral guidance to the House because I thought it would be helpful to Members to have an idea in advance about the order of proceedings and the choreography of the occasion. Advice might be written or it might be oral, but I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be unguided when in need.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Michael Meacher, who died today. We seem to be in the business just now of losing a number of people who were giants of this House in the 1970s and 1980s. We wish to make sure he will be remembered as an assiduous and hard-working Member of Parliament.

Let me say at the outset that we have no issue at all with the establishment of a Committee on human rights: this House should of course have a Committee on human rights. It will have a lot of important work to do, some of which has been mentioned by the Minister. We want a Committee on human rights to be established as soon as possible. It has important business to take care of, and we support its establishment. I do not have a problem with the proposed members on the Order Paper. I am sure they will be assiduous members and work to the best of their abilities to ensure that the Committee carries out its functions. I do not even have a problem with this being a Joint Committee, although I am perplexed as to why the unelected House down the road is being given parity with elected Members—those of us who bother to go to our constituents to seek a mandate to serve in the House. Why are the unelected Members, who represent absolutely nobody, being given equal membership with the elected Members who represent real constituents the length and breadth of the United Kingdom?

No, my objection to the motion is the fact that the third party of the United Kingdom has no place on the Committee. That has never happened before. In the last Parliament, how many people from the third party were on the Committee? Two. There were two Liberals on it, one from this House and one from the unelected place down the road. We have made great progress, as the third party, in this House. We are on practically every institution in the House. I have just come from the Speaker’s Commission on the Electoral Commission. We have served on all these Committees assiduously as hard-working Members. We are on practically every single Committee of the House. We even get to chair some of them—I chair one.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I do not recollect the hon. Gentleman’s party opposing the Committee’s being a Joint Committee in the last Parliament. None the less, in the last Parliament the Liberal Democrats polled 23% of the popular vote, whereas his party polled 4% across the whole UK. Is that not the difference?

[Pete Wishart]

This is astounding. My party supports proportional representation. I am pretty certain the hon. Gentleman does not. We operate under the electoral system designed for this place, and it is called first past the post. We won 56 of 59 seats in Scotland, and we are the third party of the UK, in terms of membership of the House and party membership across the UK.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

Is this not a preposterous argument, given that all Divisions in the House are based on membership of the House, not the vote in the country? Otherwise, Committee membership could be very different. The Conservative party got a lot less than 50% of the vote in the UK, yet has the majority of members on the Committee.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot understand it. We are allowed on practically every institution and Committee of the House, and we are prepared to serve assiduously on them. We want to be part of this Committee. We have something to contribute. Why are we being excluded? Why is the House happy with our exclusion?

[Dr Coffey]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady explain?

[Dr Coffey]

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the second Opposition party in the last Parliament was the Democratic Unionist party, because the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. As for the Committee, this House gets six members and the other place has six. He will be aware that when Committees get to seven or above, that is when the second Opposition party gains a seat.

[Pete Wishart]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, but here is an obvious solution: why not change the rules? Why are we bound to having parity with the unelected, absurd House down there, which represents absolutely nobody? She represents a constituency, and I represent a constituency. We represent real people and have an interest in a Committee of this place; they represent absolutely nobody. It is an absurd and ridiculous institution that should have no parity with this House.

There are 12 places on this Committee. There are six Conservative Members and four Labour Members. Who is next? There is one Liberal Democrat and one Cross Bencher. Now, we have just had an election, and the Liberal Democrats, roundly thrashed and rejected by the vast majority of the country, were left with a rump of eight MPs. Yet the Liberal Democrats have been given a place on this Committee, ahead of the third party of the United Kingdom—the Scottish National party with a 56-seat victory in the last election. How can that possibly be right?

There is even a Cross Bencher on the Joint Committee. I do not even know what Cross Benchers do. I think they are somehow supposed to be neutral or arbitrary, and are appointed on the basis of the greatness and goodness they bring, but why is a Cross Bencher ahead of directly elected Members from the third party of this House? I ask again, how can this possibly be right?

What really gets me about this affair is that this Committee is vitally important. Mr Speaker, I know that you take a keen interest in the working of the Joint Committee. It exists to scrutinise Government Bills for compatibility with human rights, to scrutinise the Government’s response to judgments on human rights and, importantly, it looks for opportunities to enhance human rights across the United Kingdom. Surely this House wants the third party of the UK to play a part in that process. I simply cannot understand why it would not want that to happen.

[Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes a good case regarding the democratic outrage that the people of Scotland will feel at being excluded from discussion of a matter about which they feel extremely strongly. Is it not also the case that the proposal takes no account of a new situation—namely, that for first time in our history, the third party in this House does not, as a matter of political principle, seek representation in the other place? That puts us at a double disadvantage when it comes to Joint Committees of both Houses.

[Pete Wishart]

That is such a good point, and I am coming on to it. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding me that we do not take places in the House of Lords. If it is necessary to be an elected Lord to get on an important Committee of this House, where does that leave democracy in this country? How can people who have no democratic mandate—they have been elected by absolutely nobody—take precedence over elected Members of this House? We are being placed in a ridiculous and absurd situation. If the only way to get on the Committee is to take places in an unelected House of Lords, most people would regard that as an absurd situation.

[Mike Weir]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that it is actually worse than that? Only this week, it appears that the Government have been threatening to suspend the House of Lords because it did not want to accept what the Government wanted to do with tax credits. Now, however, the other place is more important than us when it comes to membership of this important Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

In establishing the background to, and context of, the present debate, it is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to say something about factors that he thinks might be informing—rightly or wrongly, in his judgment—the composition of the Committee. However, there is a difference between establishing the context and a tendency to dilate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to dilate on the matter of the Lords make-up of this Committee, or to theorise about the possible injurious effect on SNP chances of being on that Committee as a consequence of not taking up seats in the House of Lords. The matter with which the hon. Gentleman should be concerned is the Commons contribution to, and Commons Members of, this Joint Committee, which I think is quite sufficient for his eloquent dilation.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. All we want is to sit on this Committee. We want to play a meaningful role in the assessing and scrutinising of human rights. Apparently, the only way we can get on it is to take up places in the House of Lords.

[Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)]

Talking about Members of this House sitting on the Committee, it is interesting to note that there is no representation for the House of Commons’ third party. Given that the Human Rights Bill covers the whole of the United Kingdom, I would argue that it is critical for our party, elected en masse by the people of Scotland, to have a voice on this Committee.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is quite right: the Committee will have a huge amount of work to do. The Conservative Government are threatening to do away with the European convention on human rights—they are threatening to take us out of it—and now we shall not have an opportunity to scrutinise the issue in the Joint Committee.

Moreover—I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) will mention this in her speech—the human rights settlement is profoundly important to the devolution settlement in Scotland. It is built into the very mechanics of the Scottish Parliament. No Bill can be passed in the Scottish Parliament without reference to human rights, but no Scottish Member of the House of Commons is a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Indeed, it has no members from north of Derby.

[Mr Jackson]

I think that one would have to have a heart of stone not to feel for the hon. Gentleman. His selflessness on this occasion is quite touching. However, I am trying to follow his logic. Is he suggesting, notwithstanding what the Deputy Leader of the House has said, that we should suspend the Standing Orders specifically to ameliorate the effects of a policy decision by the Scottish National party not to play any part in representation in the House of Lords?

[Pete Wishart]

Let us look at the House of Commons membership of the Joint Committee. We have no representation as the third party in the House of Commons, although we are represented on practically every other Committee in the House. We have 56 of the 59 Scottish seats in Parliament, but no attempt has been made to reflect a geographical spread in securing membership of the Joint Committee.

Let me suggest a couple of ways in which we might be able to rectify the situation. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will listen carefully. She, or someone, will have to tell me why there must be parity with the House of Lords. The House of Lords has never been held in such contempt as it is now among the British people, who see it as nothing other than an affront to democracy and a repository for donors and cronies in the United Kingdom parties.

I need to know this, Mr Speaker. Why does the Joint Committee have to have six members from this House and six from that House? Surely we could come up with an arithmetical formulation that would allow an input from the Lords? I want to hear from them, because I think that they have a contribution to make. Why can we not have eight members from this House and nine members from that House, and cut the number from the House of Lords correspondingly? Is there anyone in the Chamber now—and I look to the Deputy Leader of the House—who can tell me why that cannot happen? Surely it is up to this House, as the predominant and the elected House, to set the rules and parameters for the Joint Committee.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that that is what is provided for by the Standing Orders currently in place. If we wish to change the Standing Orders, why do we not seek to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee? The Standing Orders are under our control, but we cannot change them tonight.

[Pete Wishart]

That is actually quite a reasonable suggestion from the hon. Gentleman, who, I know, studies these issues very closely and carefully. Why do we not change the Standing Orders? Will someone tell me why we cannot do that? Why is the third party in the United Kingdom excluded because of a binding commitment to the Standing Orders of the House? Let us change them. I am with the hon. Gentleman on that. If he tables a motion, he will have the support of members of the Scottish National party.

[Mike Weir]

May I point out that we shall debate a proposal to change the Standing Orders tomorrow—because of another thing that the Government wish to do—and that that was proposed even before it was referred to the Procedure Committee? It can be done: we can change Standing Orders.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right. We could change the Standing Orders at any time, and we shall be changing them tomorrow in order to diminish the rights of Scottish Members of Parliament. Within 24 hours, we shall find that our rights in the House have been diminished to second class—and we are being denied a place on the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

I am sure that the people of Scotland are observing what is happening down here, and the way in which Scottish Members of Parliament are being treated in this House. I am sure that they are reaching their own conclusions about what is being done to Scottish Members in this place. Just because we are the third party in the House and it is not the Liberals this time, it is apparently all right to exclude us—but it is not on, and I am pretty certain that the Scottish people are observing, very darkly, the way in which Scottish Members are being treated in this House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am a member of the Procedure Committee, and, if it would be helpful, I will take this matter up with the Committee. I will suggest to the Chairman that we produce a report, and that the SNP is represented on the Joint Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. We are starting to make progress—we are starting to get there now. What we are seeing from the hon. Gentleman is agreement that an injustice has been done. Would that be a fair characterisation? I am looking at hon. Members on the Treasury Bench, and they are thinking about that, and I think most of them are tentatively agreeing with that premise. What we have here is something that is unsuitable, unfair and inappropriate and which now needs to be resolved. We have already had a couple of suggestions for tackling this—and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his suggestion and ask him to just tell his Front Benchers to start supporting this, too.

I have no idea what Labour Front Benchers think about this, and I am certain one of them will make a contribution, but surely Labour would want us as colleagues on that Committee? Why do they want the Liberals on it, for goodness’ sake? Surely they are better with the third party in this House having a place on it.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

When I served on a Joint Committee considering a mental health Bill covering Wales, the representation from this House was 24—not 12—including me, and it was considered appropriate for someone from Wales to be on the Committee. That same principle should apply as far as Scotland is concerned in this case.

[Pete Wishart]

That is another helpful suggestion. I sense I am getting a bit of support. Would that be fair? I am looking at my Labour colleagues. No, we are not; well, what do we expect from Labour? At least the Conservatives are beginning to see there is something profoundly wrong with what is being proposed. I think the Labour Front Bench would rather have unelected Liberals on this Joint Committee than the third party of the United Kingdom.

[Mr Chope]

It is unfortunate that the SNP did not table an amendment to include one of its Members instead of one of the Labour representatives—that might have made for an interesting debate and vote afterwards. At the moment, however, the SNP proposal is to vote down this Committee proposal completely, which is surely absurd because it means the Joint Committee on Human Rights will not be established in good time.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to the intervention, it may benefit the House to know the factual position as I understand it, which is that it would have been perfectly possible for anybody to table an amendment to the list of names proposed, but an amendment beyond that would not have been in order, because other than in respect of the names it is not an amendable motion.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for that ruling, Mr Speaker, and clarification. It was also my understanding of the position.

Sensing a degree of support for what we are trying to do, I appeal to the Government not to put this to the House tonight, but to take it away and then come back. Let us have a look at this properly. They should come and speak to the SNP. We will propose a membership change. If necessary, the Government can get them in from down the road—get the unelected ones up, have a conversation with them, get an arrangement and agreement whereby the unelected donors and cronies could still have their places on the Joint Committee. We want to hear from them as some of them are very eminent—some of them are very good donors—and we want to hear their views, but should they have parity with this House? No, they should not. The public observe what goes on in this place with ever deeper cynicism. When they see unelected donors and cronies having parity with elected Members, they see something fundamentally rotten with our democracy.

Of course the third party should be on this Committee. Let us make sure that that happens. We must do whatever it takes. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take this motion away, and come back and speak to us. We will provide a name. Let us get this resolved and fixed. For the sake of democracy, let us get this sorted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joanna Cherry]

If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about such matters, he knows the route through which he can raise them. He knows that he can come and speak to us at any time to seek our view.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) has a point. I am looking at the membership of the Joint Committee and most of the members from this House are MPs from London and the south-east. Nobody from north of Derby is on it. The hon. Gentleman has a very good point; not only does it not include Scottish Members of Parliament, but it does not include anybody from Northern Ireland, Wales or the north of England. I ask my hon. and learned Friend how that could possibly be right.

[Joanna Cherry]

Indeed. One might almost think that we had rolled the clock back to 1745-46 and were not looking at anybody in the United Kingdom from north of Derby.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) makes a good point. It is disrespectful to have nobody representing the north of Ireland or, indeed, Wales on the Committee, but I am here as an elected representative of Scotland and I will speak for my constituents and the people of Scotland, and he can speak for his constituents and the people of Northern Ireland.

In every single debate on human rights that has taken place in this House and in Westminster Hall since the election, the Scottish National party has made a major contribution. Our First Minister has been outspoken in her determinedness to preserve human rights and the Human Rights Act not just for Scotland, but for everybody in the UK. She is on the record as saying that the Scottish Government would not do a deal with the UK Government to preserve the Human Rights Act for Scotland only. So let us have a little reciprocal good will from the remaining Labour Members.

It is a travesty of democracy and of this so-called equal Union for there to be no Scottish MP on the Committee. But it is an insult not just to those of us here. The most important point is that it is an insult to the Scottish electorate. If this is not put right, Members in this House should think very seriously about the message that they will be sending out the people who live in Scotland: “We don’t care what your elected representatives think about human rights. Our think-tank, our engine room on human rights, will exclude all representatives of the Scottish electorate.” Respect? I think not.

Question put.

The Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 28 October (Standing Order No. 41A).

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 15th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

First, I thank my hon. Friend and all the members of the Procedure Committee. What I sought to do after the debates in the summer was respond to the requests of the House. We provided additional debating time and time for the Committee to look at these issues. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the collaborative way in which he has worked with me. He is bringing forward new ideas challenging the proposals, but it has been a productive discussion. I can tell the House today that I have already taken on board some of the recommendations to me in the letter that came from the Committee in September, and I shall be reading the report very carefully when it arrives on my desk tomorrow.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. May I too pay tribute to Geoffrey Howe and Denis Healey? I grew up in the 1970s when they were the absolute giants of this House, and many of us of that generation will remember them very fondly. I also thank the shadow Leader of the House for the three magnificent plaques we now have in the House. They are a fantastic addition.

We are back here after what is called the “conference recess”, but the third party of the United Kingdom is starting its conference today, which makes a mockery of the concept of the conference recess. Mr Speaker, I think that you, the Leader of the House and other interested parties should look long and hard at how we are organising the recesses over the summer period. That would find great support throughout the House.

Of course, we found out several things of course during the conference recess, some of them almost bizarre and utterly unmentionable, including the fact that the Leader of the House, probably in what is not a bizarre intervention, may possibly be seeking the leadership of the Conservative party. Apparently he will be the unity candidate for the Eurosceptics. I wish him good luck in that endeavour.

Next week we conclude the sorry saga of English votes for English laws. Over the past few months the Leader of the House has managed to convince absolutely no one, outwith the ranks of the Conservative party. The idea is opposed by every party in this House. It is opposed by every single legislative Assembly and Parliament in the whole of the UK. It is even opposed by the unelected cronies and donors from down the corridor, and the Leader of the House knows very well the views of Scottish MPs on this. I just wish he would have a quiet word with the leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson. Support for the Scottish Conservatives stands at about 12% in the opinion polls at present, and once they make Scottish MPs second-class MPs we can expect it to fall still further.

Yesterday, in points of order following Prime Minister’s questions, some very disturbing points were made on the ruling of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal on the Wilson doctrine. Several of us were incredulous at what was said: that it has no legal force and is nothing other than an ambiguous political statement, directly contradicting what the Prime Minister said on this issue only a few weeks ago. We absolutely require an urgent debate on this issue. I hope the Leader of the House will support any such initiative so that this is brought to the Floor of the House and we can hear from the Prime Minister exactly what he meant when he made that statement a few short weeks ago. We must approach this in a spirit of honesty, openness and transparency. I hope the whole House will support any initiative to ensure we get a debate on the Wilson doctrine and the worrying allegations that MPs are being spied on.

Lastly, the Government got their fiscal charter through last night. Congratulations to the Conservatives for once again, through their measures, picking on the poorest and most marginal and vulnerable in our community. Last night we saw three positions: the Conservatives’ position, backing the fiscal charter; the SNP position, opposing it with most of the Labour party supporting us; and there was a rebellious abstention, which I have never heard of in this House. I say to the Leader of the House and the Labour party that they will find those on the SNP Benches resolute in the objective of opposing the Tories. We hope the Labour party will unite and join us in that mission.

[Chris Grayling]

May I start by thanking the hon. Gentleman for his comments about Denis Healey and Geoffrey Howe and telling him how much we all regret keeping him away from his conference today? I am sure that he will be jumping on a train as soon as business questions are over and heading off to have a great time with his delegate colleagues.

The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of English votes for English laws. I must gently chide him on the way in which he and his party are approaching this matter. They keep coming up with the line that they will be excluded from certain votes as a result of the proposal. He knows, and I know, that that is not the case. What is more, he knows that I would not do that to him anyway. Although we spar across the Chamber, I have a great regard for him and we get on very well. Perhaps one day we will get to walk through the Division Lobby together—I know this is theoretical; it has not happened yet—and I would not dream of taking that opportunity away from either of us. Let me assure him again that on no occasion will he be excluded from a vote that he is currently able to take part in in this Chamber. That is really important for both of us and for our relationship.

The hon. Gentleman made a more serious point about the ruling in the court case yesterday. I remind him that two clear messages emerged from that case. First, the case was not successful; the court upheld the current situation. Secondly, it was made clear that all the activity was within the law. As Leader of the House, I take these issues very seriously and I would not be happy with the House being treated inappropriately. My ministerial colleagues and I will be keeping a careful watch over the matter.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the fiscal charter. Again I pay tribute to him: he is right to say that over the past few weeks the Scottish National party has formed a united front, voted consistently and behaved as one. He is also right to point out that the same cannot exactly be said of the Labour party. After last night, it is difficult to see where Labour is going. I am not sure what its policies are now, or whether a leadership coup is being planned for the near future. Of course, the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), has a track record in that regard. He was the person who pulled the trigger when Tony Blair went, and he was instrumental in pushing Gordon Brown out. Maybe it will be third time lucky—or unlucky, depending on where in the House you are sitting.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend. I know that the Secretary of State for Transport has taken a lot of interest in that subject. The issue involves not just that point, but the quality of repairs. We as a House should always say to utility companies that when they dig up a road, we expect them to do a decent job of repairing it. Nine times out of 10 when our roads develop potholes and problems with the surface, it is where a utility company has passed by and not done a decent enough job of repairing it. They have a duty to help to keep this country moving, but they do not always fulfil it.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for outlining the business for when we return from the recess. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is one of the few constants in the great Labour revolution of 2015. My colleagues and I on the Scottish National party Benches look forward to working with him in getting rid of Trident as early as possible and in our resolute opposition to Tory austerity.

We are going on recess again today, and we are only just back! This recess is called the conference recess. Apparently, it is designed to accommodate the conferences of the three main UK parties, but we actually return in the week when the third party has its conference. We are disrupting the work of this House to accommodate eight Liberal Democrats. I get the sense that we could just about muddle through without the contributions of those hon. Members, if they felt that they had to be at their conference. May we look at the ridiculous conference recess and decide that we should instead be in this House, addressing our many key responsibilities? Let us get rid of this silly conference recess.

Tomorrow it will be one year since the independence referendum. I am surprised that there is to be nothing in this House to mark that defining moment in UK politics. That experience certainly changed Scotland, if not the UK, for ever. Perhaps when we come back, we could have a State of the Union debate. I and my hon. Friends are in the Union-ending business, but we seem to have been joined in that mission by the Conservative Government. They seem to be doing absolutely everything they can to throw us out the door—making us second-class Members in this House and rejecting any amendment to the Scotland Bill. Perhaps we could have such a debate, so that the Scottish public can observe the Conservatives in action. Just about 50% of them are for independence. If they could listen to what the Conservatives are suggesting, perhaps we could get it up to 60%.

You will have noted, Mr Speaker, that we objected to the setting up of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That is not because we have any issue with having a Committee on human rights, but we do have every issue with the membership of the Committee. Four Conservative and two Labour Members from this House will be joined by six Members from the House of cronors down at the bottom of the corridor. I do not know why, on such an important issue, there should be parity between that unelected House and this House. Within that Joint Committee we will find a Liberal, who comes from a party that has been overwhelmingly rejected, and an unelected Cross Bencher. Will the Leader of the House go away, have a think about the motion and ensure that the third party of the United Kingdom is included in what is such an important Joint Committee?

Lastly, as we go on the conference recess, the Leader of the House needs to promise that if there are any developments in the great international issues, such as the refugee crisis and the Conservatives’ desire to push us further towards conflict in Syria, he will recall this House, even if it might disrupt the eight Liberal Democrats.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that each of the party conferences could perfectly well take place over a weekend—something that some of us have long argued should happen. However, there will be a change of the kind that he wants only if there is consensus across the House.

Serjeant at Arms

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the other tributes to Lawrence. SNP Members thank him for the services he has fulfilled as Serjeant at Arms. He has discharged his responsibilities in a courteous, good natured and thoroughly professional way, to the extent that he has become good friends with many Members across the House. My colleagues in particular want to express their gratitude for the way in which he has accommodated them as new Members.

Others have referred to the 600-year tradition of the role of Serjeant at Arms. Lawrence was there when Fatboy Slim famously appeared on the Terrace. He was also there for a performance by MP4 when we played to celebrate the 600th anniversary of the role of Serjeant at Arms. Serjeants at Arms from all over the Commonwealth were present that evening to celebrate, and who was at the front? I would not say he was rocking his funky stuff, but it was Lawrence and he certainly appreciated that lovely evening.

We wish Lawrence all the best for the future. I know he will be a regular visitor to the House of Commons as the years go by. I never learned whether he could actually use the sword he wielded by his side, but perhaps he could take up sword lessons and come back to show us how it should be wielded and how the stockings should be put on. We wish him all the best.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s constituent and to all those who have served our country with such distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan, many of whom suffered dreadful injuries. It is right and proper, and the duty of this country, to make sure that we look after them. The circumstances that my hon. Friend has described are very difficult ones, because we have tight rules in the NHS on these matters. However, my colleagues in the Department of Health are well aware of the importance of this issue and they are giving it careful consideration.

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

I also thank the Leader of the House for providing the business for next week. I, too, am unsure whether to pay a premature tribute to the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle). We do not yet know whether she is going to be leading her party, whether she will be sitting on the Front Bench or the Back Benches, or whether she will be in some kind of Social Democratic party mark II. I have very much enjoyed working with her, and I hope that she manages to retain her place on the Front Bench. As we watch the results of the Labour leadership contest this week, however, let us remember never to ask the Labour party to organise an over-indulgent evening on the premises of an alcohol beverage manufacturer.

It is good to see that the Leader of the House has regained his usual cheerful disposition, following his irritable and bad-tempered performance in the Procedure Committee yesterday, in which he shouted down individual Members and challenged others to bar-room brawls. His incredible behaviour included the ridiculous assertion that there was no such thing as Barnett consequentials, contrary to what everyone else says. It is pretty clear that the Leader of the House is not a unifying character, but somehow he has managed to unite every single party in the House—he has even managed to unite the House of Lords—against his mad plans for English votes for English laws. We are hearing expert witnesses telling him how absurd some of those plans are, but according to him everybody else is wrong, and he is right. In the light of what he has heard, will he now review those plans and ensure that they do not come back to this House in their current condition?

That brings us on to friends in the House of Lords. Over the recess, we acquired 41 brand new parliamentarians, who will now have a role in scrutinising and initiating our legislation, and what a motley crew they are too—former party donors, former apparatchiks, former MPs, and people who seem only to have qualified for a place because they can give significant sums of money to one of the major Westminster and UK parties. What an absolutely ridiculous thing. The only plan that this Government have for the House of Lords, which has become so discredited in the eyes of the people, is to increase that bloated place even further, with even more new Members. That is the only plan that this Conservative Government have for that absurd and ridiculous circus down the corridor.

The House has been at its best this week in discussing the refugee crisis. The way in which these debates have been conducted has been a credit to the House. The only issue that I have with the way in which things have transpired was the unfortunate statement from the Prime Minister on Monday. A common feature of this Government, especially with the Prime Minister’s statements, is this bundling together of a number of different issues. I do not know what counter-terrorism had to do with the refugee crisis. I think the British public expected us to focus exclusively on the refugee crisis, and they wanted to hear leadership from the Prime Minister, which they did not get. What they got was a counter-terrorist statement with a bit on refugees. Can we ensure that such a thing does not happen again? The British public expect better than that. Will the Leader of the House take a look at that and vow to come back on important and significant issues such as the refugee crisis and ensure that they are not bundled together with other matters? In that way, the British public will get what they deserve and require, which is a statement on issues that concern them.

[Chris Grayling]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to the House with his usual understated performance. He tends to return to the same issue week after week. I know that the Scottish National party has come to this place wanting to whip up a great row between England and Scotland. There is no doubt that it will do that week after week. Once again I say to him that our proposals on English votes for English laws are measured and sensible. They provide fairness in our devolution settlement. It is not realistic to say that we will provide much more devolution to the people of Scotland, which we are doing, but that England will have no part of it. Our measures are balanced, sensible, proportionate and fair, and we will bring them before this House shortly and I am confident that the House will back them.

On the House of Lords—another issue that the hon. Gentleman returns to week after week—the reality is that the new appointments contain people whose views we wish to hear. I am talking about disability campaigners and senior business people. The House of Lords has a vast wealth of expertise. It contains people who bring to the law-making process in this building experience of all aspects of our national life. I know that the Scottish National party does not like it, but actually those people add a quality to debate that is immensely valuable to our law-making process.

The hon. Gentleman talked about Prime Minister’s statements. We have just had a recess. There were a number of important issues to discuss. The Prime Minister was in this House for two and a quarter hours answering questions. In what world is that not sufficient? We have a Prime Minister who has come into this House to take questions on a variety of related issues. He is doing the job that we expect him to do. Although I absolutely respect and like the hon. Gentleman, who has a wonderful style in this Chamber, he was still talking a lot of nonsense.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

We are very clear that British taxpayers’ money will not be put on the line as part of the support for Greece. We have huge sympathy with the plight faced by the Greek Government and their people. It is right and proper that action is taken within the eurozone to try to support them, but the reality is that this is a problem for the eurozone and within the eurozone. Britain is not part of the eurozone and we do not want to be part of the eurozone. It is for the taxpayers of the eurozone, not the taxpayers of this country, to put their money on the line to support this bail-out.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I sincerely hope that it lasts a bit longer than last week’s business and that it will not be hastily rearranged on the back of a point of order, as happened this week.

It seems as though the Scottish National party now has almost a magical omnipotent power. As soon as we announce our intention to exercise our democratic rights in the House and vote on a measure announced in the business statement, it miraculously disappears. Such is this omnipotence that we are seemingly credited for the election result in England, the near-death of the Liberal Democrats and the crisis in Labour, and now we are the saviours of the English foxes.

I am going to try my arm and see whether I can test that omnipotence a little further. I announce to the Leader of the House that the Scottish National party fully intends to vote on the Welfare Reform and Work Bill. Let us see whether we can get that miraculously to disappear and whether we can do the job of protecting the poor, the most marginal and the vulnerable in society from the callous Bill that the Tories intend to introduce. We cannot leave that to the Labour party. I have no idea what Labour Members will do on Monday, but I hope that they join us in the Lobby and vote against this callous Bill. When I look round at my honourable colleagues in the Labour party I have my doubts, but I hope they do the right thing.

The Leader of the House does not like me referring constantly to the Scotland Bill, but he will have to indulge me a little more. This week the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he is in a mood to accept some amendments, which is good news for my hon. Friends given that we have had four days of debate on the Bill and nothing has been accepted. I appeal to the Leader of the House for sufficient time to discuss the remaining stages of the Bill, so that amendments are debated by elected Members of this House and none are taken to the unelected, bloated Chamber up there, where there are no representatives of the Scottish National party. The amendments must be discussed under the full glare of the elected representatives of the Scottish people. Can the right hon. Gentleman assure me that we will get sufficient time to debate those issues properly?

Finally, as is customary as we head towards the recess, may I wish you, Mr Speaker, an enjoyable summer recess? I also wish the staff of the House an enjoyable recess, and on behalf of all new SNP Members—this is practically a new parliamentary group—let me say that the kindness and good grace shown by the staff of the House in assisting all our new Members has been recognised by us all. I also wish the Leader of the House an enjoyable summer recess. He has been kind and courteous to us in our new enhanced position here, and I wish him all the best for the recess. I hope he comes back, drops his EVEL plans, and I am sure we will get on just famously.

[Chris Grayling]

Let me reciprocate and say that although we will have lively debates across the Floor of the House, I have found initial relations between myself, my colleagues and the new SNP Members at Westminster to be pleasant and congenial. I return the hon. Gentleman’s wishes and I hope that all SNP Members—indeed, all Members of the House—have a pleasant recess. Having gone through an election period when everybody works immensely hard, although lots of us have constituency work during the summer, I think that everybody deserves a short break as well. I wish everybody the best for the summer recess.

Perhaps over the summer, as the hon. Gentleman relaxes on the beach or wherever he is, he might consider whether he really wants to pursue the policy of reversing what he rightly said when he gave evidence to the McKay commission about the need for the Scottish National party to stay outside matters that do not affect it. That has been a policy of principle for the SNP over many years, and it is a shame that he has walked away from that. If anybody is U-turning at the moment, it is him. He is a man of principle, and I am sure that he will reflect again and perhaps take a different approach in the future.

I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman about the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, because I suspect that the Scottish National party’s view on that will not change many opinions on the Government Benches. This is a Bill on behalf of working people, and I am certain that it commands support among working people in Scotland who—like everyone else in the country—want a welfare system that is fair, and also fair to those who pay for it. That is what the Bill will do.

On the Scotland Bill, I say simply that there will be a further day of debate in the House and the conclusion of proceedings. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to table amendments and debate them with the Scottish Secretary, he will of course have the chance to do so as normal.

English Votes for English Laws

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Davis]

I am afraid that I could not disagree more. The simple truth is that we have made it down the centuries with an unwritten constitution that has existed because of the respect given to it on both sides of the House. That has fragmented in the past decade or two. I do not want to have a circumstance where the rules of operation adversely affect the democratic rights of our citizens. By the way, we have been talking all the time about the democratic rights, or standards, of MPs and whether we have one or two classes of MP, but what matters is that we have one class of citizen. I do not want that to be subject to the vagaries of any future Government.

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

rose—

[Mr Davis]

I wanted to keep this brief, but I will of course give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has picked up on the issue of legal challenge. The reason we are having Speaker certification as opposed to legislation is to put the matter beyond legal challenge, so there will be no opportunity for the citizens he describes to challenge decisions that are made in this House. Surely he, as someone who takes an interest in this, must think that that is thoroughly wrong.

[Mr Davis]

It is wrong, for the reasons I described. As the hon. Gentleman well knows, I take the view that Governments should be subject to the law of the land and subject to courts. I am less happy with the idea that the courts could rewrite our constitution in a way that we do not see fit.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What a week it has been. It is hard to believe that we were all here, in practically the same places, just over a week ago considering this very issue, when the Leader of the House was forced to come to the Chamber to explain his position in a Standing Order No. 24 debate. He quickly withdrew the proposed Standing Orders that evening and, after bravely prevaricating and heroically retreating, he is back here offering practically nothing new.

I had a bit of hope last week when the Leader of the House withdrew his initial Standing Orders. I thought that we might make some progress and was hopeful that we could come back in a reasonable frame of mind to move forward. However, I am thoroughly disappointed at the way the Leader of the House has come back here. There is basically no change to the Standing Orders. All he has done is to offer a bit of clarification about departmental spending and the estimates, which we already knew about. He has not addressed the issues that concern us, such as the Barnett consequentials and long-term planning when it comes to legislation. He has not addressed the points that my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made about tuition fees and the long-term impact of such issues year on year.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

The last time we debated these matters in the House, the hon. Gentleman said very clearly—I believe that the Leader of the House quoted him—that we should trust the SNP not to vote on English matters. However, this week there was a statement about the changes to the Hunting Act 2004, which your leader in Scotland had identified as an English-only matter. The hon. Gentleman asked us to trust the SNP. How does that position stand now?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

The hon. Lady should speak through the Chair. She was directing her questions to me, when she wanted to address them to the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

I am almost grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that issue. I wondered how long I would be on my feet before someone mentioned the non-existent foxhunting debate, which was scheduled to happen but disappeared because the Government wanted to change the rules before they had the debate. What I said last week was that if something is in the Scottish interest, we will take an interest in it. We could not have garnered any more interest in foxhunting. I had hundreds if not thousands of requests from my constituents to come to the unitary UK Parliament to express their concerns on the issue. I make no apologies for saying that I would have voted proudly on that issue to represent my constituents’ interests.

[Mr Grieve]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman had many expressions of interest, but I receive many expressions of interest from my constituents about matters in Scotland. I am a member of the John Muir Trust and I get frequent letters from other members of the trust who live in England, expressing their concern about the Scottish Government’s actions in respect of wind farms on wild land, but I have to accept that that matter is devolved to Scotland. I say sincerely to the hon. Gentleman that I do not find his argument very credible.

[Pete Wishart]

We heard last week and we have heard in the run-up to this debate that there is massive unhappiness in this House about who is voting on whose issues. I want to come on to our concerns and difficulties. I hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but we are profoundly annoyed and upset that he and all the other English Members are voting down things that have been agreed in the Scottish Parliament and that are wanted by every party in the Scottish Parliament. Scotland sent 56 of us here and we are profoundly disappointed in the right hon. and learned Gentleman for voting those things down. It seems as though there are English votes for English laws, but also English votes for Scottish laws. When it came to foxhunting, we took the view that there was concern and interest among our constituents. We are saying to Government Members, this cannot go on.

[Mr Grieve]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman again.

The situation cannot go on whereby English Members continually and consistently vote down the expressed desires of Scottish Members of Parliament, with no consequences or response. That is why we have taken an interest. I want to deal with foxhunting, because I imagine that a few other comments will be made about it.

[Dr Philippa Whitford]

Our constituents have commented that during Scotland Bill debates, the Chamber has been almost empty apart from us, but we have been swamped by hundreds of Members voting against us in the evening.

[Dr Whitford]

There have been only half a dozen people on the Government Benches during debates that are crucial for Scotland.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. I remember coming into the Chamber and seeing no Conservative Back Benchers present during Scotland Bill debates. There was one Parliamentary Private Secretary, but no Back Benchers. That shows the interest they took in our legislation. All of a sudden, when we take an interest in something that is considered to be English-only, there is fury. The proposal is withdrawn in a hurry, to be put back once the Government have changed the rules about how they deal with such matters.

[Chris Grayling]

It is worth setting on the record for the House that I am disappointed that Labour and SNP Members clearly have not read the detail of the proposals. These proposals would not have affected the debate on hunting, so will the hon. Gentleman please stop suggesting that they would?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think I suggested that. I accept that. Why, therefore, was the vote on foxhunting withdrawn? All of a sudden the Scottish National party indicated that it would be taking an interest in it and the proposals were withdrawn. The Government have to win the argument; they cannot just decide that because the Scottish National party has decided to do something, that is it—been and gone. The Government have to win the argument in the House and it was shameful that they withdraw the proposals. They took us all the way to the top of the hill, prompting such great interest from our constituents, and now the proposals have been withdrawn.

[Wayne David]

I am grateful to my colleague for giving way on the question who takes an interest in these matters and who is present today. Does he agree that it is notable that so few English Members are present to debate English-only laws?

[Pete Wishart]

I am looking round the Chamber and I see the usual suspects—those who take a real and deep interest in these matters—but I expected the Chamber to be full. Apparently, this was one of the most important issues during the election campaign. English votes for English laws was the issue that most upset the Conservatives’ English constituents in the general election campaign, and the slogan was, “100 days to deliver English votes for English laws”.

[Sir William Cash]

I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s speeches. He has a rather compelling manner. Would he similarly object were we to propose—for example, in relation to some power that had been devolved to the Scottish Parliament—that we should insist on going to Scotland, taking part in the debates there and voting accordingly?

[Pete Wishart]

That suggests the tantalising picture of the hon. Gentleman rushing up to the barricades at the Scottish Parliament, demanding his say on devolved Scottish matters. I would pay to see that. It would be great fun, and I encourage him to think about doing just that.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

May I take my hon. Friend back to the Barnett consequentials issue, as that is our key concern, which the revised Standing Orders unfortunately fail to address? This is not so much about the annual financial estimates. The real issue arises when a substantial policy change in devolved areas impacts on funding—the block grants. If Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish MPs lose the ability to vote on them, they lose the ability to influence their own block grants. That is the key issue that needs to be addressed.

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is spot on. That is our concern and the major issue that we still have with the revised Standing Orders. Decisions made in this House will affect the budgets of our nations and the public services that our constituents enjoy. For us to be locked out of the process is disgraceful. The fact that these mad plans have come back today has done nothing to satisfy our concerns.

There are still to be two classes of Members of Parliament. The Speaker will be placed in the most pernicious political position and will have to determine whether I and my hon. Friends can take part in a debate that might have massive consequences for my constituents. We still have not resolved any of the financial issues—we are not even close to doing so—and these proposals will progress without a proper debate and without proper scrutiny. It is shameful, the way that the Government have acted.

[Sir William Cash]

rose—

[Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Con)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I will not give way again to the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but I will give way to the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), who has been patient.

[Robert Jenrick]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I am enjoying the performance. I have constituents from Newark amateur operatic society in the Gallery, and the hon. Gentleman is giving what would no doubt be one of their finer performances. Will he acknowledge that he—or at least his party—has changed position with pretty shameless hypocrisy? Let me remind him of a comment that the right hon. Member for Gordon (Alex Salmond) made to a magazine in 2008:

“If you’re asking me should people in England be able to run their own health service or education system, my answer is yes. They should be able to do it without the bossy interference of Scots Labour MPs.”

Surely that has Barnett consequentials.

[Pete Wishart]

I am delighted at the praise being heaped on me by English Conservative Members. It is not necessary, but I am grateful for it. I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s point because it is important, and I will suggest a solution that I am almost certain will not satisfy him. It is called, “Doing it yourself.” It is about getting a Parliament and deciding all those things.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have already given way to the hon. Lady.

That was the most important issue for Conservative Members. Remember all the things that were said before the general election—the “jockalypse”, and the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in the pocket of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. They painted all those fears of mad Scottish nationalists coming down here and voting on their precious Bills, stealing their votes. That was what was presented. Then we come down here, and the first thing we do is get involved in this total and utter mess, this guddle, this disaster—I cannot even call it a dog’s breakfast as that would show disrespect to our canine friends’ favourite morning meal. It is such a mess and disaster. So we are where we are; we are back with this issue again and we must consider how to make some progress.

Let us get back to the fundamentals. Why are we doing this? I have detected two reasons from Conservative Members. The first is that they feel that it is unfair to have these nasty Scottish Members coming down and voting on their precious legislation—poor souls! They are only 85% of the membership of this House, and there has hardly ever been an issue where we have actually won a vote on the basis of Scottish issues. I cannot think of an example from the 14 years that I have been in the House. Poor guys. What a shame. All these Scottish Members voting on their poor legislation—I will come on to that.

The other point that I find really funny is that Conservative Members are doing this to save the Union. That is the killer. I heard several English Members on the radio today saying once again that they are doing this “to save the Union”. You know me, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am not in the Union-saving business; I am in the Union-ending business. If Conservative Members wanted to design a plan to ensure that—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Natascha Engel)]

Order. There are too many conservations going on besides the speaker, so let us keep them to a minimum. Members may intervene if they want to, but let us hear what Pete Wishart has to say.

[Pete Wishart]

As I said, I am in the Union-ending business. That is my job and that is what I believe in. Even I, however, could not conceive of a plan that would progress my vision against that of Conservative Members. Imagine what we have seen in the past few weeks: “Scotland stay with us. Scotland we love you. You are part of the family of nations. Don’t leave us! You are valued Members of this House.” What happens the minute we get to this place? We are given second-class status.

[Chris Grayling]

I am always very entertained by the hon. Gentleman’s performance. I imagine that he was a superb showman in his time. Will he explain one conundrum? He says that if this House votes on an English-only matter, that will also affect Scotland so Scottish MPs should be able to vote. He then says that it is okay to have an English Parliament voting on those same issues when no Scottish MPs are even present. How does that work? How is that possibly consistent?

[Pete Wishart]

It is almost difficult to try to explain ever so gently to the Leader of the House how it works. It is a solution that works across the world and it is called federalism. It is where we do our thing and English MPs do theirs. I know they are unhappy—I hear it again and again—and so we then come together in this Parliament, where we all have the same rights and same status. What is happening now is the creation of a quasi-English Parliament within the unitary Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is that solution that is totally unacceptable, gives us a second-class status and stops us being able effectively to represent our constituents. It is not on.

[Graham Stuart]

The power of the hon. Gentleman’s performance—I agree with colleagues that it is first class—is matched only, I think, by the fundamental dishonesty of the message. He knows that simply providing the simple consent of English Members of Parliament—with no Executive, no English Parliament—to measures going through this place means that his fox has been shot. He hoped for measures that would allow him genuinely to say that he and his colleagues were second-class MPs, but they will not be. They will be voting on everything, and we will simply have to give consent, too. He knows that that is right and he hates it.

[Pete Wishart]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the explanation of what will happen as shown in the wonderful graphic displayed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon. This is great, isn’t it? It is like the line-up to the battle of Bannockburn—all we need is William Wallace in the middle to go over the edge. It is just ridiculous. I think it was the Conservative Chair of the Procedure Committee who identified that there are another four stages to parliamentary Bills in all this—God knows how we will get through a parliamentary Session with all the extra work that will have to be done.

We are excluded from two sections of the procedure and then we are back in and out. I am having difficulty understanding. I know that my right hon. Friend is better at looking at these things than I am, and he may be able to come to terms with this smorgasbord of traffic lights. The illustration shows that the second-class Members on the SNP Benches will not be able to participate in the extra Grand Committee stage for England. I do not know whether the Serjeant at Arms is going to get his little sword out and stop us coming in. I am not sure how will we be barred from participating. If we were to intervene or to try to say anything, would we be named or thrown out? These are some of the absurdities that are part of this dog’s breakfast of a proposal.

[Alex Salmond]

From experience, I can assure my hon. Friend that the Chair of a Committee does not have the power to name or throw out any Member.

[Pete Wishart]

I still do not know how any of this will be enforced.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is not one of the new Members of his party and he will know perfectly well that any Member can turn up in any Committee of this House and speak. It is simply a question of who votes. We will be delighted to have him sitting there when the English Grand Committee sits and even to have him intervene; he will just not be able to vote.

[Pete Wishart]

That is news to me. I was under the impression that we were to be excluded from the English part of the procedure. That will be fantastic—I will invite all my hon. Friends along to the debates that we will be excluded from voting on.

That situation is simply part of the absurdity. I was impressed by the shadow Leader of the House’s speech in which she quite rightly pointed out some of the other absurdities. Some stuff strikes me as really odd. Why are the Lords not excluded? I have some five peers in my constituency, and they will now have a greater role in some of this legislation than I will have as an elected Member.

We have an issue with the House of Lords, as some hon. Members may have realised recently. I do not think that the House of Lords has ever been held in such contempt by the Scottish people. The way the Lords imposed themselves on our democratic referendum was appalling and should not have happened. We see that place as nothing other than the repository of the donors and cronies of the UK parties, but those donors and cronies, who have never been elected, will have a say on parts of Bills that I and my hon. Friends do not. That is utterly absurd. Not only is it English iPads for English laws; it is English laws for English Lords. What we are hearing about just now includes some really weird things.

Enough is enough. Let us just get shot of this thing. We have talked about foxhunting, and I was grateful to the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) for her point. I think I explained why we have an interest in all this. We are doing what our constituents want. We have always said that we would stand up and represent them.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

A few times in the debate, the impression has been given that we somehow do not represent our constituents on certain issues. I and my colleagues will represent our constituents on any issue they choose to write to us about or bring to us. We might not be able to vote or legislate on devolved matters, but I will speak up for my constituents on any issue they choose to bring to me.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely—that is what people have voted for us to do. They have voted for us, in the same way as people have voted for English Members, to come down here to represent their interests, and that is exactly what we will do.

I loathe foxhunting—I think it is barbaric—and cruelty to animals wherever in the world I see it. I do not want any succour to be given to the Tories’ toff friends, dusting down their red coats, getting out their silly little bugles and lustily shouting “Tally ho!” in the mirror as they prepare to savage and ravage poor, defenceless foxes in the name of sport. That appals me.

[Sammy Wilson]

I would accept the hon. Gentleman’s argument if he told the House that he had responded just as quickly to his constituents’ concerns about foxhunting by changing the law in Scotland before showing his righteous indignation about what happens here.

[Pete Wishart]

We are going to do that. The plan to water down foxhunting legislation in England has given us an opportunity to examine our approach and perhaps tighten it up. The hon. Gentleman is right: we should be doing that. I actually did not know that we have more lax laws than England. We are going to do all we can to ensure that they are tightened.

[Alex Salmond]

I am sorry to continue our earlier debate, but the Leader of the House said a moment ago that all Members are allowed to turn up to every Committee. That is not the case: the Scottish Grand Committee is restricted to Scottish Members of the House. It has not met for more than 10 years; none the less, that is the case. If the Leader of the House does not even know and has not mastered all these procedures, what hope is there for this total dog’s breakfast?

[Pete Wishart]

I say candidly to my right hon. Friend that I do not know what hope there is. He and I served on the Scottish Grand Committee back in the early 2000s, when it met for the last time, and it was not a model of how to consider the issues under discussion.

The Government are trying to create a quasi-English Parliament within the confines of the unitary Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It seems to me that they just cannot be bothered to do the work. They cannot be bothered to go around their nation, consult and have a dialogue with the people, work with partners, build up the conversation and then have a referendum, as we did in Scotland.

I ask the Leader of the House to imagine what would happen if we did not have a Scottish Parliament and we wanted to do this. We would just say to English Members, “Get out of the way while we have our Scottish Parliament here!” It is almost laughable to suggest such a thing, but that is exactly what the Government want to do—they want to create a quasi-English Parliament in the confines of our unitary Parliament. That is not on. If they want an English Parliament, they should go and create it and then deliver it.

Conservative Members are saying that English votes for English laws was the most important issue on the doorstep but, at the same time, that there is no demand for an English Parliament, so what they want is several servings of the biggest cake in the world and to have that Parliament here by changing the rules of the House of Commons. It is not good enough to try to use our Parliament—the Parliament that belongs to every citizen in the United Kingdom—as their quasi-Parliament. I appeal to the Leader of the House to look at the issue.

It is fantastic that the proposal is about saving the Union, but the Government could not have designed better plans to drive Scotland out of the Union. Their sense of victory when they narrowly won the referendum will be short-lived if they continue to pursue this proposal.

[Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman has given his strong views on foxhunting, but he has still not explained why he thinks it would have been appropriate for Scottish MPs to vote on the proposed amendments.

[Pete Wishart]

We did not vote on them, because the Tories withdrew them. I do not think I could have been clearer about why we intended to vote on foxhunting. We could not have got any more interest in it from Scotland—we were absolutely flooded with requests, not just from our constituents but from English constituents.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I have already given way to the hon. Lady and I want to make progress.

The Government’s attempt to politicise the role of Mr Speaker—the master of ceremonies in the House of Commons—is utterly appalling. It is shameful that Mr Speaker is going to have to make a very serious political decision as to whether or not we can participate and vote in debates. What a position to put the arbiter of our business in! I do not know of any other legislature in Europe or the world where the Speaker, the arbiter of the House, would be placed in such a pernicious situation.

[Sir William Cash]

I do think the hon. Gentleman might just reflect on the fact that the Speaker already has the power to issue certificates. Those could be construed as political if he so wished, but on money resolutions there are so many different cases. Why does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that could be applied in this case as well?

[Pete Wishart]

With due respect, I do not think the hon. Gentleman actually gets what is involved for the Speaker. It will be in his power to decide whether we are going to be excluded or not. He is going to tell us when our second-class status kicks in and when it does not. That is a dreadful position to put the Speaker in. It is not like deciding amendments or deciding on money resolutions; it is deciding whether Members of Parliament can participate in the House of Commons.

[Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) made a very interesting point earlier: what would happen if the next Speaker were to be Scottish?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

There’s a thought and a prospect! We already know that there could never now be a Scottish Prime Minister or a Scottish Cabinet Member for any of the devolved areas, such as Health or Education. John Reid, for example, would never have been able to do his job. I do not miss that, but this is how having two classes works its way through.

[Wayne David]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree—this is my understanding—that not only will the Speaker make a certification, but he or she will not be able to give reasons for it?

[Pete Wishart]

Worse than that, the Speaker’s certification will not be open to challenge. Because of parliamentary privilege, there will be no means to challenge it.

[Sir Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Pete Wishart]

I see the right hon. Gentleman shaking his head. Maybe we could explore that and see what we can do, but there is no opportunity for us as parliamentarians or for our constituents to address this and try to ensure it could be challenged.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The other point is that the Speaker will be required to certify whether something is England-only for everything that comes through, including amendments and anything that has been amended in the Lords and come back. That will be a hugely onerous task for the Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend has been following these issues with a very keen interest. She has already brought to attention some of the great things about this: she actually discovered, in the response from the Leader of the House to a written question, that the Scotland Bill was a piece of English-only legislation! I am grateful to her for discovering that amazing fact.

[Mr Hanson]

Does the hon. Gentleman also accept that there is no mechanism to make representations to the Speaker before he makes his decision? Those of us who have interests in England but represent seats in Wales could not influence the Speaker’s decision beforehand.

[Pete Wishart]

That is another point. We can see how bad this is, placing the Speaker in such a position. Shame on this Government for placing our Speaker in such a position. Politicising the Speaker of one of the biggest and most powerful Parliaments in the world is a disgraceful thing to do. I really hope the Government rethink this.

What we have is a complete and utter shambles. The Leader of the House has managed to divide the House. There is no consensus. There is no agreement. He is imposing the Conservative will on all of us here. He is denying us full rights within this Parliament, consigning us to second class. He has done nothing to revise his plans. I appeal to him once again: take them away, and let us have a proper discussion on how we can go forward. If he is so interested in making sure that there are English votes for English laws, he should get his own Parliament. He should do the work and make sure he delivers it.

This is unacceptable. We now have a few weeks and months in which to look at this again. I appeal to the Leader of the House to get rid of this dog’s breakfast and come back with something that is reasonable and sustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, 2003.

[Alex Salmond]

My hon. Friend, who knows about all these things and has served on almost as many Grand Committees as I have, is undoubtedly correct. That Grand Committee has changed its complexion a number of times, and when it became Scottish Members only, members were not allowed to vote to stop or veto legislation; they could consider legislation on Second Reading and then the legislation came to the full House. In effect, it was roughly what the McKay commission recommended as the answer, although there is actually no answer to the West Lothian question.

My old friend Tam Dalyell posed the West Lothian question precisely because he believed from his study of constitutional history that the only answers to it were either Unionism, which he supported, or independence for Scotland, which I supported. Tam Dalyell did not, and still does not as far as I know, believe there is an answer to the question he proposed, nor, as he would be the first to say, was he the first person to raise that question.

The question was raised in the 19th century. Gladstone considered a similar proposal. I was going to say that it was exactly the same proposal, but the proposal Gladstone considered was much more sensible than the one before us today. None the less, he rejected it, and did so on two grounds. He thought it would be difficult to have a situation where Members of Parliament were going in and out of various votes depending on how they were defined, and he thought it would be too much for the Chair to bear—“for the shoulders of any one man to bear”, if I remember the quote correctly—for the Speaker to have to certify which votes were which and which hon. Members were allowed to vote on which Committees. They say there is nothing new under the sun. All this has been considered before and there is actually a reason why William Gladstone did not come up with this dog’s breakfast before us today.

Business of the House

Pete Wishart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Chris Grayling]

I am surprised that the Scottish nationalists have chosen to move away from what they have done for many years, which is to abstain on matters that do not affect Scotland. They have clearly taken a decision to change policy. It is up to other Unionist parties to decide whether they will help them in that approach.

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

What an utter and absolute shambles! That is the only way that this could possibly be described. It seems to me that a number of things need to happen. First, this looks very much like the Tories knew they would not win the vote tomorrow, so they want to change the rules. The Leader of the House has to come back not with a “mini” business statement, but a full business statement. The plans need to be withdrawn from the House absolutely and totally, as they are a complete and utter mess. He needs to bring back a proper approach to dealing with this—[Interruption.] I do not know why the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) is chuntering away, because he knows the Tories would be defeated if they were left on their own. We need a proper Bill, a proper piece of legislation, and proper scrutiny and examination. Will the Leader of the House now withdraw the plans for English votes for English laws, come back with a total rethink, and allow the House proper scrutiny, so that we can look at this properly and in order?

[Chris Grayling]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, this matter is nothing to do with English votes for English laws, which will be debated extensively tomorrow. In fact, the debate on that matter will now be longer than it would otherwise have been. The issue of hunting and the debate that might have taken place tomorrow has nothing to do with English votes for English laws. If the hon. Gentleman had read the small print of our proposals, he would know there is no connection between the two.