Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I remain to be convinced whether the Secretary of State understands the effect of a gender recognition certificate, but surely it is now apparent that he does not understand the concept of parliamentary accountability. For as long as I have been in this House, if the House were to be made aware of a Government document or publication of any sort, it would be placed in the House of Commons Library. It was not sent by email to individual named members. Surely all Members of this United Kingdom Parliament have an interest in knowing the Government position. There is no good reason for this unprecedented departure from previous processes.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This has been an absolute and utter mess. The Secretary of State was not forced to come to the House to answer an urgent question. He came voluntarily. It has been central to the Government’s case that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill passed by the Scottish Parliament conflicts with the Equality Act 2010. There is a statement of reasons as to why that is the case, but Members could not question him on it because he had not provided it. Now, he says that he will supply it through email.

Further to the point of order by the leader of the Scottish National party, may I insist that you, Mr Speaker, give us an opportunity to adjourn to that we can consider the statement properly? Then, we can come back and question the Secretary of State, who has to be at the Dispatch Box for the next debate, on the statements of reasons and why the UK Government have invoked a section 35 order against the legislation.

Post-Brexit Fisheries Management

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 13th October 2022 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (David Duguid) on his reappointment to the Scotland Office—I know for certain he would have liked to be here to contribute to proceedings. Mr Mundell, there is always something comforting when you are looking down at us from above as we are debating issues such as this. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on securing this important debate. I know we are thin on the ground today, but we have managed to net enough Members and corral them into the Chamber to make a meaningful contribution to this ongoing debate. It is a really important one.

I welcome the Minister to his place. He and I seem to be forever bound to each other. We thought we had escaped the clutches of one another with the Leader of the House gig on a Thursday morning, but here we are on a Thursday afternoon discussing fisheries. I always enjoy working with the Minister, and I look forward to working with him as we go forward to consider the important issues that are now part of his brief.

I want to speak to what this debate is about: it is about Brexit. I want to discuss exactly where we are and where Brexit has left this important sector. I again pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and his colleagues in the all-party parliamentary group. It was a fantastic report—it was excellent. It captured some of the key discussions, debates and issues around Brexit. I thought it made some really meaty and robust conclusions and recommendations, which, if implemented, would go a long way to addressing some of the problems we have. It was a report that found a sector experiencing financial difficulties as a result of Brexit and facing ongoing uncertainties regarding its future, with closures and reductions in operations affecting real businesses.

The fishing industry is a sector that has been utterly pummelled by the impacts and effects of Brexit—effects and issues that are still being played out and experienced by real businesses and people who owe their living to the sea and to the catches that they bring in. I want to look at where we are. I want to assess what Brexit has done to the sector and where we go from here, because we have real difficulties and challenges. I remember the “sea of opportunity”. The one thing we were told about, again and again, was the opportunities there would be for the fishing industry.

We all looked hard for winners in Brexit, particularly those of us who were not all that sold on the idea. We all looked, across all the industries and sectors, for who would win from this situation. The one sector that was always presented to us as the beneficiary—the great winner—when it came to Brexit was the fishing sector. I do not think people are saying that any more. I think that the sea of opportunity has become an ocean of tears, with shipwrecks off a deflated and defeated industry, and other boats quickly bailing out the water just to stay afloat. That is the reality of the sector several years down the line, because of Brexit.

Of all the sectors that have been impacted and hurt by Brexit, the fishing industry must be ranked as one of the highest. Indeed, I would go as far as to suggest that the fishing industry has experienced probably the greatest betrayal when it comes to Brexit policy, in terms of where it has been left compared with its initial condition.

Pre-Brexit, things were not great; of course they were not. There were years and years of decline in the fishing sector, some of it due to the EU and the common fisheries policy. We have to acknowledge and accept that it was not a particularly great experience for the UK fishing sector, given some of the issues around the CFP. But by God, the way those Brexiteers so carefully designed a case around the frustrations felt by generations of fishermen was quite extraordinary and they managed to list them as their key champions when putting the case for Brexit.

This is an industry that had been in decline for decades, which the Brexiteers grabbed on to so successfully and so profoundly. The Brexiteers were able, quite skilfully and carefully, to blame all the woes in the fishing sector on the EU; it was all the fault of the EU and the CFP. All of us will remember the glorious picture of a future with increased catches, doing away with regulation and red tape, and opportunities that they said were just waiting for us when we became an “independent coastal state”. Do people remember that phrase: the “independent coastal state”? They said we would be independent, when there are international waters, where arrangements and agreements have to be met. The illusion the Brexiteers sold to fishermen right across the United Kingdom will go down as one of the greatest deceptions and betrayals that any sector or industry has experienced during the past few decades.

Fishers and fishing communities have every right to be furious, as they increasingly now are, with this UK Government for what was sold to them. Like the worst snake-oil salesmen, the Brexiteers offered an elixir that they claimed would cure a condition; in fact, it only ended up making the patient much worse. This Brexit was, in fact, as rotten as the dead fish that Nigel Farage threw into the Thames in his attempt to mislead and enlist an industry and a sector to his particularly malign and malevolent cause, because it was all just rubbish—we know that now.

The fishing industry should have known what was in store, because it had been there before—it had been at the hands of a Conservative Government promising the earth to it. We need only go back to the days of our youth in the 1970s, Mr Mundell, to find that when we joined the Common Market, as it was then, the fishing industry was expendable; it was something that could easily be set aside for the greater ambitions of the UK Government’s priorities and strategic intentions.

It continues to be expendable now. The Brexiteers could not care less about the fishing industry; it was a minor detail when it came to their greater ideological intention to take the UK out of the EU. That is exactly what it was to them; this is an industry that they really could not care about at all.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman knows, because I have said it often enough, that I felt that the fishing industry was used in the course of the Brexit debate. I could understand the reasons why the industry wanted to believe the things that it was promised; he has touched upon some of those reasons. Nevertheless, we are where we are now and we do not have Brussels to blame any more; we have to look to our own resources.

Does the hon. Gentleman share my frustration that there are so many things that we could do better now for ourselves, but that we are not doing? I touched on one thing—gill netting. I will offer him another, which is Marine Scotland’s practice of always picking the low-hanging fruit—that is, the Scottish vessels—while leaving Spanish vessels fishing in UK waters, relatively unscathed in terms of interruption and intervention. Why are we not doing more to protect our own fleet? We have nobody else to blame now.

[Pete Wishart]

I am really grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because I want to come on to those points and to address some of the issues he raised. He is right: there is nobody to blame any more. For years and years, it was all the fault of Brussels, the EU and the CFP; now the Minister is exclusively in charge of the details of UK fisheries. But it is the right hon. Gentleman’s debate—I did not call it “Brexit and the fishing industry”; he called it that. He did not spend all that much time discussing the impacts of Brexit on the fishing industry, so maybe I can fill that gap for him and explain a little about how we got here and where we are. He is right about what we do; it is really important that we get this right. We cannot compound misery on misery, because that is exactly what has happened just now.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the Minister for raising that point. I was going to reserve that for later in my speech, but I will address it now because it is important. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland addressed it and he deserves and requires an answer to that, which I am more than happy to give him. It was not a press release; I think it was a written question by his colleague in the Scottish Parliament to the Minister, Mairi Gougeon, about gill netting in Scotland—he will correct me if I am wrong. [Interruption.] He did not quite quote it all, which is all I will say ever so gently to the right hon. Gentleman. He was accurate in the way he gave it; as reported in the response he gave, gill netting is a legitimate business. However, the thing he did not mention in his contribution is that the Scottish Government are considering this. They are looking at exactly what is happening in their waters.

I am new to this role, but I am not new to my colleagues and their instincts. I say to the right hon. Gentleman: be patient. Wait until the consultation has concluded, because we are looking at this just now. I am pretty certain, if we come back in a few months once this has been considered and we have looked at all the evidence, he may be satisfied with the outcome of these considerations. Be patient. I know Green colleagues in Shetland are standing with Liberal Democrats in order to have this addressed; this is an all-party situation. He is right that it is the responsibility of the Scottish Government, but I know my colleagues, so we will wait and see what happens. Hopefully, we will be able to put a big smile on his face when he talks about these issues in the future.

I will get back to Brexit, because that is what the debate is about. I know there is lots of interest in other issues, in things to look forward to and things we could be doing, but the right hon. Gentleman rightly said that we should have a debate about Brexit and that is what we should do. I see the Minister nodding his head in agreement, so let’s do it. Brexit has been an unmitigated disaster for UK fishing, just as it has been an unmitigated disaster for all the other sectors that have to operate in the real world of international markets, partnerships and the harsh reality of doing trade across borders.

We know this has been difficult; we have seen it in the report by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, which chronicles these issues only too well. We hear in the report of falling incomes as a result of increasing costs and the decreasing value of catches; we see reduced opportunities, increased paperwork and markets more or less closed. He is right that we can address the labour issues, and it is important that we do. I know it is not in the Minister’s purview and remit, but the labour issues are acute, and they must certainly be addressed. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for raising the issue, just as my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) consistently raises issues about crews in some of our island communities. This is absolutely pressing.

I do not know if the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has detected this, but I am beginning to get a sense that the Government are a bit conflicted about this issue. They are beginning to realise that, for all this talk about growth zones, investment zones and growing the economy, they actually need people to do it. I think they are beginning to understand, “Right, if we’re going to have a successful economy, and we have to protect and develop sectors such as fishing, we need people to come in and do it. We have not got them just now.”

Perhaps I am just being naive, Mr Mundell, but I hope not. You will probably say, “Quite typically, you are, Mr Wishart.” I hope I am not. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this when he speaks, but I am detecting that they are getting it through their heads that people have to come in to do this work because we cannot find indigenous labour, particularly in constituencies like that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and my own when it comes to things such as hospitality, hotels and farming. We need people to come to the UK to do the tasks that people living in our communities will no longer do. The only way to do that is to get people to come in from abroad.

[Mr Carmichael]

Actually, I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he was as surprised as I was to hear the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries) say that we needed people to come in to help with the broadband roll-out. The other sector that I should have touched on but did not—that was remiss of me—is the processing sector, which is absolutely desperate for labour to process the fish. We can catch every fish in the sea if we want, but it will not earn us any money if we do not have people to process it and sell it onwards. Through the hon. Gentleman, I might add to the question of labour for the processing sector to the list that the Minister has to take to the Home Office. It is a serious and pressing matter.

[Pete Wishart]

Again, I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning that. He is absolutely spot on. I have the great pleasure and privilege of chairing the Scottish Affairs Committee and one of our first inquiries in this Session of Parliament was on labour shortages. I think food processing was identified as one of the first sectors that started to experience real difficulties. It needs to be addressed. There is most definitely a problem there.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for the all-party group’s report. I know that people will be watching this afternoon’s proceedings with great interest, and I recommend that they look at this very good report and its recommendations.

It is not just the all-party parliamentary fisheries group that is coming to the same conclusion after looking at the issues—it is everybody. The National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations has produced a report on the economics of the UK’s trade and co-operation agreement with the EU for fishing industries. Its general conclusion is that there are very few winners and an awful lot of losers. The NFFO talks of a £64 million loss to the industry each year because of Brexit. In Scotland, we are trying to come to terms with that loss. We are trying to process it and see how we can start to address it with the limited powers we have in a funding envelope that is obviously not what we feel is required to deal with some of these issues. We have the bulk of the United Kingdom’s fishing industry. It is an imperative, important and iconic industry for us in Scotland. It brings 15,000 high-value jobs to some of our more diverse and hard-pressed rural and coastal communities.

Our seafood industry is world renowned. When I was in Singapore a few years ago, Scottish salmon opened up a sector that was bringing in all this seafood from Scotland. They could not shift it fast enough. Such was the provenance, idea and suggestion of Scottish produce that people wanted it—they wanted to be part of it. We now have a worldwide reputation as a renowned exporter of high-quality foodstuffs, in particular when it comes to our fish.

In 2021, fish and seafood exports were valued at £1 billion, which was 60% of all Scottish food exports. I know that trade has been dreadful with the EU, but prior to Brexit, things were relatively good between 2016 and 2019. We had annual exports of £618 million, with the bumper year for that in 2019—just before this disaster started to kick in. Now, Brexit trade barriers are expected to cause output in the fishing sector to be 30% lower than it was pre-Brexit. As well as the damage to EU markets, Brexit has ensured that the Scottish industry has access to fewer staple fish species than under the CFP.

We will wait to see what happens in 2026. I know we are in the transition period just now, but there is a great deal of unhappiness. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland asked us to think about the future. As we move forward, we have to start thinking about what will happen in 2026, when the transitional arrangements are lifted. I hope the UK Government get up to speed with their negotiating position and are able to argue more adequately on behalf of Scottish fishing.

What are the UK Government doing in response? They are doing several things. The total funding envelope was about £100 million across the whole sector to try to mitigate some of the damage. That £100 million seems quite generous and will certainly assist a number of fishers and processors in the sector, but Ireland—independent, small Ireland, with a smaller population than Scotland—has just secured €335 million to be distributed across its whole seafood sector and coastal communities in order to meet some of the difficulties and challenges of Brexit. They have difficulties that are not even close to the difficulties that we have because of Brexit, but that is the funding they get. The irony of all ironies is that €225 million of that funding is coming from EU funding in the form of the Brexit adjustment reserve.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), whom I always enjoy listening to, must recognise that if the EU can do that for small, independent Ireland, surely we should be doing better in the UK for our fishing sector, which has taken the majority of the hit. Yes, Mr Mundell, I will stray into the constitutional debate—you know me, I like to bring up this little point. Does this not say something about the relative positions and conditions of independent Ireland in the EU and dependent Scotland as part of the United Kingdom? Independent Ireland is supported to the hilt, backed by the EU and part of a partnership, whereas I do not even know what the figure would be for Scotland—perhaps the Minister could clarify that. I tried to find exactly how much Scotland got out of it, but it will be peanuts compared with what independent Ireland will get from the European Union, which his Government dragged us out of against our national collective will, for which we will have to endure the consequences years down the line.

With Scotland not being independent, being subject to a Brexit that we did not vote for and without the EU support that Ireland has, the Scottish Government do what they can, but they cannot do all that much. We have limited powers. We have powers over fisheries, and there are things we can do. Again, I hope the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will be satisfied with some of the deliberations we will have on these issues. We have put out a new fund to the seafood sector. We have the blue vision in Scotland and hope to do all we can for marine protection. We have given £37.75 million of funding to support our fishers. That is out of a budget that, again, is peanuts in comparison with Ireland, but we will do everything that we can.

I will come back to gill netting and some of the bigger issues around trawling. I do not know about everybody else, but my mailbag has been besieged by correspondence from people who are concerned by what they are observing, particularly the activities of supertrawlers in our marine protected areas. My constituents are upset and anxious about what they are observing and they are writing to me to raise this, which I am doing, because they want action. They want fast and decisive action because they do not like what they are observing. Our constituents have been concerned about the activities of supertrawlers for a number of years. We will have a consultation and we will take decisive action, and it is now up to the UK Government to try to do what they can. We are expanding the number of marine protected areas in Scotland. We will put another one in place over the next few years. People expect marine protected areas to do what they say on the tin: to protect the marine environment. They do not want to see supertrawlers operating in these areas, and I hope the UK Government get on top of this.

Where do we go from here? We are where we are. We have Brexit. The all-party parliamentary group report makes some reasonable suggestions about the way forward. The main UK parties—representatives of which are present today—often say that they are the parties of making Brexit work. I do not know how you make Brexit work, but one day somebody will tell me how something like this can be a positive. I have yet to see where that happens or how it comes down the line. Our ambition will always be to return to the European Union—to return, when it comes to fisheries, to a safe harbour with a set of consistent rules that apply across the EU.

I am terribly excited about my new role as the SNP spokesperson. Before I had it, I observed the disastrous negotiations and discussions that we have had as a new, independent coastal state. There were hours of inconclusive debate and negotiations with small nations such as Norway and the Faroe Islands. We now have to debate and negotiate with the EU, which comes prepared with all sorts of materials, background and experience. We come prepared to more or less give in before we even get anywhere.

I have no great idea that things are going to get better. The Minister may be able to convince me that there is some sort of future with Brexit, but I hope that in the next few years Scotland will make the decision to do these things on our own and start the process to get back into the European Union, where my nation belongs and where I know it will be properly supported.

Access to Cash in Scotland

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 14th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks—I am sure we will be back to business as normal on Monday, when the Committee meets again.

The hon. Gentleman’s substantive points were very useful. I agree that banks need to properly explain to local communities the reasons behind closures. I remember a protest in Aberfeldy. It takes a lot to get people protesting in Aberfeldy, but they protested in large numbers about the closure of the Royal Bank of Scotland branch there. Communities get very upset about this issue, and they look for reasons and answers. They want to understand why banks in the heart of the community have been closed, and more could be done to explain that.

There is, of course, a code of conduct that the banks are expected to fall in line with, but I think most people find that insufficient. Again, there may be a role for the Government to intervene and to make sure that we have proper thresholds and guidelines for where banks are to be closed. The previous Government had legislation about the last branch in town, but that seems to have gone and is no longer a feature of the Government’s thinking about this issue. The Minister is listening, and that may be something that he might want to think about as we look forward to the Bill being introduced.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

Like others, I offer the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) all the deference that he deserves.

The hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross) said that the banks are “morally bankrupt”. Let us not forget that, but for the taxpayer, they would also be financially bankrupt. We have recently seen the withdrawal of the Bank of Scotland from Stromness in my constituency—the last bank in town. If we now hear that there is a rush of banks seeking to avoid the incoming legislation, does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that that is simply acting in bad faith, which the Government should not be tolerating and in respect of which they should be acting?

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He and I are the “Faithers of the Hoose”, given that we were both elected in 2001. [Interruption.] I know that he signed in before me, but I still claim that I was elected before him—we will fight that one out at some point in the future.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I think we are all concerned about the intervening period and what happens now to the legislation being introduced. There are several things that I believe the Government could do. A “cease and desist” instruction could be enacted to tell banks very clearly that there is an expectation that no branches should be closed in the period between now and the legislation being introduced. The Government could make it retrospective and say that the clear intention of the legislation is that there should be no branches closed until the Bill has been considered. Again, this is something that could be done in advance of the legislation being introduced. It is really a matter for the Government, but I think the Minister is hearing very clearly.

Looking around the Chamber, most of us represent rural or semi-rural constituencies, and we have this very clear problem. We remain greatly concerned about what happens now. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that there now seems to be a rush to close branches ahead of the legislation coming in. It is almost perverse that the banks would choose to do so, knowing that we are coming to some sort of solution about how this matter could be taken forward. I really hope that something can be done in the intervening weeks and months.

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 13th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I am thrilled to be called to speak now, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I start by setting something straight? There is an answer to the West Lothian question. Tam Dalyell and I actually came up with two answers some 17 years ago. One, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, is the Harthill services, and the second is salt and sauce. I will leave it to the House to determine which one is the correct answer.

What an utter humiliation this is for the Government. A flagship policy of the 2015 manifesto will soon be nothing more than a footnote in future constitutional history books, and, remember, it is just another Tory policy disaster. God knows what they were thinking about when they introduced this some six years ago. They were consumed with the notion that we, the unkempt Caledonian hordes, were somehow stopping them securing the democratic outcomes that they desired—us, the 59 Scots MPs out of 650 MPs, needed to be constrained and curtailed. EVEL was just about the worst solution to a problem that did not even exist.

Never before has a procedure come to this House that has divided the membership of this House into two different and distinct classes. Not only did it do that, it did it by nationality and by geography. It is a procedure that barely anyone understands, that is a burden to the management and administration of the business of this House, that is entirely unnecessary, and that produces almost unprecedented resentment. Something that it will be remembered for more than anything else is what it has done for the cause of English devolved governance. This was the first serious attempt to create some sort of forum for English democracy. We actually agree with them. They do deserve their English Parliament. They should always get the outcomes that they want and deserve. We have even got a neat, practical and elegant solution to that, but, of course, they will not even start to look at that. There are myriad solutions to resolving this within the precious Union. The thing is that they could not be bothered doing the work. They could not be bothered rolling up their sleeves and designing a Parliament of their own. They decided instead to come here and to use the national UK Parliament of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for this doomed experiment. Imagine a quasi-English Parliament squatting here in the national Parliament. What an absolute and utter disgrace.

[Mr Carmichael]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not have time to give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

It satisfied absolutely no one. All it did was infuriate Scotland. Instead of securing the near federalism that was promised, Scotland instead saw its MPs become second-class Members in the Parliament that they had just been invited to lead. There were signs in the Division Lobby saying, “England only.” They would have been better saying, “Scots out.” That is what the Government did with this procedure.

The Government knew it would never work. From the first moment when they suggested this nonsense, we have told them again and again that it was madness and that, at some point, they would be here—as they are this evening—to withdraw it. Now under pressure from the SNP, EVEL is to be abandoned. This is a spectacular victory for the Scottish National party, and I congratulate all my hon. Friends on bringing down this nonsense. This is one victory that we have secured this week in the United Kingdom and, by God, we are going to celebrate like it is 1966. Believe me, we will be banging on about this for the next 55 years and we will enjoy every minute of it.

There is a part of me that will miss the entertainment of it all and the laughs that it gave us. It was designed to quell this tartan menace, but I ended up making the most contributions in the Legislative Grand Committee. With 57 contributions, not only was I the most committed and dedicated Member of the English Parliament but I beat all the English Members combined two times over.

Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I have had the great privilege of having served in all the various ICGS working groups since their inception, and it is particularly good to be here today to say a few remarks on behalf of the House of Commons Commission on what hopefully will be the conclusion and the implementation of all the recommendations that have been made to the ICGS.

As I look around the Chamber today, I can see several colleagues who have served on the various incarnations of the working group, and I pay tribute to them for their contribution and dedication. In particular, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), whose vision, leadership and guidance at the inception of all this helped to guide us through this process, so I thank her for her contribution today.

Today, we are here to bring the ICGS in line with the third recommendation of Dame Laura Cox. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves of what Dame Laura Cox actually said about this House in her most damning report and the litany of issues that she uncovered. She talked of an

“excessively hierarchical, ‘command and control’ and deferential culture, which has no place in any organisation in the 21st century.”

That is what Dame Laura said.

It is two years since Dame Laura Cox presented her report to the House. It was in October 2018 that the Commission overwhelmingly agreed to all three of her recommendations. We have heard that the first two have been implemented. One was, of course, the behaviour code, which has been put in place. The second was looking at historical cases, and today we are considering the third recommendation. Let us just remind ourselves what that is. It is to put in place the mechanism whereby complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament would be an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament will play no part. For this to happen, the Commission set up a working group to put together how we should respond to this and to bring this House in line with that recommendation. That was met with the Commission’s unanimous agreement to establish the independent expert panel to replace the Committee on Standards in considering cases brought under the ICGS.

At our last meeting of the Commission, we confirmed our support for the implementation of the independent expert panel, and we asked for this matter to be brought before the House. The new panel will determine sanction in cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not have the power to invoke sanctions. As we have heard, this could include the suspension or expulsion of a Member of Parliament. These serious cases will be referred to the panel and will be considered by a sub-panel of three independent experts, supported by specialist advice. When decided and concluded, a Member of the House of Commons Commission, probably me, will move a motion to allow the House to implement the sanction determined by the IEP. Lastly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Commission agreed that the House would be asked to consider whether there should be a time-limited debate in these circumstances, and that is where we are today, with the motions in the name of the Leader of the House.

The motions accurately reflect the considerations of the House of Commons Commission, and its members are pretty much in line and in step with what Dame Laura Cox expects in the implementation of her third recommendation. That is, of course, until we get to paragraph D(1) in motion 5, where the Leader of the House makes that provision for the debate. If it is helpful to the House, what the Commission decided in our consideration of this issue was that we would let the House decide whether it wanted a debate. I think the expectation was that a couple of motions would be brought by the Leader of the House, which would give us flexibility in our options. Instead, we have this one determination of the Leader of the House, which is that we are now invited to a yes or no. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say that the Commission was almost split down the middle when we were considering this matter, and that was why we felt it was appropriate that the House should decide and determine this.

My view as a Member of the House who has been involved in the ICGS for the past two and a half years is that what the Leader of the House suggests in paragraph D(1) breaks practically every principle and the whole spirit of the third Cox recommendation. It is little wonder that there is profound disappointment among House staff today. Such are the concerns that Dame Laura herself has felt the need to respond to some of the representations from staff. She notes the fears that a debate could result in a complainant’s confidentiality being compromised and speaks of

“the chilling effect that this will undoubtedly have on complainants reporting cases of harassment or bullying”.

There are real concerns that MPs will debate the findings of an independent judgment on one of their colleagues while protected by privilege, with staff having no equivalent platform. That cannot be right.

The Leader of the House seeks to assure us with motion 6, but we cannot escape the overwhelming conclusion that Members and complainants could be identified inadvertently in a debate. Colleagues and friends of somebody who has been complained against will feel the temptation to get up there and defend them.

[Mr Carmichael]

The hon. Gentleman is drilling down into an important part of the issue, which is about procedural fairness. It goes to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Once we got into a debate, it is inevitable that we would get into the merits of the issue; how, procedurally, could we expect not to?

[Pete Wishart]

I think that concern has been expressed by the House staff after looking at the motions presented by the Leader of the House today.

As was mentioned by the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House, the House should make the ultimate determination about the expulsion or suspension of a Member of Parliament. That is right, but it should not be done through a debate. That is why I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I really hope that the rest of the House will too.

It is disappointing that this little issue has presented itself after we have come all this way with full agreement, full consensus and the involvement of the House staff, and are just at the point of doing this. I say to the House: stick with the principles of Laura Cox and support the amendment this evening.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin John Docherty) on a truly magnificent maiden speech? He was unfortunate that his time was limited, but I am sure the House will hear more from him in the future.

If there were any doubt about the need for this debate, it has surely been dispelled by the way in which it has been conducted and by its content. Several issues have come to light. First, the Government are going to create two tiers of MP: that will be the inevitable consequence of their double majority. Secondly, English Members of Parliament will have a veto, but, according to the Leader of the House, a veto will not be afforded to the Scottish Parliament, because the Government insist on the continuation of the Sewel convention.

The most important issue, and that which causes most concern, is the politicisation of your role, Mr Speaker, because you will be put in the position of having to arbitrate on these questions and then not have to give any reasons for your decision. Surely that means that we will be left to speculate on the Chair’s reasons, and such speculation cannot be sensible or, indeed, healthy in a political forum. We will be excluded not from debate, but from decisions. That is no way to run a Parliament.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) said that she was acting on the resentment of her constituents. I do not doubt that that resentment is real, but I invite her to reflect on whether that is really the proper basis on which to proceed with changes of this sort. What she is supporting will merely reinforce that resentment, rather than address the underlying reasons for it.

I am not going to burst into song, but if I were I would turn to the late great Johnny Nash, who said:

“There are more questions than answers

And the more I find out, the less I know”.

I am afraid that that is where we are.

[Pete Wishart]

I beg to move—

Scotland Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend always gets right to the heart of the matter. We know that everything in this Bill that we have been trying to secure is supported by the Scottish people. It is also supported by the massed ranks of SNP Members here, and by the 60% of the Scottish people who want everything devolved to the Scottish Parliament other than foreign affairs, defence and treason. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) forgot to mention treason in his list of powers that would remain reserved. An opinion poll last week showed not only that we won more than 50% of the vote but that we are now on course to win 60% of the Holyrood vote next year. It showed that there is a clear desire to ensure that we move forward progressively.

I shall turn to the central issues in the Bill, starting with the permanence of the Scottish Parliament. That was about the most useful thing to emerge from the Smith commission’s report. It followed the vow that was reported in the Daily Record as stating that the permanence of the Parliament should be a predominant issue. We were disappointed that the draft Scotland Bill could not find an appropriate form of words to encapsulate that proposal. The thing that has struck me is the Scottish people’s surprise that this House could actually do away with the Scottish Parliament. I do not think that people really believed that that was the case. We have to resolve this issue.

The Scottish Parliament is now the key focus of the national debate on our nation and our political culture in Scotland. As we have continued to secure more and new powers for the Scottish Parliament, it has become an intrinsic feature of what we are about as a nation. The fact that this House can simply decide, perhaps on a whim, to abolish the Scottish Parliament is totally unacceptable to the Scottish people and has now to be put right. We have this one opportunity to address it by getting our amendment through this evening—we could sort this out.

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) because he recognised that situation when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. He said—I paraphrase him and I will let him intervene if I have this wrong—that something must be done about it. It was then thrown over to the new Secretary of State to pick up; it now falls in his lap, and he has to address it and ensure that we get what we want, which is the permanence—

[Mr Alistair Carmichael]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that by doing this through primary legislation any solution—any form of words—is always going to be imperfect, and that the only way we will genuinely recognise the political reality that is the permanence of the Scottish Parliament is through a written constitution, and for that we need a constitutional convention?

[Pete Wishart]

There is very little I would disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about on these things, and I agree that there is a real requirement for a written constitution in this country. But let me suggest another way we can get the permanence for the Scottish Parliament, as set out in our amendment 59: by putting this to the Scottish people in a referendum. The only way then that the Scottish Parliament would ever be abolished or done away with would be on the say-so of the Scottish people, as a directly expressed desire through a referendum. I hope the right hon. Gentleman supports us in that amendment this evening, because it is the way to go forward.

That deals with the permanence issue. We have not heard much about another matter, despite several of my friends from south of the border having spoken in this debate. I refer to new clause 2 on the constitutional convention, which I believe the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is still to speak to. That has been a long-standing policy of the Labour party and it was central to its manifesto at the last election—I have to say that Labour did not have a great deal of success when it was put to the people of England. My problem with this idea that Scottish devolution and our constitutional journey should be mashed together with a UK-wide look at the constitution is that it would slow down our very clear progress and our clear statement of where we want to go. The cause of English devolution moves at an almost glacial pace, and any suggestion that we have to be slowed down, as England rightly works out what it wants to do, has to be rejected this evening. Just piggy-backing Labour’s concerns about a constitutional convention and about English devolution on to a Bill about Scotland, and the things we were promised in the vow and that were progressed with the Smith commission is totally unacceptable. I say to the Labour party: do the work yourselves. There is no need to bring it to a Scotland Bill in order to progress this agenda. Bring in your own piece of legislation. Bring it in however you like and we will play a part in that. There are interesting things to be discussed on the further progress of constitutional change all over the UK.

Scottish Representation in the Union

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

Those matters would, of course, have to be considered by the House before it countenanced a change to Standing Orders of the sort that I have outlined. The example about the Greens would have to be taken into account and it might determine the size of any such Committee. I say to my hon. Friend gently that this House has tackled many bigger conundrums and challenges than that, and we have shown ourselves to be equal to the task. Although his point is legitimate and thoughtful, I do not see it as a barrier to a change of the sort that my party favours.

It might be helpful to add a little context to the question of Scotland’s representation in the Union, so I will briefly remind the House of the recent constitutional events that brought us here. On 18 September, the people in Scotland voted to secure Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom and to keep the advantages of the UK pound, UK pensions, UK armed forces, and a strong UK voice in the world. They voted for the strength and security that the United Kingdom provides through our single domestic market, our social union, and our ability to pool and share risks. However, people in Scotland were also clear that they wanted change. They wanted a strengthened, more accountable Scottish Parliament, with more decisions that affect Scotland being made in Scotland. The United Kingdom Government made a commitment to delivering the vow made by the three party leaders—in respect of which the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath made such a decisive intervention—and to delivering further powers to the Scottish Parliament early after the next general election. Despite the ambitious time scale, all deadlines in the vow have been met.

Immediately following the independence referendum, the Prime Minister established the Smith commission as an independent body to convene cross-party talks on further powers for the Scottish Parliament. The heads of agreement were published before St Andrew’s day, in line with our commitment, and were welcomed by the UK Government. The next stage of our commitment was to publish draft legislation, setting out what the agreement would look like in law in advance of Burns night. Two weeks ago, ahead of schedule, the Government published the draft clauses with an accompanying Command Paper.

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

The Secretary of State has got part of his history wrong, because since the vow there is now the vow plus that has been advocated by the Labour party. We are in a constant state of flux and constitutional change in Scotland. Where do the Government see it ending? We have the vow plus from Labour, but what is the view of the UK Government?

[Mr Carmichael]

I thought I was making a mistake in giving way, and I am afraid the hon. Gentleman’s question confirms that. His party did a brave thing in taking part in the Smith commission—for the first time ever, it was an historic moment to get all five parties from the Scottish Parliament around one table. He was part of that consensus; perhaps he did not like it and was one of those who put pressure on John Swinney and others to run away from the settlement that they had just signed up to.

Rather than coming up with such points, the hon. Gentleman would do better first to calm down and relax a little, and he could then tell the House what he and his party will do with the powers that will come to the Scottish Parliament as a result of the Smith commission. One thing he does not want to accept is that as a result of the Smith commission, Scotland will have the third most powerful devolved Parliament anywhere in the world. A tremendous amount of good can be done with the powers that will be given to the Scottish Parliament, and that is where the debate ought to be, rather than the constant whinge about vows or vows plus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

Indeed. This is something we hear from communities across the country in Scotland. Power in Scotland has been sucked up, particularly from local councils, and exercised at the centre by the Scottish Government. That was not how devolution was ever intended to work, and they need to change their approach.

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

The Smith commission is not the only example of parties working together. Yesterday, we saw a fantastic example, when Scottish Labour walked through the Lobby with the Conservatives to support Conservative austerity. Does the Secretary of State envisage any other such “better together” moments coming before the next general election?

[Mr Carmichael]

The only remarkable thing about that is that it tells us absolutely nothing about what the SNP would do to tackle the deficit, if—heaven help us—they were ever in a position to influence it.

Smith Commission

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 27th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I do not think there is much debate, Mr Speaker; I do not set myself up for that claim. On the Crown Estate, my hon. Friend is right: that is one of the report’s most significant proposals for our coastal and island communities. Indeed, it requires the Scottish Government, when they have devolved control of the Crown Estate, to pass it on to coastal and island communities. We all know what happens when power is devolved to Edinburgh: it tends to stick there. Scotland now has, as a result of seven years of SNP government, one of the most centralised Governments anywhere in Europe. The report mentions Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles, as my hon. Friend says, but it begins that recommendation by referring to

“local authority areas such as”.

I think that could well include his constituency.

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

I too welcome the Smith commission’s proposals for Scotland. [Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] I will support any process that transfers powers from unelected Tories in Scotland to the Scottish people. Does the Secretary of State even start to recognise the palpable sense of disappointment that exists in Scotland this morning, whether among Scottish people who wanted maximum devolution and expected something close to home rule following the type of talk in the run-up in the referendum, whether among those in the voluntary sector who expected the full transferral of welfare powers, or whether among those in the trade union movement who wanted real job-creating powers and say that they are underwhelmed by the proposals? While we all welcome the proposals, does he at least start to recognise the disappointment at the fact that they could have gone much further?

[Mr Carmichael]

I fully accept that the hon. Gentleman wants independence and always has done. That is why we had a vote. It pains me to tell him that he lost, however, and it is about time that he and his party came to terms with that. For him to try to use this process to get independence by the back door does not respect the views of the Scottish people as expressed on 18 September. It is perhaps about time that he thought he has a duty to speak for the 60.19% of his own constituents who rejected independence on 18 September.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I apologise for missing the early part of the hon. Gentleman’s question because of the constant sotto voce commentary from the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

[Pete Wishart]

I was shouted down!

[Mr Carmichael]

Did I say it was sotto voce? It seems to have ratcheted up a little. The hon. Gentleman had his chance when he was called by you, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) is absolutely right. This is a time to heal the divisions and bring the people of Scotland together. We had a vote, prior to which we said we would deliver change and today we have told the people of Scotland what that change will be. It is time to get together and use the powers that the Scottish Parliament has and will get, and to use them for the good of the Scottish people and the Scottish economy.

UK Government: Scotland

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Thursday 16th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) on securing today’s debate. Further, I congratulate, and commend him, on the role he played in the course of the independence referendum campaign. Nobody who heard his speeches and witnessed his passion and enthusiasm would have been in any doubt about the importance of the contribution he made in securing a united future for us all on 18 September. I know that he, like me, felt that he was fighting a campaign not just for himself but for his children and their generation. I venture to suggest that his contribution to it gives him a legacy of which they, in time, will come to be truly proud.

I want to make a few observations on the general state of the debate today. Shortly thereafter I will come on to address the points that have been made by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech. This has been a week when the topic of the referendum and its consequences have never been far from the Chamber. This is the fourth day this week, in fact, that I have been at the Dispatch Box. I welcome that. It is a good and right thing for the United Kingdom Parliament to be considering this issue.

Right hon. and hon. Members across the House have expressed their support for our still United Kingdom, a good illustration of what it means to be part of a country that shares risks and pools its resources. Scotland has come through years of fundamental uncertainty. The referendum outcome has put an end to it. With a positive choice from more than 2 million people in Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom, now is the time for us all to put aside party interests and to work to build a better United Kingdom for all: a future with a strong Scottish Parliament within a secure United Kingdom, because that was the clear verdict handed down by the people of Scotland.

The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister said during the campaign that, in their view, the referendum was a once-in-a-generation, perhaps once-in-a-lifetime, event. Both Governments agreed from the outset that the objective was to hold a referendum that would be legal, fair and decisive. That referendum was delivered. But decisive means that a decision has been made, not that the question should be asked again in three years’ time. Had the result gone the other way, it would have been considered unacceptable for those of us who campaigned to keep the United Kingdom together to demand a re-run in 2017, and so it is wrong now for nationalists to manoeuvre for that outcome. People voted clearly and decisively to reject the Scottish National party’s core proposition. It is not for anyone to tell them that they got their answer wrong. Uncertainty will only try people’s patience and sap business confidence, just as it did in Montreal. The SNP has been given an answer by voters in Scotland. Now is the time to acknowledge and accept it and work in the interests of 100% of the people of Scotland.

[Pete Wishart]

I grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, unlike the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). It took two hours for the Prime Minister to come up with English votes for English laws after the referendum. It has now taken four weeks for the Barnett formula. Seventy Members of Parliament have signed a motion for a debate for Barnett to be reviewed. Barnett was in the vow. Is Barnett safe?

[Mr Carmichael]

Yes. Barnett is safe, because it was in the vow. I caution the hon. Gentleman. He seeks time and again to suggest that, somehow or another, the vow made by the party leaders—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked his question, now he can sit and listen to the answer. He says time and again that somehow the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Prime Minister were not acting in good faith. He seeks at every turn to undermine public confidence in the vow. If he still wants to pursue the cause of independence, and if he wishes not to accept the verdict of the people of Scotland expressed on 18 Sept, that is fine. But if he and his party are taking part in the Smith commission in good faith, frankly they should accept that all of us are doing so in good faith.

For the SNP to accept the verdict of the people, they must accept that the Smith commission’s work will not deliver the content of its White Paper or other outcomes detrimental to the core unity of the UK family—and this comes to the heart of the contribution from the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. The SNP will not get independence by the backdoor. The vow given by the party leaders during the referendum campaign and the timetable that he and others supported are designed to strengthen Scotland within a secure United Kingdom. That is what people voted for, and that is what they will get—more powers for the Scottish Parliament within a modernised United Kingdom and delivered to the timetable we promised. In fairness, the soon-to-be First Minister has acknowledged in her party’s submission to the Smith commission that the outcome of this joint working will not be independence. It is important that negotiations take place with a genuine recognition of that fact.

The right hon. Gentleman listed 16 areas in which agreement could easily be sought. He will forgive me if I do not address all 16 now, not least because, with the Government having tasked Lord Smith with constructing a consensus, it would be wrong for me, as a Minister, to second-guess the outcome. However, the Smith remit states that his heads of agreement should be consistent with respect for the decision of the people of Scotland on 18 September. In other words, they must be consistent with the continuation of the constitutional framework and integrity necessary to maintain a United Kingdom. The four nations within the family must continue to operate as a single country.

I also draw to the right hon. Gentleman’s attention the terms of the Command Paper published on Monday. Chapter 2 reminds us of the principles that underpin the Scotland Act 2012: any proposal should first have cross-party support; it should be based on evidence; and it should not be to the detriment of other parts of the UK. On all three points, if Smith came up with proposals that undermined our constitutional integrity, they would not be consistent with the framework that we have set him in the Command Paper. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take comfort from that.

I have always said that—and this is truer today than it has ever been—the independence referendum offered us the opportunity not just to finish the job of devolution to the Scottish Parliament by giving it the extra powers the right hon. Gentleman and I believe it needs in relation to taxation, welfare and so on, but to implement a process of constitutional change across the whole of the UK. I respectfully say to him and the rest of the House that ultimately the logical conclusion of this journey is a federal structure within the UK. The only way to achieve that in our lifetime is by building the strongest, broadest consensus, and that requires a constitutional convention of the sort to which he referred. Indeed, he and I both know, because we have been around this course several times in Scotland, that that is the way to deliver constitutional change.

That requires us to bring together others besides just the political parties—it will always fail if it includes only the political parties, because unfortunately they always see things through the prism of their own self-interest. For that reason, we have to bring in wider voices—civic society, the business community, the trade unions, the Churches and just interested citizens who have something to say. It is for that reason that, as somebody who passionately believes in the United Kingdom, I see an opportunity opening out to us now to build a new constitutional architecture. In that respect, I very much hope that the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath will remain engaged in the debate, because I believe he has a substantial contribution to make to it.

We have an unprecedented opportunity. The Smith commission can move forward through the collective endeavour of all five of Scotland’s biggest political parties. Never before has so wide a spectrum of parties come together in Scotland’s interests. That is something to applaud and welcome. All those taking part in this work must be willing to compromise, as the right hon. Gentleman has said today—again, I commend him for the thought that he has obviously put into this already. We have an opportunity to harness the energy of both sides of what was a quite remarkable debate and, as a result, secure a better deal for all of Scotland. The Commission will look at serious and weighty issues: taxation, welfare and the role of the Scottish Parliament in our public life. The challenge is to empower Holyrood further and, as a result, make it more accountable to those who elect it. Lord Smith of Kelvin is an able man facing a considerable task. With genuine good will on all sides, he is also the man who can see that task through.

Of course, this process is not without consequences for the rest of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman has already touched on the subject of English votes for English laws. It is clear from the debate we had in the House on Tuesday, and indeed from contributions at Scottish questions yesterday, that that will be a live debate for some time to come. As I said at Scottish questions yesterday, in my view it is a solution that, if seen as an end in itself rather than a step along the road, risks creating new problems to replace the ones that already exist in our current constitutional settlement. However, this is a genuine issue that requires genuine consideration within that wider context. The debate itself showed the strength of feeling and brought to light the complexities and intricacies of finding a solution that will strengthen the United Kingdom’s democracy. Again, the one thing that was apparent at the end of six and a half hours’ debate—I was here for nearly all of it—was that there is not yet any clear consensus in England on what the future shape of the constitutional architecture should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

That’s all right, then.

[Mr Carmichael]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman accepts at last that the United Kingdom parties are proceeding in good faith. It would be a shame if he were unable ever to stand up and say it in public. [Interruption.] We are getting on with it. The hon. Gentleman sits there chuntering from a sedentary position, but he ignores the fact that we have already delivered, ahead of timetable, the Command Paper that was part of the vow. He might not like to accept that we are delivering—that we are doing what he said—but he cannot deny it and that is why he remains in his seat.

In the few seconds that remain to me, let me say that it is clear that the referendum was won decisively. It might not have been welcomed by the nationalists, but everybody else was pleased that we got the decision that we wanted and that will indeed be good for our children in the future as the years progress.

Question put and agreed to.

Scotland within the UK

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 13th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

There are indeed many lessons to be learned from this, and their full extent will probably not be apparent for some time to come. This statement is an important part of the process, because it is very important that the Government, with the official Opposition as well, are able to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that we are making good the commitment that we made in the course of the referendum campaign. Politicians doing what they say they will do in that way is probably the most important thing we can do to restore faith in politics.

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

The Secretary of State is, of course, right: the referendum was an incredible, transformational event that gripped and energised our whole nation. I am sure he will want to join me in congratulating the Scottish people on the way in which they went about that business. He is also right to say that Scotland is moving on. According to one opinion poll, two thirds of the Scottish people want devolution maximum—everything devolved, other than foreign affairs and defence. Three quarters have said that they want all taxation devolved to Scotland. This is the thing, isn’t it? There might be a Command Paper, but the people in charge of this process are the Scottish people themselves and we will be judged by their good judgment on what they want for their future.

[Mr Carmichael]

May I say again that I welcome the participation of the hon. Gentleman’s party in the Smith process? I very much hope—in fact, I believe—that that is being done in good faith. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take heed of the 60.19% of the people in his own area who voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. If he tries to subvert the Smith process by getting independence through the back door, as others have said, he will pay a heavy price.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

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

3. What steps he is taking to inform the public about the Scottish independence referendum.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

To inform the debate, a variety of information, including a range of detailed analysis papers and a booklet for each household in Scotland, has been published. I have also participated in public debates and will continue to do so to set out the benefits of Scotland’s remaining in the United Kingdom.

[Pete Wishart]

For which we are eternally grateful, but is not the best way to inform people to debate? Instead, we have the leader of the no campaign, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, running a mile, feart to do just that? What about the substitute-designate? It will be a slaughter worse than the Bannockburn re-enactment if they put up the angry, agitated Alistair to debate with the First Minister. The Secretary of State himself could do it; he is good at this stuff—he could even take Rhona with him. But what we really need is the organ grinder, not one of the Alistair monkeys to debate with the First Minister.

[Mr Carmichael]

That was pitiful. I cannot believe it sounded good even when the hon. Gentleman rehearsed it in the mirror this morning. It is typical, though, of what we hear from the Scottish nationalists. They are desperate always to talk about how we will debate. They do that only because they want to avoid the actual debate, because they know that the force of argument is on the side of those of us who want to remain in the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 7th May 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

The only foregone conclusion about a currency union is that it will not happen. It will not happen because that is the advice that has been given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That advice is not going to change, and the outcome of that advice is not going to change.

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

The Chancellor’s sermon on the pound was supposed to bring the Scottish people back into fearful line, but as the opinion polls have shown, the Scottish people will not be discouraged by this; instead, they are emboldened and angered. The Scottish people will no longer be told by Westminster. Will the Secretary of State tell us what has happened to the search for the Minister who told the truth? Have they made any progress, or do they perhaps need our help?

[Mr Carmichael]

Mr Speaker, I am delighted that you were able to fit the hon. Gentleman in; otherwise, we would all have missed his monthly comedy turn. It is quite remarkable that he chooses to ignore the advice given by the permanent secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, setting out why a currency union would be bad for the rest of the United Kingdom and bad for an independent Scotland. Why does the hon. Gentleman want something that would be bad for Scotland?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

4. What plans the Government have to review the Barnett formula.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

The Government have no plans to review the Barnett formula in this Parliament.

[Pete Wishart]

That is not quite what the Secretary of State said only a few weeks ago. Gary Robertson asked, “What about the Barnett formula? Will that change post-2014?” The Secretary of State said—because it was he—“Let me be absolutely clear, erm, erm, er, there will be no action taken on the Barnett formula, erm, erm, until the economy has erm, er, stabilised.” Help me Rona! Why is he not just straight with the Scottish people? We all know that the bosses and the paymasters of the no campaign—his Tory friends—want Barnett scrapped. Is that not the real cost to the people of Scotland—£4 billion?

[Mr Carmichael]

It is a classic of the genre—synthetic outrage at its very best. The hon. Gentleman knows that the Barnett formula is one reason the people of Scotland reject independence. That is why he is operating his own little “Project Smear” to pretend that it is somehow at risk. The position has been put beyond any doubt today by the Prime Minister in a letter to the First Minister. The hon. Gentleman should explain that and tell the people of Scotland that the best way to get rid of the Barnett formula is to vote for independence.

Helicopter Crash (Glasgow)

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Monday 2nd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

The question of a book of condolence in this place would initially be a matter for the House authorities. It seems to me to be an entirely appropriate suggestion and anything I can do to assist it, I will happily do.

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

May I thank the Secretary of State for this very difficult statement and for allowing me early sight of it this afternoon? May I also join him, from these Benches, in paying tribute to the magnificent response from the emergency services? I do not think any of us will forget the deepening chill we felt on Friday evening as the true horror of these events became apparent. The response from the people of Glasgow to this tragedy has been nothing short of tremendous—people rushing to the scene of the accident instead of running away, the many instances of human kindness we have witnessed throughout the weekend, and the way this tragedy has united us and brought us together in adversity. Will the Minister join me in expressing gratitude to the people of Glasgow for the way they have responded and offer condolences to those who have been bereaved by this tragedy?

[Mr Carmichael]

I have no hesitation in joining the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in expressing that view. What he says about the instances of human kindness in Glasgow is absolutely correct. In Glasgow this morning, I met police officers who told me about instances where colleagues of theirs simply going about their duty, or even off-duty, were approached by ordinary members of the public in supermarkets, on the street or wherever to simply ask how they were. At its most basic level, that is the sort of warmth and concern that typifies the people of Glasgow, and we have seen it at its best in the last few days.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Alistair Carmichael

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Carmichael]

I will be doing what I have been doing since the day and hour I took over this job. I will work with the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in the Scottish Government, if they are prepared to work with me. I will work with the councillors and officers at Glasgow city council. I will work with UKTI and, most of all, I will work with BAE Systems, which, in very difficult circumstances, has handled itself in a way that should be commended.

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

2. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the display of materials from the “Go home or face arrest” campaign in the Glasgow UK Border Agency office.

[The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael)]

I recently met both my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration to discuss a range of immigration matters, including the campaign to which the hon. Gentleman refers. In a written statement last week my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration informed the House that the poster campaign has no future in Scotland.

[Pete Wishart]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but was it not absolutely appalling that these disgusting and xenophobic materials graced a public office in Scotland, contrary to everything we have tried to achieve through good and positive community relations in Scotland? This is all about a race to the bottom with the UK Independence party on immigration. We do not even do UKIP in Scotland. We do not even do Conservative; we have got the one lone panda of a Minister, the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), sitting there. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that we will never see the likes of these posters again in Scotland?