Immigration and Home Affairs

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 23rd July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate most warmly the hon. Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson). That was a tour de force around his constituency and I am absolutely certain that he will be a passionate advocate on behalf of his constituents. The only thing we missed was the opportunity for him to sing, but when we get the all-party music group together, we will give him that opportunity and the House will be able to revel in his talents on that front.

I am delighted that the Speaker, in his infinite wisdom, has decided to select our amendment on the two-child benefit cap for a vote this evening. It is absolutely right that this House should make a decision on this pressing issue. This is the early test for Labour Members. It is an early test for their commitment to take on the scourge of child poverty across the United Kingdom. We have just had new figures from the House of Commons Library, and they are absolutely shocking. I am not going to pick on the new Labour Members because they are all new and they are all finding their feet, but what this does to our nation is utterly appalling. We know that 87,100 children in Scotland are impacted by this cap.

I do not know if any of the Labour Members in the Chamber represent Glasgow constituencies, but let’s just have a look at Glasgow, where 4,500 households are being impacted by this two-child benefit cap. This is the first big test for Labour Members. We know that Scottish Labour opposes this cap. We have heard its leader talk passionately about making sure it is done away with. Labour Members have got to vote tonight to show that. This is an early challenge for the hon. Gentlemen and hon. Ladies who now represent Scottish constituencies.

This is a very much changed House, and I congratulate the Labour Government on their quite stunning victory. I also want to congratulate my new Labour colleagues on their victories across Scotland. I really hope they enjoy being an MP and the experience that this offers in this House, representing our wonderful nation on these green Benches, but they will know from the bitter experience of 2015 that tides come in and tides go out. The only thing that seems to be constant in Scottish politics is that there will always be a Member of Parliament from the Scottish National party representing Perthshire in Scotland, and I want to thank the people of Perth and Kinross-shire for returning me for a record seventh time in 23 years. I promise that I will serve them as I have served all my constituents in the past 23 years on these Benches.

Immigration is the subject of the day, and this is important. This is big stuff. It is really important that the Government get this right, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard so far. I am not really sure and certain that Labour really knows what it wants to do when it comes to immigration. I have heard lots of tough talk, with strong language on deportations, enforcement and getting people out of this country. What I want to hear about is the experience of these people who come to our country in appalling destitution and poverty, who have lived through some of the most unimaginable experiences, who are real living beings and who do not want the scapegoating language that has been deployed in the past. Think about them! Explain to us the safe and legal routes by which people can get to this country. Open up a way for citizenship to be acquired. Let’s be creative, for goodness’ sake. Let’s have some of these asylum seekers working. Why is it right that they have been left unattended for so long?

Surely a new Labour Government could start to get into that sort of territory, but I am not encouraged by what I have heard thus far from the Labour party. We do not want a Tory hostile environment to be replaced by a Labour hostile environment. We need to see a better understanding and empathy about the plight of people who are leaving war zones devastated and traumatised by what has happened to them. What we want to hear is a proper, thought-out, pragmatic approach to immigration that finally acknowledges the value of immigration and that has humanity and common decency at its core. That is not too much to ask from a Labour Government.

This is a priority for us in Scotland. We are the only part of the United Kingdom whose population is predicted to fall—by 2033 our population will be starting to decline. We will have a smaller base of working people who are expected to support a non-active, ageing population, which raises a whole series of issues and difficulties for us, particularly economic issues, and this has to be addressed.

We also have to make sure that our public services are staffed. Such is their current situation and condition that, if every school leaver in Scotland went into social care next year, there still would not be enough people to fill the places required. We need to hear a solution, and we are starting to get there. During the general election campaign, I was encouraged that the parties were actually talking about a Scottish visa, which is the Rolls-Royce gold standard we require. It happens in nations across the world without issue and without difficulty, so it could happen here. The nations of the United Kingdom have their own political jurisdictions, and they even have their own tax codes to ensure that it can happen.

We have done it before. I was a Member of this House when the previous Labour Government delivered the Fresh Talent initiative, and it worked. I cheered them on when it was delivered, and it is something this Government could do. If Scottish Labour Members want to go to the Home Office to demand a solution to our very real difficulties and problems, we will hold their jackets and cheer them on, but they must do something, because this is a pressing issue for the Scottish economy.

I gently say to Conservative Members that over the last couple of years we have heard such a degree of rubbish from them. They tried to tell us that people would not come to Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom, because apparently they are put off by our lower council tax, our lower house prices, our free tuition and our free prescription charges. Most of all, they said that people would not come to Scotland because we had asked them to pay just a few more pounds of income tax. Well, that fox is well and truly shot, as National Records of Scotland has shown that there is net migration into Scotland, so let us not hear any more about that rubbish.

I end with a plea to our Scottish colleagues. We want to work with them to ensure that we get Scottish solutions to Scottish problems. It is now up to them. They have the power and the responsibility. They can make these changes to sort out our immigration and, for goodness’ sake, they should back us in the Lobby tonight so that we can do something about child poverty in Scotland.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Andy MacNae to make his maiden speech.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christopher Chope

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Friday 23rd November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Sir Christopher Chope]

I shall use my best endeavours to comply with your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I think that was a useful walk around amendments 7 and 8. Let me refer briefly to the other amendments in my name, which deal with when the Bill has to be enacted. At the moment, clause 11, on the commencement, extent and short title, says that “section 8” and

“any power to make regulations”

will come in

“on the day on which this Act is passed”.

However, the clause also states that the

“remaining provisions of this Act come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint.”

My amendment suggests that that should be two months after the day on which the Act is passed, again to ensure that the pressure is kept on the Government to bring the measures forward as quickly as possible. There is massive public demand for them, and I fear that if we do not tie the Government’s hands a bit more than the Bill does currently, we may have to rely, to a very great extent, on the muscle power of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire. I do not really think we want to have to do that, which is why I tabled the amendments. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) on his commitment to ensuring that we have parity and fairness in private parking—it is matched only by his dexterity on the drum kit and his ability to keep time in the parliamentary rock band, MP4. This is a very fine Bill, and I will come to the code of practice on Third Reading, because it is really important that we get a better understanding of the Government’s intentions on the code of practice, which is a most important feature.

I support the right hon. Gentleman on new clause 1 and the subsequent amendment. It is very important to ensure that we get clarity on the appeals process. He is right that we are not covered by POPLA in Scotland. If a car parking operator is part of the independent parking community, we can appeal to the Independent Appeals Service, but that leaves a rather big gap in the opportunities in Scotland to appeal against some of these parking restrictions.

The right hon. Gentleman will know my interest in all this. The city of Perth is totally plagued by private parking companies, making life a misery for my constituents and the many people who come to visit that beautiful city. It is important that we get the Bill done and address this issue. On appeals, a member of staff who works in my office in Perth spends a good part of his day having to deal with complaints and assist people with appeals about the operation of parking companies in my constituency. Something has to be done. The procedure is that someone can appeal against private parking operators, but they are self-regulating. It is up to them whether they take it seriously and to make a ruling and a judgment if they think it is fair—if they think the appeal should be progressed—and then to make a response to the complainant. Clearly, that course of action is unsatisfactory.

This comes down to the British Parking Association’s set of regulations. It introduced POPLA in England and Wales several years ago, which, as I have said, does not cover Scotland. People can appeal to POPLA only if they have failed to secure a successful outcome in appealing to the private parking operator in the first place, and there is a £20 charge. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that the new independent appeals process that he outlines in the new clause will be free of charge. That is important, because I have seen some of these fines range to over £100—I think the top one I have seen, at the end of one of the very many threatening letters that are used by debt collection companies, was in the region of £140 to £160. The added cost of the appeal is another burden and feature that has to be endured by the hard-pressed motorist.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christopher Chope

Thursday 25th February 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.

I think it would be appropriate to congratulate Adele on her four Brit awards yesterday evening and Coldplay on becoming the British act with the most Brit awards. The deputy Leader of the House and I enjoyed the ceremony last night, I think it would be fair to say.

We are being a bit short-changed today. We have heard a business statement from the “out” side of the Cabinet, but there is no business statement from the “in” side of the Cabinet. The Leader of the House, who is the leader of the no campaign too, has the opportunity to spread his pernicious “no” agenda for the next hour or hour and a half. When will we get to hear the business statement from the “in” side of the Cabinet, because this week marked the end of collective Cabinet responsibility, particularly for the next few months?

The nasty civil war in the Tory party is starting to get serious. It looks like the poor old Justice Secretary will be first for the boot. I do not know whether the Leader of the House will rush to his defence and man the barricades to try to save him. Even friendships that go right back to the playing fields of Eton look like the remnants of a Bullingdon night out. For my colleagues on these Benches, it is popcorn time as we observe not just a civil war in the Tory party, but the ongoing civil war within the Labour party.

I am going to do something very radical on Tuesday. It is not to declare a unilateral declaration of independence for Scotland or announce MP4’s Eurovision participation—I am going to do something much more radical. In the debate on the estimates, I am going to attempt to debate the estimates. Apparently, that has never been done. I say “attempt” because I have had conversations with the Clerks and it is more than likely that I will be ruled out of order for attempting to debate the estimates on estimates day, because the one thing we are not to debate on estimates day is the estimates. Where in the world, other than in this absurd House, could that possibly be the case?

I just want to remind the House what the estimates are. They are the consolidated spending of the Departments of this nation, but we have no opportunity to debate them. The Leader of the House will remember very clearly that during the debate on English votes for English laws, he made it very clear to us that all issues of Barnett consequentials were to be bound up in the debates about the estimates, yet we have no opportunity to debate them. It will be right and proper of you, Mr Speaker, to rule me out of order if I attempt to debate the estimates—that is the natural consequence—but we have to end the absurd notion that we cannot even start to debate departmental spending in this House.

We got a deal on the fiscal framework this week and I think that everybody is absolutely delighted. I congratulate the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister on stopping the Treasury trying to diddle Scotland out of £7 billion. However, I want to ask what happens next, because the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in front of the Scottish Affairs Committee that the fiscal framework would come back to this House for further scrutiny.

[Mr Chope]

indicated assent.

[Pete Wishart]

I can see that the hon. Gentleman is agreeing. I do not mind scrutiny of the fiscal framework—it is right and proper that this House looks at it—but will the Leader of the House today rule out this House having a veto on the fiscal framework that was agreed between the UK and Scottish Governments?

Lastly, I do not know whether the Leader of the House is on speaking terms with his no longer good friend the Prime Minister, but, if he is, will he tell him to please stay away from Scotland for the next few months? We value our European membership in Scotland, so will the Prime Minister please stay away? In the meantime, there is a warm invitation to the Leader of the House, the Justice Secretary and the Mayor of London to come to Scotland any time.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christopher Chope

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Christopher Chope

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

That is a defect of all alternative vote systems. One reason I like the first-past-the-post system is that it is clear for people to understand. The most popular candidate wins, and we do not get into this business of having to go for the lowest common denominator.

My amendment would put into the Bill the only AV system already operating in our country—it operates in London and the rest of England for mayoral elections.

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

Is not the hon. Gentleman proposing almost a semi-alternative vote, given that it would be a restriction on the whole concept of AV? Surely, it is up to electors. If they decide to list only two members among their favourites, that is their decision. Why does he seek to restrict the choice of voters? It is very uncharacteristic of him.