Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Keir Starmer

Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend, who brings huge expertise to this area, for his question. We have to reset the new hospital programme and put it on a sustainable footing. The last Government promised 40 new hospitals. The problem is there were not 40, they were not new and some of them were not even hospitals. Hospitals with RAAC, including West Suffolk hospital, must be a priority, so we are reviewing the programme, and the Secretary of State will update Parliament as soon as possible.

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

Q10. After 14 miserable years of the worst Tory Government in modern times, the best this Prime Minister can offer the British people is, “Things can only get worse.” For him and his calamitous opinion ratings that is probably true, but why does he think he has such an unprecedented fall in his popularity? Is it his attacks on the pensioners? Is it leaving children in poverty? Is it the re-emergence of Labour cronyism, or is it because his austerity is even worse than the Conservative variety?

[The Prime Minister]

I remember when Scottish National party Members used to sit at the front, but they are now a long way up and there are very few of them, so I do not think we need lectures on popularity and winning elections.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Keir Starmer

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am pleased that Great British Energy will be owned by and for the British people, to invest in the energy systems of the future. That means cheaper bills as renewables are cheaper, it means security so that Putin cannot put his boot on our throat, and it means the next generation of jobs for years to come.

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

Q6. The Prime Minister has achieved something that we did not think would be possible in such a short period of time. In fewer than three weeks, he has had a significant rebellion and suspended seven of his Members of Parliament—all for standing up against child poverty. And this from a Labour Government. The headlines are awful for the Prime Minister this morning. Poverty campaigners are furious with him. Is his honeymoon over before it has even begun?

[The Prime Minister]

The SNP left for the election campaign with a significant number of Members and have come back with a small handful, so I do not think we need these lectures on what the electorate in Scotland are thinking. I am very proud of our Scottish Labour MPs. I simply repeat the point that I made to the SNP leader, the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), that perhaps the SNP needs to account for the 30,000 extra children in poverty in Scotland.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between Pete Wishart and Keir Starmer

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

It is important to appreciate that at the moment, I am pressing an amendment that favours a Brexit deal. In our manifesto we said that, if elected, we would seek to negotiate. We said that we would

“ end Theresa May’s reckless approach to Brexit”,

and that we would

“scrap the Conservatives’ Brexit White Paper and replace it with fresh negotiating priorities that have a strong emphasis on retaining the benefits of the Single Market and the Customs Union”,

and we set out why that was necessary. We also said that we recognised

“that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain”,

and that we would

“reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option”.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I have not finished answering the question yet.

What I am putting before the House today is entirely consistent with what we said in our manifesto that we would seek to do. Therefore, the question will be whether we can carry that tonight.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

[Keir Starmer]

I have not finished answering the question, and it is an important question.

If that cannot be done, we will be faced in two weeks with what I think will be the Prime Minister’s red-line deal or no deal. In our manifesto we rejected both, and in those circumstances we would either put forward or support a motion on a public vote with a credible leave option—when we tabled a Front-Bench amendment three or four weeks ago we spelled out that that deal or proposition would have to have the confidence of the House—with the other option being remain.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and Keir Starmer

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to the debates we have just had, it is clear there is a lot of concern from Members on both sides of the House that the Government have not satisfied the motion passed less than a month ago. You have been very clear in your advice that the motion passed was binding. After the debate on 1 November, you said that

“I would expect the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household to present the Humble Address in the usual way.”—[Official Report, 1 November 2017; Vol. 630, c. 931.]

The expectation of this House was that the papers would be handed over in full, unedited. Anything less than this would be, I believe, a contempt of Parliament. Can I seek your guidance on whether you believe the Government have adequately satisfied the motion and the expectations of the House? If not, would failure to comply be considered a contempt of the House? If so, what would be the best way for Members to proceed?

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Keir Starmer

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Keir Starmer]

In speaking to new clause 1, I will touch on other new clauses in the bucket. As we go through the debate on these amendments, which is probably the most important debate that we have had thus far and are going to have, it is important that we remind ourselves of the context. The negotiations that will take place under article 50 will be the most difficult, complex and important for decades—arguably, since the second world war. Among other things, it is important that we ensure the best outcome for our economy and jobs, and the trading agreements. As I have said on a number of occasions, what that entails is very clear; we must have tariff-free and barrier-free access to the single market, regulatory alignment, and full access for services and goods. In the White Paper published last Thursday, the Government accept the strength of those arguments about the trading agreements.

It is important that we have the right ongoing future relationship with our EU partners. Labour has been forceful in arguing for maintaining close collaboration with our partners in the fields of medicine, science, research, education, culture, security, policing and counter-terrorism. Although the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State maintain the idea that all this can be agreed within two years, leaving just an implementation stage, the reality is that we will have two deals: the article 50 agreement and a new UK-EU treaty setting out the new arrangements, along with transitional arrangements.

To be clear, we all have a vested interest, on behalf of all our constituents, in getting the right outcome, and that raises the proper role of Parliament in this process. That is why I have consistently argued for three elements of scrutiny and accountability, and this is a debate that, in a sense, has been going on for the last three months. The first element, which I started the argument for last October, was that, at the start, we should have a plan or White Paper—a formal document setting out the negotiating objectives. We should then have a system for reporting back during the negotiations, and we should have a vote at the end of the exercise. Those are the three elements of scrutiny and accountability that I have argued for.

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

Is it the case that if all the hon. and learned Gentleman’s proposals are rejected by the Government, the Labour party will simply endorse Third Reading and support the Government? What is the point, therefore, of making all this case for these proposals if he is just supinely going to cave in to what the Government want on article 50?

[Keir Starmer]

I am not sure how helpful interventions like that are to a debate, which is actually really important, about scrutiny and accountability. Just to be clear, nagging away, pushing votes and making the argument over three months, we have got a White Paper, and it is important. Nagging away and making the arguments, we have got commitments about reporting back. Nagging away and making the arguments, we have got a commitment to the vote at the end of the exercise. So when the charge is levelled at the Opposition that they have not made the case, and are not succeeding on the case, for scrutiny and accountability, that simply does not match what has happened over the last three months.