Infected Blood Inquiry Report

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 20th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

That completes this short statement. There will be a full statement tomorrow, when all the details of compensation will be brought to the House and all Members will be able to get in.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you received any explanation for why we are getting only half an hour of the Prime Minister’s time? I know there will be a statement tomorrow by the Paymaster General, which we are all looking forward to, but what could be more important than being here and taking questions from—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will answer the question. I have worked very closely with different parties and, most importantly, this is about the families. It is their day, which is why the statement has been done in this way. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would wish to respect that, rather than question it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

Never before has such rubbish been uttered about a piece of legislation as has been uttered about the Hate Crime Act. In one week, the Tories have tried to repeal it—which, given that it mainly consolidates existing legislation, will leave us unprotected against islamophobia, racism and homophobia. Will the Secretary of State now issue one of his famous colonial decrees and tell the Scottish Tories to back off?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi to ask question 3. [Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State answer the question and allow the shadow Minister to come in?

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Can you sit down, please? Question 2 has been withdrawn. We are now at question 3.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member complained about the other question, but it is not my fault that no Government Members have stood to ask a supplementary question. I keep a political balance, and I am not going to break that for him. I call Thangam Debbonaire.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 24th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

Scottish businesses would give their right arm to have the arrangements that Northern Irish business have, with their access to the single market and all the competitive advantages that that brings. The Prime Minister has described Northern Ireland as one of the

“world’s most exciting economic zones”.

Does the Minister agree with that, and what is he doing to ensure that Scotland gets the same arrangements?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 11th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us hear from the industry. I call Pete Wishart.

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

The music industry is just about the most unequal sector in the whole of society. Those at the bottom—the vast majority—earn an absolute pittance, while those at the very top have unimaginable earnings. Surely we should be doing everything possible to try to change that. It is the sensible option: they do it in France, and the Scottish National party Government are considering doing it in Scotland. Will the Minister support that effort and initiative in Scotland, and if it shows that it can help redistribute some of this money, will she follow that example?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 29th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that his mission to constrain and bypass the Scottish Parliament has been an absolute disaster for devolution. Relationships across the UK have never been as such a low level. Will he acknowledge that his version of aggressive Unionism has utterly failed? As he is leaving his office, will he pledge to abandon it entirely?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

The Secretary of State will know that the Scottish Affairs Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into how Scotland is promoted internationally, and all we have heard is just how well the UK and the Scottish Government work together, and about the added value that the Scottish Government mission brings to that promotion. Why is he determined to pick a fight unnecessarily and get in the way of that business?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 11th May 2023 Commons Chamber

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

The Secretary of State for Scotland recently—

[Mr Speaker]

Sorry, let us take Clive Efford, who has already started. I will come to you, Mr Wishart.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 22nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

I warmly congratulate the Secretary of State and the Government on what they are doing to strengthen the Union, whether it is the £220,000 they are forking out to the former Prime Minister for his legal fees, the disgraceful financial arrangements around the chair of the BBC, the bullying allegations, the tax affairs or the Prime Minister’s second fixed penalty notice. The Prime Minister said he would fix Tory sleaze once and for all. How does the Secretary of State think he is getting on with that?

Scotland Act 1998: Section 35 Power

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 17th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

This is the single biggest attack on Scottish devolution and Scottish democracy since the establishment of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. A move to strike down a piece of legislation that is supported by every single party in the Parliament is as provocative as it is anti-democratic. When the Scotland Act went through Parliament back in 1997 and ’98, the Conservatives called section 35 the “colonial general rule”. Is the Secretary of State now the real-life colonial general imposing his view on a reluctant Scottish Parliament in the name of his and his party’s culture wars?

--- Later in debate ---

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

No, I want to get through the ten-minute rule Bill. I will take points of order after that, depending on what the House decides.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

Some of the things that we require to ensure increased food production are good trade deals, and in a rare moment of understated candour, the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), has conceded that the much-trumpeted flagship Australian trade deal is “not…very good”, something any of us could have told him if he had been prepared to listen. Why does it take the resignation or sacking of former Secretaries of State to get that type of blunt candour? Does the Secretary of State agree that these rotten deals betray and let down all the sectors that she represents?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Pete Wishart.

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

I say to the Minister that his Government will never regain the trust of the Scottish people as long as they do not respect the democracy of our Parliament. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State might have his bolthole in the House of Lords, but the Minister and all his other Scottish colleagues will have to face the wrath of the electorate, so what representations has the soon-to-be Baron Jack made on behalf of him and his colleagues to make sure that they are safely ensconced in the House of Lords? [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 12th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee.

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

What would the impact have been on levelling-up projects if the Scottish Government had followed the advice of the Scottish Conservatives to give these unfunded and catastrophic tax cuts to the wealthiest in our society? Will the Secretary of State now apologise to the Scottish Government for insisting that they follow this disastrous and reckless course of action?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

May I welcome the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart, to his new position?

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

Thank you ever so much, Mr Speaker. It feels like business questions. I thought I was getting away from the right hon. Gentleman, but there is seemingly no escape. May I welcome him to his new role and congratulate the new Secretary of State? I know they have a huge inbox—they do not have to seek problems. As we have heard, there are rocketing prices for the rural economy and astronomical price rises for the consumer, and on top of that there is a fertiliser crisis, agflation in the sector and a harvest that remains unpicked because of the lack of seasonal labour. So is this the right time to pick a fight with the EU over the Northern Irish protocol, with the real risk of tariffs being introduced for the sector? Is now not the time to climb down, negotiate properly and get the best possible solution for our farmers, our producers and our consumers?

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 7th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 30th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

We need a debate about democracy across the UK. We need to properly consider why this Government think it is okay to try to legally imprison a nation in what is supposed to be a voluntary Union of equals. We need to figure out why this Government seem to believe that democracy can somehow be put into some sort of Tory deep-freeze where people are not allowed to change their minds and their parliamentary majorities do not seem to matter. We need to debate why a nation should continually endure Governments that it did not vote for, and why these Tories think that our country is better being governed by them, rather than by the people who live and work in Scotland. We need to consider what Scotland has done to whatever Almighty is out there to end up being governed by this particular Prime Minister.

We need to debate all the broken promises that were made to Scotland last time: the untruth that only by voting to stay in the Union would we remain in the EU; and the daily attacks on our Parliament when we were promised near-federalism. We have to ask: is this broken Brexit Britain the best that Scotland can ever be and ever aspire to? In that debate, we have to look at the examples of similar-sized countries to Scotland that are powering ahead of Scotland, unshackled as they are from that bunch over on the Government Benches. We need to challenge the Government’s assumption that, with all our resources, skills and history of invention and creation, Scotland would somehow uniquely fail in the world. We need to ask them why they still believe that we are somehow too wee, poor and stupid to run our own affairs. More than that, we need to leave, and most importantly, we need to debate why any self-respecting country would want to remain in a Union that is prepared to do this to Scotland.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Let us come to the SNP spokesman, Pete Wishart.

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

I am quite surprised to see so many Conservative Members in their places—don’t they know there are by-elections they have to fight? I suppose it is a lot safer being in here, though, than having to traipse around Devon or the north of England having to explain away all the many prime ministerial indiscretions.

Can we have a debate about job opportunities, because it seems to me that if you are intimately involved with this Prime Minister your chances of securing a top job in Whitehall, with the royal family or at COP seem to be greatly enhanced? I listened to the Leader of the House on this particular issue. I do not know if this piece of prime ministerial nepotism is true or not, but it seems to be quite consistent with what we have experienced of this Prime Minister over the past few months. I know—maybe it is a job for the ethics adviser. Oh yes—there isn’t one; his role is currently being reviewed. Translated from the Johnsonian, that means it is being abandoned. This is a Prime Minister with the ethics of a polecat. Not even all the ethics advisers in the world could start to scratch the surface of the many issues that need to be confronted.

I am quite surprised—I thought Government Members would all be on their feet today celebrating Brexit day. It is six years since that decision was taken—six years of chaos and misery for this nation. In Scotland, this day is marked with nothing other than dismay, disappointment and simmering resentment. We are a nation taken out of an EU we cherished against our national collective will, after being promised that our membership would be safe if we stayed in their Union. The absolute failure of their Brexit and the preparation to break international law on Monday on the protocol is the main driver for converts to the cause of Scottish independence. They may have got themselves out of the European Union, but they have inadvertently helped Scotland get out of the mess of this Union. Maybe that is something worth celebrating.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

When I first saw that there was to be a change to tomorrow’s business, I just presumed that it was to introduce the “making the UK an international pariah Bill”, which we all expect to see in good time. Of all the things to choose, they have chosen to throw red meat to the Tory Back Benches on their favourite subject: hammering the unions and being as anti-union as possible. There is one very significant statement that has been made in the UK today, and that happened in Bute House, in the office of the First Minister of Scotland, where we have indicated our intention to get out of this trail of devastation that is the United Kingdom and become a country of our own. That process has started and the debate is now engaged, and by God are we going to win that one.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

Another week, and yet again I find no scheduling of an emergency Budget. This Tory-induced cost of living crisis is leaving our constituents in the worst situation and conditions ever encountered in modern times. Although there is no real action from this Government, there is plenty of budgeting advice from Tory Back Benchers. Let us look at the top five instances of their most patronising drivel: learn how to cook, work more hours, get a better job, put the name brands down and rent out the granny flat. Perhaps we need a debate about the real world, so we can examine how many Tories actually inhabit it.

We also need an urgent debate on law and order, with a laser-like focus on the emerging criminal hotspots across the United Kingdom. With Operation Hillman winding up after an extraordinary and record-breaking 126 fines, No. 10 Downing Street is now the biggest covid lawbreaking address in the country by a country mile. The party of law and order is now the party that parties in no particular order. Surely this lawbreaking cell must be broken up and social services should be asked to intervene. This criminal gang should be sent a short, sharp shock; perhaps they should do some sort of collective community service, or perhaps even work in the food banks that they like to talk about at such great length. For some reason, this Government believe they have got away with it and that this scale of lawbreaking can simply be set aside, but the more the people of this country suffer at the hands of their cost of living crisis, the angrier they will be with this party with a culture of partying at No. 10. From no lawbreaking to 126 fines! Can the Leader of the House confirm that any Minister issued with a fine will come before the House at the earliest opportunity?

Business Question

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 12th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

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

To that list, of course, we should add the Prime Minister, who sunk the Conservatives from second place to third place in Scotland, so well done to him.

I thank the Leader of the House for helpfully announcing the business up to the Whit recess. Try as I might, though, I could not find any scheduling of an emergency budget. This must now surely be a priority as we learn today that the UK economy has contracted by 0.1% and that inflation is at a 40-year high. The whole of the UK is suffering from a cost of living crisis, yet the Government’s priority is to give people in England the right to complain about a neighbour’s garden shed.

I do not know whether the Leader of the House is joining his Cabinet colleagues at their bonding session in Stoke-on-Trent this afternoon, but we can only imagine what a joyous occasion that will be. I hear the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) is in charge of the kitchen arrangements; he is offering cooking lessons to help Secretaries of State ensure that their Cabinet salaries go just that little bit further. Who knows? There might even be cake, and it might even be made from scratch, because they have so much to celebrate. The Prime Minister is still in place—a big hooray from everybody on the Back Benches over there.

We must have a debate on comedy performances, because the Levelling Up Secretary is apparently providing the after-dinner entertainment. Following his rip-roaring, side-splitting success yesterday, he is going to give all his best regional accents in an attempt to upset just about all parts of the United Kingdom. But that is this Government, is it not—laughing while the nation suffers? They fail to take seriously the utter despair and desperate conditions of our constituents. The Tories may still be in power, but any moral authority they might ever have had is now well and truly gone.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 21st April 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I too would like to wish a very happy birthday to Her Majesty, and also to his majesty the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), as we on these Benches always refer to him.

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us a full day’s debate on the privilege motion. We cannot wait to see the hordes of Tory Back Benchers getting to their feet to say what a wonderful, truthful and honest character the Prime Minister is. Of course, he is not here; he is in India. I do not know who is advising him, but apparently the first thing they got him to do when he arrived was to spin some yarn. I see that the Government’s amendment is jointly in the Leader of the House’s name, in what must be a supreme effort to kick the can down the road. I say again to colleagues on the Tory Back Benches that they had better be absolutely certain of what is in that can, because I suspect that, when they eventually have to open it, it will be packed full of the most rancid, noxious contents that they will then have to feast upon. This is not going to save the May elections. At some point, they are going to have to decide whether they get rid of him or whether they go down with him.

We are also going to have to have a debate about the type of language we use in this House, because it cannot go on like this. We cannot refer to the Prime Minister with the one word that the public now most closely associate with him. We cannot even refer to a fictitious Disney character who is associated with the word that the public most use about him. The public think we are absolutely mad, and that view will only have been compounded by the activities of last night. We had one hour to debate countless important amendments and two hours to vote on them. Then the card readers broke down, and we were back to pen and paper. Some cartoon classics may indeed be out of bounds in this House, but at some point this Disney wonderland is going to have to enter this century.

[Mr Speaker]

Can I just say for clarification—and I think we ought to be a little bit more honest—that we have very good Clerks and that two card readers were still operational? All those in the other Lobby were operational. Please let us not discredit a system that did actually work, and it worked quite well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to SNP spokesperson Pete Wishart.

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

Is it not the truth that Scotland has never experienced such sustained attacks on our democracy and our democratic institutions? As we have heard, legislative consent is now almost dead and buried, a feature of history, with Westminster now legislating in devolved areas. What is next in the Secretary of State’s sights?

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

As the darkening situation in Ukraine continues into a third week, it is right that statements, legislation and debates to help with the response continue to take priority in the business of the House. I hope the Leader of the House will assure me that that will continue to be the case. Although there is a general, if rather unusual, consensus across the House, that of course breaks down, as we have just heard, when it comes to the situation of and the support required for refugees. We welcome the belated U-turns, but this is still a Government with an ingrained ideological, if not obsessive determination to keep people out. We will see how it all works out in the days ahead.

Can we have a statement on how this will affect children leaving Ukraine—children who have no documentation and cannot wait a week to get out? Usually, I raise a constituency case at business questions. My constituent, Steve Carr, is the chair of Dnipro Kids Appeal, which supports orphans in that central Ukrainian city—a city in the crosshairs of all the approaches from the Russian advance. Right now, he is crossing the Ukrainian-Polish border with 34 Ukrainian orphans, hoping to get to Scotland. Indeed, he has just sent me a photo of the coach with the 34 Ukrainian orphans in it. Those children are traumatised and exhausted after weeks of seeing their country invaded and bombed. Steve does not anticipate any difficulty in getting across that border, but even after the Home Secretary’s statement, he does not know what happens next and how we get those children to Scotland. There are places for them in Perthshire and they will be supported by the local community there. I have written to the Home Secretary. I have not yet received a response—I know she is busy—but can the Leader of the House assure me that all remaining bureaucracy will now be set aside in the name of doing the right thing for those children to get here?

As you will know, Mr Speaker, the number of covid cases is up again in this House. Given the abandonment of nearly all arrangements in here, that was as inevitable as it was certain to happen. So what is the Leader of the House going to do about it? I suppose he will do what this Government and this House do best when confronted by a rise of cases in this pandemic—next to absolutely nothing.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 10th February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Hopefully we might get on to the business. This is very funny, but come on.

[Pete Wishart]

Can we have a debate about the lorry park that is now the county of Kent? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman is walking up and down the queue saying, “Hark! The sunlit uplands are just around the corner.”

There is one thing that the new Leader of the House could do to show that he is different in this job, and that is to resolve the case of my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Amy Callaghan). She has had to come down here just to vote, against her doctors’ advice, travelling 800 miles to put a pass against a card reader. It is madness. Not only is that bad for her, but it is bad for this House. It makes us look callous, it makes us look indifferent and it makes us look heartless. Can the Leader of the House show that he is not just the Mogg without the expensive classical education, and get this resolved for Members who are sick or recovering from illness?

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 27th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Scottish National party spokesman, Pete Wishart.

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

Let me first echo and support the comments of the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) about Holocaust Memorial Day. I think we are all looking forward to this afternoon’s debate.

May we have a debate about the constitution, just to ascertain whether we are on our way to becoming a republic? This view has a rather odd new supporter and champion in the guise of the Leader of the House himself. In another disastrous performance on Newsnight, he claimed that a change of leader requires a general election because the UK is now effectively a “presidential system”. Well, somebody should notify Her Majesty the Queen—but perhaps not the right hon. Gentleman himself, after that disastrous Prorogation business.

Most of us suspect that this was just some sort of clumsy attempt to get recalcitrant Tory Back Benchers on board—the threat of a general election in which large swathes of them would lose their seats—rather than a real attempt to redefine the constitution of the UK, but could we please have a statement from the Leader of the House, just for the comedy value? Last week, he was flattering the precious Union; this week he is reinventing the republic of the UK. He must be President Johnson’s most inept spokesperson when it comes to these matters.

I am beginning to think it would be a matter of duty and mercy for the House services to provide some sort of counselling services for Tory Back Benchers. What they have been through is almost unendurable. There has been Owen Paterson, cash for access, cash for honours, partygate, cakegate, Operation Big Dog and Operation Put Big Dog Down. Now they are biting their nails to the stumps waiting for the report so that they can at least make up their minds about the Prime Minister. It is like some sort of dysfunctional “Waiting for Godot”. But we are here to help: if confessional is required, Tory Members should come and speak to some of us in the Opposition. We are here to help out; we could help them fix some of their woes. Who would be a Tory Back Bencher just now? But help is out there.

Committee on Standards

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We only have an hour and a half to discuss this. This is the time that the Government gave us to discuss this matter. There is huge interest in this debate. Is there anything that you can do to encourage the Leader of the House to wind up his remarks?

[Mr Speaker]

I think the Leader of the House has just said that he is coming to his conclusion.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Perthshire One has been released. Let us go to the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Free at last, and it is good to be back. Can I thank the Leader of the House for his support and understanding during my long confinement, and my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) for standing in for me so stoutly, as he always does? Now I am back, I have of course one simple task: to secure something for the Scottish press by gently encouraging the Leader of the House to say something provocative and inflammatory about Scotland. Knowing the Leader of the House as I do, I know that he will oblige me in giving me the headline I seek.

Can I sincerely congratulate the England team on progressing to their historic place and getting beat by Germany on penalties? I also congratulate the Welsh team. It is of course a fantastic feat to get through to the last 16 again. I know the tartan army’s most unlikely new recruit will be gutted at Scotland’s departure. Apparently, he is to go to the Caledonia bar in Leicester Square, where he has left a “See You Jimmy” wig. It is known to be his because it is attached to a top hat, so I hope he will be dispatched soon to reclaim it.

Will the Leader of the House now bring forward the necessary changes to Standing Orders to rid this place once and for all of the total disaster and absolute waste of time that is English votes for English laws? This piece of uselessness has been in abeyance for over a year, and such is the impact that the quasi-English Parliament has made on this House that nobody even knows it is not in operation any more. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said that EVEL is a hindrance to the Union, so what better incentive than that to get rid of it once and for all.

Lastly—and this is where I hope the Leader of the House helps me out and obliges me—we need a debate about strengthening the Union, because the Government are simply all over the place and seemingly doing everything possible to help our cause. In one week—this week—they tried to gerrymander the franchise before ruling out once again a vote in which they seek to cheat their way to victory, while the strains of “Strong Britain, great nation” bellow out from the children of England in a gesture that is not in the least bit creepy, ominous or embarrassing, so can I thank him for all his efforts in the course of the past week? As the red wall languishes in ruins and the blue wall is breached, the SNP tartan wall stands strong, impregnable and reinforced by the right hon. Gentleman.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 17th December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Can we have the SNP spokesperson, Pete Wishart?

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

You most certainly can, Mr Speaker, and thank you.

I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s answer, and yes, we are grateful for the vaccine, but I did not hear a response as to why he thinks that Scottish independence has now become the settled will of the Scottish people. This is not like him. He is usually quick to give his views about certain things, so why does he think that Scottish independence has sustained majority support, reaching a height of 58%, and is now the settled will of the Scottish people? Why is that the case?

Public Services

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 28th April 2020 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now go over to Pete Wishart, who has two minutes.

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

Thank you very much indeed, Mr Speaker.

May I thank the right hon. Gentleman for prior sight of his statement, albeit at the last possible moment, and gently encourage him to do more to engage with all Opposition parties throughout this pandemic? We have had no communication with him for weeks.

May I join the right hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to all those who work in our public services? They go way above and beyond in their duty of care for all nations. I also, of course, welcome the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) to her new place on the Labour Front Bench. I, too, look forward very much to working with her.

Those in our public services should expect our full support and to be given the very best equipment to carry out their heroic and difficult tasks. Last night the nation watched with horror the BBC’s “Panorama” report on a timetable of inaction and unpreparedness. It reported that those working in public services were being sent out to the frontline without the necessary protection, and that the Government were told years ago to stockpile certain PPE to cope with a pandemic but failed to do so.

May I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman some gentle questions? First, why were we so unprepared? Why were gowns, visors, swabs and body bags left out of the stockpile when it was set up in 2009? Surely cleaning products are not counted as PPE, and there should be no question at all that individual gloves are counted as single PPE items. I also want the right hon. Gentleman to convince me that paper towels are not counted as PPE. The Royal College of Physicians has found that 27% of doctors are reusing, or have used, their PPE. Why are they having to reuse PPE?

The Health Secretary said that 11 million PPE items had been sent to Scotland, which is our responsibility, from the UK pandemic stockpile, but that has now been downgraded to only “committed”. How many items from that 11 million have actually been delivered?

We all want to get behind this Government and to cheer them on when they are doing their best, but we also want them to admit when mistakes are made and to acknowledge shortcomings. Is the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster now prepared to acknowledge his shortcomings and admit to some of those mistakes?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. In my almost 20 years in this House I have probably spent the best part of a week traipsing around the Division Lobbies, exercising my democratic obligations as a Member of the House. It is a week that I am certain I will never get back. Last July, the Procedure Committee began an inquiry into the merits of electronic voting, which was interrupted by the general election in December. So far, no decision has been made to reopen that inquiry, but I encourage my hon. Friend to beat a path towards the Procedure Committee to encourage it to take up the inquiry again. Knowing of his determination, I am pretty certain that he will do so.

[Mr Speaker]

We are reminded that we do respond to the commission’s views as well.

Scottish Affairs Committee

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 2nd March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I just want to reinforce a point. This has nothing to do with or to say about English Members of Parliament being on the Scottish Affairs Committee; I am looking around the Chamber, and I recognise a couple of English Members who served very diligently on the Committee. The point is that we know that Members of Parliament have pressing concerns locally, and in the course of the past few years the Scottish Affairs Committee has tried to ensure that it meets as much as possible in Scotland to make it accessible, and to ensure that people can come along to experience and listen to its hearings. That is difficult if you represent a constituency based in England where there are other constraints and pressures. I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that.

[Mr Speaker]

I remind Members that comments should be directed through the Chair, and that they should not be having a personal debate.

Business of the House (19 and 20 December)

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th December 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr Speaker, even! Sorry about that; old habits die hard. This is an unusual state of affairs, and you have been generous to the Government in order for this debate to go ahead tomorrow. This is what the past three years have been all about: ensuring that they get their disastrous, dismal Brexit tomorrow. Scotland opposed it in 2016 and opposed it last week, and the SNP will vote against it tomorrow.

Question put and agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

Just for the record, I did negotiate to ensure that we were not coming back after Friday. I wanted the House to be in the right place, and I think that was part of my duty.

Bill Presented

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Stephen Barclay, supported by the Prime Minister, Michael Gove, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Robert Buckland, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Secretary Julian Smith and the Attorney General, presented Bill to implement, and make other provision in connection with, the agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union which sets out the arrangements for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 1) with explanatory notes (Bill 1-EN).

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons
Wednesday 24th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It is great to be back once again in the English Parliament. It seems a bit similar to the UK Parliament that we usually use this building for, but it is fantastic to be here, because I now believe that the English Parliament is a treasured piece of our democratic infrastructure, where English Members of Parliament can secure debates on English-only issues. We so look forward to the many English members of this Committee coming forward to discuss and consider all the great issues of state, free from Caledonian interference.

What has the English Parliament roused itself for today? What great state of the English nation issue do we need to discuss? It is the two clauses of the Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [Lords]. Some may say that the English Parliament is but an illusion, a mirage and a fake, and that this English Legislative Grand Committee does not properly represent and speak for England, but we say no to those doubters and deniers. This is not a sham Parliament. This is the English Parliament.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I wanted you to get that on the record, but this debate is about the Bill’s clauses. You have made a good point, and quite rightly. It is a well-rehearsed point that you make on every occasion, and I welcome that, but we now need to talk about the clauses.

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely, Sir Lindsay, because this Bill gets to the heart of English horticulture and all the associated democratic quandaries that need to be properly resolved and considered in this fantastic English Parliament.

This Bill rightly seeks to introduce powers to grant a lease over land at Kew for a term of up to 150 years. We can almost feel all the great Members of all the ancient English Parliaments saying, “Yes, we need to make sure that this is properly considered. We wholeheartedly agree that there should be not be a restriction in section 5 of the Crown Lands Act 1702 in relation to a lease of land at Kew.” We can almost hear the Stuarts, the Plantagenets and the Roundheads. If they knew that section 5 of the 1702 Act currently prevents the sale of Crown land such as Kew and limits the length of leases over it to a term of 31 years, which is clearly insufficient, they would be turning in their decorative, medieval graves—they would be demanding 150 years for Kew Gardens, and by God this English Parliament is going to secure that for them today!

I want to make it abundantly clear before I go any further that I think that Kew Gardens is a wonderful institution. Of course it deserves to be treated properly, and the Bill sets out how to do that perfectly. We squatters are not members of this august body; we are not Members of the English Parliament. We get to participate in it and make speeches, but our vote is subject to the double majority—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chairman]

Order. We are wandering again. There is a lot of time afterwards for you to speak, but we are discussing the clauses, not whether you have the right to vote. I accepted it earlier, but I will not allow that debate to be generated again. I know that you would never repeat yourself, but you are in danger of doing so.

[Pete Wishart]

I was just getting to the really important point. If we are going to consider the Bill properly, we have to look at what is in Kew Gardens. We have to—

[The Chairman]

Order. We are not going to go through individual plants. I was a little bit worried at the suggestion that we go back to the Plantagenets. As we know, Kew is a royal palace, and it was not Kew Gardens then, so I have allowed a little leeway, but I will not allow much more.

[Pete Wishart]

We are going from the Plantagenets to the plants, so perhaps we could skip a few generations if that would help. Maybe you could help me, Sir Lindsay. I thought we were considering all the clauses in the Bill in the Legislative Grand Committee. Is that correct?

[The Chairman]

Yes. Both of them—there are just two clauses.

[Pete Wishart]

Well, let us see what is in Kew Gardens—

[The Chairman]

Let us be honest: this Bill is purely about the extension of a lease—it is pretty straightforward. Other Members wanted to generate debate in other areas, quite rightly, but I want to ensure that we get through this stage, because I recognise that you want to move your amendments on Report, and it is important that we give you time to do that.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Sir Lindsay, for mentioning the amendments. I understand that I cannot move them at this stage because I am not a member of this Committee. Is that correct?

[The Chairman]

No, you absolutely cannot.

[Pete Wishart]

So I cannot move the amendments at this stage. It has to be done on Report.

[The Chairman]

Order. It is not about you personally, but I think we are getting into a debate that neither of us really wants to have. I know you have great plans ahead, but this is what we are dealing with today. The fact is and the reality is that I am in the Chair, and I will be taking the decisions. Let us get back to where we were.

[Pete Wishart]

I hope that I will be able to make some sort of speech just to talk a little bit about what is in Kew Gardens, which the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) from the Labour party did.

[The Chairman]

Order. It is not about what is in Kew Gardens. You are a bright chap, so let us not test each other’s patience. This is about the Bill, not what is in Kew Gardens.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

May I say that we very much support this Bill? We understand that the two clauses will help significantly in trying to generate some extra funds. We believe that seven residential properties may be impacted by the Bill. We look forward to ensuring that this is dealt with adequately, so this can be moved on and the money can be generated. I think that there was talk of up to £40 million that could be disposed of if this money was available to Kew Gardens, so we very much support that.

Sir Lindsay, you are obviously not going to let me talk about anything to do with the environment of this place, what we are doing in particular and how we cannot raise particular issues, with me not being a member of this Committee, so what we will do is look to bring forward our amendments later, if we can, and on that basis, possibly to divide the House when our amendments come forward. It is just unfortunate that we are not able to discuss properly what this place and this particular institution is. I see you rising to your feet again, and you are going to stop me—

[The Chairman]

Order. I do not want us to fall out. I do not make the rules of the House; I am here to ensure the rules are kept. If you have a problem, please do not take it up with the Chair, but change the rules of the House. It is quite simple.

[Pete Wishart]

I am not taking up anything. I listened to the Labour party spokesperson speaking about these particular issues, but, because I am not a member of this Committee, I am obviously not going to be allowed to do so.

I will conclude my remarks, Sir Lindsay. The last word is that it is really unfortunate that we cannot make a point about this ridiculous institution of the English Parliament. It is unfortunate that we cannot make our points about that today.

Dangerous Drugs

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb]

I meant to mention the following case when I spoke earlier: a family in Norwich have just had to spend well over £1,000 on a private prescription for their young son who has epilepsy. They will not as a family be able to afford more than a few weeks’-worth of paying for this privately. It is ludicrous that that family, desperately in need of help for their young boy, cannot get it through the NHS; I think there have been only three prescriptions so far under the NHS.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have allowed the debate to drift a little away from the scope of the debate, but I do not want it to drift too far. I ask Members to bear that in mind.

[Pete Wishart]

That is the point. It is all about this statutory instrument because it will help people like the family the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. It will supply the evidence and research so that that could happen. It is unacceptable that people, because they do not have this in place, are having to go abroad and are still being arrested when they come back to the United Kingdom. That was mentioned in the report from the Health and Social Care Committee today, so progress has been made, but we are looking forward to looking at the whole issue of cannabis when we go Portugal to see how decriminalisation has worked there. Portugal had drug deaths on a par with what Scotland is currently experiencing, but the number has been cut to a manageable level because of its approach to cannabis and decriminalisation.

As I say, yesterday’s session of the Scottish Affairs Committee was fascinating. Let me tell the Minister something that the assistant chief constable of Scotland said because it is important for this particular measure. He said:

“There are 61,500 problematic users in Scotland just now. It is growing in number. For the vast majority, the end for them is death. And the criminal justice process is actually pushing people into a place where there is more harm.”

That is from an assistant chief constable responsible for keeping people safe.

Someone on the Minister’s own advisory council said:

“We are seeing police creating ways to reduce the harm done by the Misuse of Drugs Act. If we fully implemented the law of possession, we would be creating harm.”

That is what we are hearing from everybody, but we are hearing nothing from the Government because they will not come to our Committee to tell us what they actually feel about this; they are not prepared to come to defend this, which is totally unacceptable. We now need to hear that they are prepared to come in front of us.

When the Government do talk about drugs issues, the policy is, “We don’t want to send the wrong signal.” A fat lot of good that does to people six feet under the ground as a result of failed drug policies, part of the ever-increasing drug deaths.

The Home Secretary is happy to dispense with all the compelling evidence—everything he hears, all the international examples about drug consumption rooms— because, as he said, of his own childhood experience in his own personal neighbourhood. The Government know the evidence about drug consumption rooms. The Government have even accepted the evidence about drug consumption rooms. The only thing the Government have not done is do anything about it. People are dying. Do something about it. This works: all international evidence shows that drug consumption rooms make a difference. They stop people dying and allow them to get the treatment and recovery services that they should be entitled to.

It is appalling that the Government have one message on this: the belief that a drugs war can be prosecuted and won. All we need is the kids from “Grange Hill” and Nancy Reagan singing “Just say no.” It is time that this Government grew up and accepted the real range of issues on this matter.

We know that a health approach to drugs issues is required. We know that problematic drug use is a result of a complex cocktail of deprivation, poor mental health, trauma, stigma and addiction disorders, but the Government’s policy does nothing about this.

We want the Government to attend our Committee to defend their current drugs policy. I say to the Minister again: for his summing up, he can get his notes from his civil servants and get them to say that somebody will be coming to our Committee who will give us evidence and is prepared to defend the Government’s policy, because right now this is unacceptable.

Point of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. During business questions the Leader of the House announced that the February recess would not go ahead, but she was not able to give us any details about what type of business would be considered during that week, or whether there would even be departmental questions. Have you, Mr Deputy Speaker, been notified of whether arrangements have been put in place, given that this will be happening in only two weeks’ time? Most important, has the position been communicated to the staff of the House, on whom we rely in order to conduct our business?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I had not been informed. I was listening with great interest, like everyone else in the Chamber. What I will say is that business can change, and I should have thought that communicating the information to the staff before communicating it to the House would have been the wrong procedure. I am sure that there will be a wish to accommodate the needs of staff as well, but, as we know, the House’s business must continue: it is a priority.

So no, I was not told: I was in the same position as everyone else. Quite rightly, we were all told at the same time.

Fisheries Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Wednesday 21st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene on an intervention.

Civil Liability Bill [Lords]

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd October 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind hon. Members that, if there is a Division, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the Committee consents to the Civil Liability Bill [Lords].—(Rory Stewart.)

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Lindsay, especially when we are in such privileged surroundings as the de facto English Parliament. As you know, I always think that it is important that we mark and commemorate these auspicious occasions when English Members of Parliament get the opportunity to express their true English political values and to get to their feet, en masse, to discuss and debate these critical English-only issues. I also like to make a contribution in these events, as you know, Sir Lindsay. I have the proud record of having taken every single opportunity to speak when the English Parliament has met. In fact I have got the record—I have taken up something like 80% of the time in the English Parliament.

What surprises me is that when this opportunity is available to English Members, they cannot seem to bring themselves to actually consider and debate these critically important issues. There are important issues in this Bill that are English-only. In fact, the whole Bill is English-only, which rather prompts the question of why on earth we are doing this. I know that the Serjeant at Arms needs a bit of exercise, and it is quite an onerous responsibility to take the Mace down and then put it back up. We obviously need an opportunity to see if the Division bells are still working, so the bells will go on and off, but then nothing ever happens. What is the point of this ludicrous session that we go through every time that a Bill has been certified in this way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rory Stewart]

I would be grateful to know how Union issues of foreign affairs and defence, which the people of Scotland voted in a referendum should continue to be dealt with by the United Kingdom, would be covered by the hon. Gentleman’s proposal.

[The Chairman]

Order. We are discussing the legislative consent motion.

[Pete Wishart]

I only have a few seconds left. I am surprised at the Minister, because he is an erudite chap who understands constitutional issues and the history of this nation. Quite succinctly, I will tell him what it is called. It is called federalism, which is where there are constituent Assemblies that have equal power and authority, and there is then another stratum of government, which would be the UK Parliament—

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 18th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. We welcome your knighthood and heartily congratulate you on surviving the sword to the shoulders without any mishap.

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. She has certainly been busy this week, has she not? It was she who hosted the pizza putsch—the Cabinet’s calzone coup—where the Brexit mutineers ensured over garlic bread that whatever the Prime Minister cobbles together will be wood-fired. Amid all this Margherita madness, nothing changes, and this whole disastrous Brexit is approaching its depressing end game. There are no good toppings left—just the anchovies and the pineapple. Whether Brexit is crispy or deep pan, it is already unpalatable to the EU, to this House, and most definitely to the pizza-munching Cabinet mutineers.

The Leader of the House clarified a couple of things about the meaningful vote. We are grateful that the motion will be amendable, but there must be no suggestion that there will be a binary choice between a disastrous Brexit and the horrors of no deal. This was all about taking back control and the sovereignty of this House, so it must be up to the House to determine the biggest decision that it has made for a few decades. We must be reassured here and today that there will not be a binary choice.

Finally, who once said:

“I don’t think the UK should leave the EU. It would be a disaster for our economy”?

Was it Michel Barnier, Pete Wishart, or Andrea Leadsom? May we have a debate on cognitive memory recall, and perhaps ask the Leader of the House to lead for us on that one?

Agriculture Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)]

How many farmers did the hon. Gentleman speak to in his constituency prior to writing his speech? As he knows, my constituency borders his, and farmers in Angus are calling out for clarity from the SNP Government in Edinburgh. They want them to put the national interest before the nationalist interest. They want to ensure that farming has a prosperous future. They want to ensure that the SNP puts its country before party. Can he tell me when—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I must say to hon. Members that interventions are meant to be short, not speeches. I am very concerned about the number of Members who wish to get in. I am going to drop the time limit after this to six minutes, but Members should not be surprised if shortly after I have to drop it again.

[Pete Wishart]

I am sincerely grateful to the hon. Lady because the other key point we have been hearing from Conservative Members today is that, apparently, there is no plan or policy from the Scottish Government. Of course we will have a Government Bill. But let me tell Conservative Members that this Bill presented by the Secretary of State is nothing other than an aspirational wish list. What we are doing is consulting with the sector. We will be hearing from our rural champions. Once we have heard back, a clear agricultural policy Bill will be secured to ensure that Scottish agricultural interests are properly looked after—it will not be this aspirational nonsense that we are hearing from this Government. We need an agricultural approach that acknowledges the full horror of a hard deal Brexit and the absolute disaster of a no deal if it comes along.

The Scottish Government’s “Stability and Simplicity” paper sets out a detailed five-year plan to minimise the potential disruption of this Tory Brexit to our rural communities. Our plan will give farmers and crofters stability during a period of unprecedented change not of Scotland’s making. We have always to remember that Scotland wanted nothing to do with this disastrous Brexit policy, and it is up to us to try to clear up this mess to ensure that our farmers are properly protected and that they will be able to do their business. When that consultation is concluded, the Scottish Government will set out their plans, taking into account recommendations from our own agricultural champions and the National Council of Rural Advisers. That is how to frame legislation: speak to the sector involved, ask it what it wants and what it would like to see in the Bill, and then legislate.

Parking (Code of Practice) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 2nd February 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I suggest that we all want to be “Homeward Bound”?

[Pete Wishart]

I think all this just goes to show how much in harmony the members of MP4 are on these issues.

This is a particularly useful Bill, which I strongly support. I believe that it is absolutely necessary. Private parking companies have become a curse in so many of our communities, and they are out of control in so many areas. They are a blight on communities, harassing motorists and driving tourists away from many towns and city centres. The city of Perth is plagued by these cowboys. I have received more complaints about one car park in Kinnoull Street than about any other issue in my constituency. That car park is operated by the John Wayne of all the cowboys, the appalling and loathed Smart Parking, a company that blights communities throughout Scotland, including Inverness, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry). It distributes fines like confetti, and its so-called smart technology seems almost designed to frustrate motorists and harvest fines from them.

Another company in my constituency, UKPCS in St Catherine’s Retail Park in Perth, has even managed to outdo Smart Parking. One part of this free car park is ringed with signs saying that anybody who parks there who has the temerity to leave that zone and access facilities in other parts of the retail park will be fined up to £100, and people’s privacy is being invaded by car park attendants taking photographs of unsuspecting customers to prove this crime. This is the level of harassment our constituents are now having to put up with on a daily basis at the hands of these cowboys, and it has to come to an end.

The sheer scale of their preying on our constituents is almost industrial in its operation and organisation. A private parking ticket is now being issued every 4.5 seconds, the equivalent of 13 per minute. The RAC estimates that the total value of illegitimate parking tickets issued by private companies in a single year could be as much as £100 million. These parking cowboys know they are on to a good thing, and they know what to do now is build parking ticket charges into their business models in order to increase their profits at the expense of our constituents. This Bill will hopefully signal the beginning of the end of the parking cowboys.

Self-regulation has obviously failed dramatically. The British Parking Association is as much use as a multi-storey car park in the middle of Gobi desert. The parking cowboys hide behind BPA membership to give a veneer of legitimacy. Every time I take up issues with Smart Parking, it just comes back to me and says, “We’re members of the BPA so it should be all right.”

What do our constituents think? Some 93% of participants in an RAC survey think a Bill aimed at tackling the issue is a good idea, so the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire is on to something here; 84% want fines to be proportionate to the contravention; 74% want fines capped; and 81% of motorists want a national standard on signs. The good news for the right hon. Gentleman is that 78% want a parking regulator that enforces good practice.

We have heard some of the things that should be included; I will make a couple of pitches, and I hope to serve on the Bill Committee to pursue them. When people receive PCNs, their rights should be included on them. Too often the parking cowboys dress them up as fines; they are not fines. They are not even effectively legally enforceable; what they are is a statement to say that the recipient has somehow breached the terms and conditions of using that private land, and if the parking company were to pursue them, it would have to go to the civil court and prove that they broke those terms and conditions.

I make a plea, too, on the use of debt collection agencies, which has to end. They are grossly invasive, threatening and meant to intimidate people into paying. I have seen some appalling examples of the use of debt collection agencies and how they increase the intensity of their threats and intimidation. I have had constituents who have had 10 threatening letters, which increase to the point where I almost think they are going to be taken out and shot at dawn, such is the level of their threats.

The National Motorists Action Group has also found an unsavoury profitable collusion between private parking companies and debt collection agencies. It is right that PPCs should expect settlement and that they write letters, but local authorities do not use private collection agencies, so if it is good enough for the statutory sector it should be good enough for the private sector, too.

I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall) about DVLA access. I believe parking operators should have to prove they are entitled to get DVLA access. I know that is not being considered, but I would like it to be. Parking operators should meet a test to show they are a responsible parking operator in order to get DVLA access, but if there are any examples of bad practice, DVLA access must be removed. I like the AA’s suggestions and ideas about monitoring hotspots through postcodes, and if something peculiar and particular is going on, as in Perth, the private operator has an obligation to resolve it and, if it is not resolved to our satisfaction, they lose access to the DVLA. That is a straightforward suggestion.

I am also grateful that this will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, so that areas like mine are covered. My constituency has been particularly blighted by the parking cowboys and hopefully this will mark the beginning of their twilight months.

In my experience, people are happy to pay for their parking, and an arrangement that ensures that parking on private land is properly charged and any transgressions are proportionately tackled is the way forward. Surely it is not beyond our wit to design such an arrangement.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 26th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I might be able to help. I am sure that the Leader of the House will take the point, that the timings will be put right and that nobody wants to mislead the House in any way, shape or form.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House seemed to suggest that part of the responsibilities of a Member of this House is to hold the Scottish Government to account. Short of getting Nicola Sturgeon at the Dispatch Box to answer questions from hon. Members, can you advise how we discharge these responsibilities?

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not think I need to; that is the good news.

Perth’s Cultural Contribution to the UK

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 5th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this matter tonight. Obviously, I look forward to working with him to help to secure the city of culture bid for Perth. Hopefully, he will agree that it is not just Perth that will benefit directly, but wider Perthshire—the 12 towns and the more than 100 settlements that feed in and further enrich Perth and that are enriched by Perth. We should also look back at Perthshire’s cultural contribution to the UK, which started not in the middle ages, but goes right back to Roman settlements. There were Roman roads and trading with the Roman Empire. A contribution was made by taking artefacts from Scotland and throughout the rest of the UK to the wider Roman Empire. In Perthshire, we have Innerpeffray Library, which was established in 1680 and was the first lending library in Scotland. I hope that he will consider the wider Perthshire area and its benefits in his proposal for the city of culture bid.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Can I just say that Members should make interventions, not speeches? I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wants to save that speech for another occasion.

[Pete Wishart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I was coming on to mention the big hinterland issues that support this particular bid. May I also congratulate him on what he said? I thought that I was doing well going as far back as Kenneth MacAlpin, but he has managed to beat me by going back to Roman settlement times. I thank him for that and look forward to working with a fellow Perthshire MP to ensure that this bid will be progressed.

This bid is truly inspired, innovative and creative. It fully captures the spirit and the idea of the UK city of culture. At the heart of our bid is a determination to tackle the quiet crisis faced by cities such as Perth and the 30 million people in the UK who live outside our big cities. It is a bid that speaks for the small cities and large towns where so many of our fellow citizens live; that recognises our particular issues, challenges and agendas; and that looks beyond the veneer of scale and rurality—where rural beauty can sometimes mask rural poverty and social isolation. I am talking about small cities where the lack of high-value jobs drives talent elsewhere, particularly among our young people. It is in this setting where culture could make a real difference in connecting people and places. In reply to the hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Luke Graham), we believe that an outstanding city of culture is as meaningful for the people living in its hinterland as it is for those living in the city itself. We want Perth to lead the way in defining these issues and that agenda.

The quiet crisis that I mentioned is characterised in Perthshire by three big challenges, which is our dependency on tourism, hospitality and agriculture where wages are 9% below the Scottish average.

Perth is often seen as a prosperous city. I concede that it is, but sometimes the veneer of prosperity masks real defining issues such as a low-wage and low-skill economy, which is depressingly still a feature of so much of Perth’s community. Some 38% of neighbourhoods are classed as financially stretched, one in five children live in poverty and cultural participation among the 20% most deprived communities is limited in its opportunity. It is the quiet crisis of 150,000 people living across a massive 5,000 square miles with the associated social isolation and low cultural participation levels. These challenges are no less urgent and real than those faced by the big cities, but they are less recognised. We hope to change that in the course of the bid.

Our bid will focus on the contribution of small cities and large towns to the UK economy, alongside the large-scale cultural regeneration programmes that are a transforming feature of our big cities. Different approaches are needed for different types of cities to unlock the potential of places such as Perth and tackle the quiet crisis that they face.

We will use UK city of culture to make real step changes, using culture as a transformative tool and raising the bar for great small cities with imagination, joy, wonder, emotion and surprise. Since Sir Walter Scott’s time, Perth has been known as the fair city. It is a name with which we are very familiar and one that has become intimately associated with the city of Perth, but we want to move beyond the fair city. We will celebrate Perth’s beauty and place at the heart of Scotland’s story, but we will do so by jump-starting our future. We will honour Perth’s heart and our extraordinary history, including a mass celebration of our bid for the stone of destiny to be rightly returned to Perthshire. We will have that tick-box attraction that will drive new generations of tourists to our wonderful city.

We want it to be wild, taking outstanding creative work into the extraordinary landscape surrounding Perth—our wild places, hillsides, lochs and rivers—and giving a voice to the new tribes of the 21st century. We want it to be beyond, starting in our medieval city vennels, the ancient but clogged arteries that criss-cross Perth, flowing through the rivers connecting the city to its hinterland. And it will be connected, both physically and digitally. We are looking to democratise access to culture in a world where people can create and access it across many different and varied platforms. As the infrastructure to deliver this improves and becomes more accessible, we want to ensure that visitor experiences are improved and enhanced. Technology can enable togetherness. We will use it as such.

All this will be created with the participation of the 150,000 citizens living in the Perth city region. We expect more than 740,000 people to take part in person during 2021, and around 650,000 via our ambitious digital platform projects. We can deliver this. Our plans are fully costed and our bid is built on solid roots of delivery, bringing public services and communities together to plan and deliver these priorities across our city region.

We are looking for a solid legacy. By 2022, Perth can be the place that has led the way for other small cities and large towns by reconnecting with its huge hinterland through culture. We hope to create 1,500 jobs in the creative industries by 2021 and an extra 60 additional creative industry start-ups by 2025, to grow our creative sector by 25% to £58 million gross value added by 2021 and to £72 million by 2025, to increase our annual tourism visitors to 2.6 million in 2021, to recruit 2,500 volunteers for Perth 2021 and have 40,000 people volunteering annually by 2025. We hope to increase cultural participation in our most deprived communities by 16% by 2025. We will use the city of culture title to leave a profound legacy and kick-start our future beyond the fair city.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 9th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I remind hon. Members that if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England may vote on the consent motion for England. As the knife has fallen, there can be no debate

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(5)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill:

Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and Wales and being within devolved legislative competence

Clauses 2 to 38 of, and Schedules 2 to 4 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.)

Question agreed to.

The House forthwith resolved itself into the Legislative Grand Committee (England) (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83M(4)(d)),

That the Committee consents to the following certified clauses of the Technical and Further Education Bill:

Clauses certified under Standing Order No. 83L(2) as relating exclusively to England and being within devolved legislative competence

Clause 1 of, and schedule 1 to, the Technical and Further Education Bill.—(Robert Halfon.)

Question agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the House was greatly entertained by the farce that we have just witnessed. I hope that during the adjournment, you had the opportunity to take advantage of the facilities here and even make yourself a nice cup of tea, Mr Deputy Speaker, because it was a completely and utterly pointless waste of time.

Because of the way in which the programme motion has been designed and because of the lack of time available, it has not been possible for the Legislative Grand Committee to consider all these important English-only measures. Given that English votes for English laws is supposed to be of paramount importance and one of the main innovations of this Parliament, is it not disappointing that English Members have not had the opportunity to lend an English—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman and I both know, first, that that is not a point of order and, secondly, that an important debate took place today, and it was regarded as important to have a special debate on health as well. The fact is, however, that time has gone. The House agreed to the rules and they have now been applied. Going over all that is not going to change anything. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the point of order and he has now put his point on the record. The bottom line is, however, that these are the rules that the House has chosen, as he well knows. That is the end of it. We move on to Third Reading. Perhaps time for a cup of tea. [Interruption.] Order. If you have a problem, Mr Wishart, you should pursue it through the usual and proper channels. The fact is that you did not raise a point of order, as you well know. I know it was not a point of order and you know it was not, which was why you raised it. The bottom line is this: if you do not like it, go and get your cup of tea while the House gets on with the business.

Digital Economy Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

3rd reading: House of Commons & Legislative Grand Committee: House of Commons & Programme motion No. 3: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Monday 28th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

The debate will take place now. Come on in, Mr Wishart.

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

I am very grateful to you, Mr Hoyle, and I promise to be brief when it comes to this substantial and significant—[Interruption.]

[The Chairman]

Order. We cannot hear the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

We are discussing substantial and significant clauses that relate exclusively to England. We are here, in what is the de facto English Parliament, to debate important measures. The relationship between tuition fees and qualifications is very important to England, and I am surprised that we are not hearing more contributions from English Members. They have a fantastic opportunity to speak at length about England-only clauses, an opportunity that was demanded at the time of the last general election. So many Members, particularly Conservative Members, said then that the system was required, but none of them is here to participate in tonight’s debate.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have a copy of the report produced by the Constitution Unit, which goes into great detail and depth about the functioning of EVEL.

Clause 85 is critically important to the Bill. It concerns the payment of tuition fees for qualifications in England. It is important that it be debated fully, and it is important for English Members to have their say. That is what “English votes for English laws” is all about. English Members have an opportunity to express their concern about parts of Bills that relate exclusively to England, and we now invite them to contribute to the debate.

According to the Constitution Unit, a maximum of two minutes has been taken every time the House has resolved itself into an English Legislative Grand Committee. We must ensure that we use this time properly and appropriately, because clause 85 is an important measure. It is the only part of the Bill that relates exclusively to England, and I think it deserves all the debate that can possibly be mustered. I am very surprised that not even the Minister is using his opportunity.

We cannot say that this is a waste of the House’s time, because it obviously is not. It is important that the House breaks up its usual routine examination of legislation and forms a English Legislative Grand Committee to consider significant measures such as clause 85. It is important that the bell rings and the House is suspended for two minutes before the certification can take place, and that Members have an opportunity to examine such measures in detail. I hope that I shall not be the only Member to contribute, given that this was considered to be so important that the Standing Orders had to be changed.

I know that other Members wish to speak—[Laughter.] Perhaps they do not, but they have an opportunity to debate this important clause, and I am very surprised that there are to be no more contributions tonight. That demonstrates the absolute and utter absurdity of the EVEL proposals and the Standing Order changes. We are sitting here, and not one Member representing an English constituency is prepared to—

[The Chairman]

Order. I may be able to help. I think that there will be a speech to follow that of the hon. Gentleman, so he should not worry. Has he finished his speech?

[Pete Wishart]

Yes.

[The Chairman]

In that case, I call the Minister.

Enterprise Bill [Lords]

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 9th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Hoyle. Can you explain exactly what is going on with this particular procedure we are asked to consider?

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Do not worry. I can give the answer now: no, I do not.

There will now be a joint debate on the consent motion for England and Wales and the consent motion for England. I remind hon. Members that all Members may speak in the debate but that, if there are Divisions, only Members representing constituencies in England and Wales may vote on the consent motion for England and Wales, and only Members representing constituencies in England on the consent motion for England.

I call the Minister to move the consent motion for England and Wales. I remind the Minister that, under Standing Order No. 83M(4), on moving the consent motion, the Minister must also inform the Committee of the terms of consent for England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

No.

[The Chairman]

I think the Ayes have definitely got this one. It was a lonely but valiant effort.

Question agreed to.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair to report the decisions of the Committees (Standing Order No. 83M(6)).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decisions reported.



Third Reading

End of Life Care

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have just concluded two days of debate on the Government’s estimates, but the estimated expenditure itself has not been debated. At 7 o’clock, we will be asked to authorise the Government’s spending plans for Departments of State—some £600 billion of public money—without there having been any debate whatsoever about them. How can that possibly be right, and what should Scottish Members of Parliament do now that we are effectively banned from voting on English-only legislation that may have a Barnett consequential? We were told that that would be considered in the estimates process, but we are not getting the chance—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Wishart, you have made your point very well time and again, and I understand why you are frustrated. As you know, it has been agreed by the House and that is what the Standing Orders say. We all know that it is not the Chair who is responsible.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for that explanation. The key issue we face in the next year is the prospect of an EU referendum being held on the same day as the Scottish parliamentary elections. Would he like to take the opportunity to say what he thinks about that and to rule it out? We cannot have 16 and 17-year-olds coming into the polling booth to vote in the Scottish Parliament election, possibly being ID-ed, and then being turned out as they cannot vote in the EU referendum.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We need to watch out so that we do not go outside the scope of what we are discussing. That is the danger. As much as the hon. Gentleman wants to tempt the Minister, I want him to try to stay within the scope of the Bill and to try to answer along those lines.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 7th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but there are differences. They may just be nuances to him, but we take them particularly seriously in Scotland. For example, we work with key sectors in Scotland, such as the NHS, further education, the Prison Service and local authorities. Prevent also benefits from input from Police Scotland’s model of community engagement and from the strength of the relationship between various arms of the community and all the public services in Scotland. The key point is that we perhaps look at the cultural context differently.

What we are keen to do in Scotland—and we have had a great deal of success—is ensure that a sense of Scottish citizenship is given as quickly as possible to new immigrants, particularly from south Asian communities. That has been incredibly successful. We talk about the “bhangra and bagpipe” culture in some of our larger communities, especially in Glasgow, and we are particularly proud of that. Believe it or not, most Scottish Asians supported Scottish independence because they saw from their historical experience, and from being a colonial power or being part of the empire, that independence was not a scary issue. They were able to join us to ensure that such transformative change—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman quite a bit of leeway, but now we have got on to independence. This debate is about consultation, but I think it has stretched a little further than that. As we know, Third Reading is coming up, but at the moment we are dealing just with the amendment.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. We need consent, rather than consultation, because things are so different in Scotland, and we have responsibility for those bodies. Such issues must surely be up to the Scottish Parliament, and not just through consultation. Consultation is great and there is nothing wrong with it, but this is about ensuring that we have consent. We will not oppose the measure today—it is great that we will get that consultation. We enjoy debating with the Home Secretary. She is always welcome in Scotland, and we enjoy making sure that her views are known. Consent is fine, but we need to ensure that such matters are the responsibility of the Scottish Government and that we make those decision: not consultation, consent.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th January 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Perhaps I could help a little. Obviously we want to get to the new clauses and amendments rather than discussing who has turned up and who has not.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Unfortunately I missed the beginning of this debate on temporary exclusion orders. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), because I wanted to welcome the Labour party out of the anti-civil liberties wilderness. These are actually worthy amendments. I do not think I have congratulated the Labour party on any measure it has taken on civil liberties and security in the course of the past 15 years. This is the Labour party of 90 days’ detention, of ID cards, of control orders, of national databases—

[Pete Wishart]

That is what I am doing. I am congratulating the Labour party. This evening, for probably the first time in 15 years, I will be rushing through the Lobby to support the Labour party. Come on board! Re-establish the Labour party with its civil liberties—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. We need to get to the new clauses and amendments. I understand that you want to try to make this into a political broadcast, but I am not into that at the moment. I am into hearing your views on the new clauses and amendments, not on the history of the Labour party for the past 15 years.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

We have these amendments today because there has been an intervention from David Anderson, the anti-terrorism supremo. We all have to listen very carefully to what David Anderson says about this. He is absolutely spot on, of course. With measures such as this, we need judicial oversight. A number of us could possibly trust the Home Secretary to carry out her function in approaching this with a reasonable degree of professionalism, as one would expect from a Home Secretary as upstanding as the current one. David Anderson gets to the heart of all this: the burden of proof, being able to test matters in court, and the rights of the individual who has been subject to these charges and has no recourse to justice to be able to test them in court and try to determine their innocence. That is not possible as things currently stand, and that is why I very much support what is on offer today.

We have to give people the opportunity to respond to particular charges laid against them. The idea that suspicion that they are involved in a certain activity is enough to stain their reputation and means that they have no opportunity of recourse to justice or to put their case is not good enough. These perfectly good amendments would be a very useful intervention. The Labour party has given us an opportunity to re-examine the issue.

Justice and Home Affairs Opt-out

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 7th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is becoming awfully exercised about the Liberal Democrats, but the party about which he should be most concerned is UKIP, because it will probably trounce the Conservatives in the European elections. What will the Conservatives do in that event?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not want to speculate on what will happen in the European elections. We do not want to speculate on whether they will be won by the Liberals or by UKIP. I think that we want to hear about the point of the debate.

Intellectual Property Bill [Lords]

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 12th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I would not dare to answer that one. None the less, I hope that the Minister had a good day on Sunday. No Minister could be better equipped to deal with a Bill on intellectual property than the one who is famously known as “Two Brains”. He has deployed those brains to a fantastic extent as we have discussed this over the past few weeks.

Is the Chamber not quiet? We have had just one speech from the Opposition Benches and one from the Government Benches. That reinforces the point made by the hon. Member for Hove (Mike Weatherley), which is that we need a champion for IP in this House. We need to get this matter fixed properly. It is unsatisfactory that IP is placed in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills when all the other disciplines that IP is there to serve—the creative industries, music, film and television—are handled by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. There is something wrong in the way that this is managed across Departments. It is unsatisfactory that the Minister who is responsible for intellectual property is an unelected lord whom we do not get an opportunity to question and who does not lead debates in this House. We need to start thinking properly about how this matter is co-ordinated across Whitehall.

It is surprising that there is so little interest in this matter. Let me just go over the figures again. The creative economy has grown by 8.6% in recent years and is now worth something like 4.3% of our total GDP. That is £71 billion a year—that is what the IP industry contributes to our economy. I would expect people to be rushing into the Chamber to contribute to debates such as this, but, as I have said, the House is empty. It is disappointing to see so many empty seats and to hear so few contributions on something that is so important and significant for our whole economy.

When it comes to intellectual property, Governments only get one shot. We heard mention of the Gowers review, which was conducted in my first few years in the House under the first Labour Government. The Minister was right to say that progress on the matter was slow until Hargreaves stepped in. None the less, the Gowers review was really what defined that first Labour Government for me. I remember leading an Adjournment debate on the conclusions of the Gowers review in Westminster Hall. We managed to discuss some of the things that had been suggested.

Under the second Labour Government—the Minister was a little unfair on them—we had the Digital Economy Act 2010. With exceptions, it was an important and meaty piece of work that was prepared to be quite brave and to take on vested interests. I do not know whether other Members remember this but we had thousands of e-mails about that legislation. I remember too the bravery of the Labour Government in pursuing it in the face of such orchestrated opposition. The sheer number of e-mails coming through from organised groups and self-proclaimed digital champions is the sort of thing that spooks Members of Parliament. The Labour Government were brave and it was unfair of the Minister not to recognise that or the efforts that were made to address some of the clear issues that we have in the creative economy, especially in digitisation.

The Conservative Government said that they would pick up measures in the Digital Economy Act. I remember the then shadow Minister coming to the Dispatch Box passionately to support and defend the Digital Economy Act, but what happened? Absolutely nothing. That is not entirely the fault of the Government. They have had legal disputes and ongoing tensions with the internet service providers. Now that we are just about there, we have no clear way forward for the Digital Economy Act. That Act, in terms of the Hargreaves process, is probably more important than this Bill. It is probably the one thing that could make a real difference in re-educating new generations of people who want to access content responsibly. We need measures on the statute book. We are running out of time in this Parliament, so it is very unlikely that we will see them. It is a big, big loss and a massive disappointment for all of us who want to address, productively and constructively, the very many issues that concern our creative economy.

What has defined this Parliament is Hargreaves, and this Bill is probably the end of the process. Is it good enough? Well, there are good things in it. The digital copyright exchange is a fantastic innovation, and the things that Richard Cooper demonstrated proved that positive and good things can be done. There are obviously exceptions. I know that we will be looking at all that in a statutory instrument over the course of the next weeks. There is great anxiety and concern in the industry, and the Government must listen to it. Yes, I know that we consult stakeholders and hold meetings with them, but the Government must listen to these people and take what they are saying a little more seriously, because they run incredible creative industries.

I thank the Minister for his response to my concerns about the divisional court in Scotland, which I raised on Second Reading and again in amendments. I assure him that we will produce the demand for such a court, if that is the only thing stopping Scotland securing it. I am pleased that that was the only barrier that he was able to detect to our having a divisional court in Scotland. I look forward to reporting that back to the legal establishment in Scotland, so that we can move the matter forward.

Then we come to the huge elephant in the room—Google. We must address Google, because it is the gatekeeper—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is about what is in the Bill, and not what is not in the Bill. I have given the hon. Gentleman a little bit of scope, but we are now running into danger. I know that we are not under any time pressure, but we need to talk about what is in the Bill and not what is not.

[Pete Wishart]

My last word on Google is that we must deal with it. We must ensure that we address the matter. This Bill is good, but thin. I know that the Hargreaves process was dealt with in a number of ways. There has been the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, statutory instruments and of course this Bill. As I have said, this is the first dedicated intellectual property Bill. The response from the design industry has been mixed. Obviously, it welcomes some of the very good measures, such as criminal sanctions in the areas of registered designs. I note that there was disappointment that unregistered designs were not included, but we had a good debate about that. I hope that we can revisit that at some point and deliver more satisfaction to our design industry.

All in all, we are where we are with this. We look forward to going forward. Let us be a little more creative and imaginative when it comes to dealing with intellectual property and copyright issues. The Government have more or less concluded their look at intellectual property. Now it is time to start thinking about how we go forward. Let us go forward constructively and with a bit more imagination.

Scotland’s Place in the UK

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 6th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (David Mundell)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that next Tuesday the SNP is in control of Opposition business in this House and that it has not tabled a motion to discuss independence for Scotland?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That matter is on the record and certainly does not need my confirmation.

[Pete Wishart]

What a chance; what an opportunity: on 18 September this year we can make the choice to become a self-governing nation once again—to walk tall in the world with national self-respect and dignity like all other normal independent nations do, being responsible for ourselves and blaming no one else for our setbacks. The most exciting thing for me is that our independence will release and ignite a tsunami of energy, creativity and imagination as we get down to the business of building and creating our new independent nation—a new nation according to our Scottish priorities, built on our sense of community, always securing the Government we vote for, pursuing the agenda we want.

We will run an independent Scotland better than the Westminster Tories because of one key and very important fact: we care more about Scotland than the Westminster Tories do—of course we do, and that is why we will run it better. Never again will we have a Tory Government without our democratic consent. We want no more picking on our vulnerable; no more obscenities such as the bedroom tax; no more of Labour’s illegal wars and no more Tory or Labour weapons of mass destruction defiling our beautiful country—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Can I have a bit of calm? In fairness, it has been a good-hearted debate so far, and I know that no one wants to spoil the harmony of the House.

[Pete Wishart]

We will ease pretty seamlessly into a new independent status. The day after we secure a new nation, it will be pretty much like the day before, but something remarkable will have happened. All of a sudden, the country will be ours to shape and to determine. If things do not work out, we can change them. We can change them because we have the power of independence. For the first time in 300 years, our nation will belong to us, and nothing could be more exciting and transformative.

It is all down to this choice. If we vote no, we are accepting that this is as good as it gets. This is what we have to settle for. It signals a contentment with Westminster rule and Westminster politicians’ ability to deliver for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have had enough of that “You cannae do that stuff”, so I thank the hon. Gentleman. We have a decision to take. It is a choice between negativity and positivity—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman. It is not fair that you are enjoying yourselves. I want to hear the speech.

[Pete Wishart]

We have listened to their speeches with as much respect as possible, but we are shouted down. It seems impossible for Members to listen to the other side of the debate. I do not know why this place thinks that that is attractive. It is a choice between negativity and positivity. No European country has done what we are about to do. As an exercise in democracy, this is huge. This is Scotland’s great choice, because it is a choice between two very different and distinct futures. We can decide that this is as good as it gets, or we can decide to do something much better—to take control of ourselves and to put the nation in the hands of the Scottish people. If we get this chance, this once-in-a-generation chance, we will vote for the positive, because positive beats negative. What a prize there will be when we vote yes in overwhelming numbers. When we go to the polls in September, we will vote ‘yes’. What a prize there will be—a country of our own.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 22nd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has made his point—he wants to get in—but it is up to the Minister to give way, and quite obviously he wants to make some progress.

[Mr Harper]

I am trying to do justice to the many Members who spoke in the debate, including the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart).

I particularly enjoyed the remarks from my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) and for Crawley (Henry Smith), all of whose constituencies I have had the opportunity to visit in my current role, and the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), from whom I am sure I will receive an invitation in due course.

The right hon. Member for Delyn is right about the issues that we will not have a chance to debate in the remaining seven minutes; I want us to have a good debate in Committee and to go through the issues in detail, and I am confident that when we lay out our aims, we will take Members with us, having first tested their concerns. We want the Bill to leave Committee and this House in good shape. As Members will know from my previous roles and challenges, I do not think we should leave it to the other place to put Bills in good shape. I want to ensure it leaves this House in good shape, and I look forward to the debate in Committee to do so.

In the time remaining, I shall try to deal with some of the issues raised. A number of Members raised important points about the proposals on health. To be clear, we are not talking about denying access to health care. We are talking about making sure that those who have no right to free health care have to make a contribution towards it. One of the points raised by the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Pamela Nash) was about public health and access to health for HIV treatment. I intervened on her to say that public health access will still be available for free. What I did not remember at the time was that this Government abolished treatment charges for HIV for overseas visitors exactly to protect the sorts of public health concerns she raised.

We are talking about making sure people pay a fair share. For those temporary migrants coming to Britain either to work or to study, we will collect the money before they come into the UK. It will go into the Consolidated Fund, and it is well above my pay grade, Mr Deputy Speaker, to tell colleagues in the Treasury how to do public spending. But if money is then distributed, any funds that go to the NHS in England will of course be distributed to the devolved Administrations in the usual way according to the Barnett consequentials. I hope that that is clear. We are not proposing to change the way in which the devolved Administrations can charge under the overseas visitors arrangements. Those aspects of charging are of course devolved. We will talk to the devolved administrations to make sure that there are no unforeseen consequences from different parts of the UK having different regimes for visitor charging.

As I said earlier in response to the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), these are significant sums of money. She asked my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary how much we thought was not collected from health tourists. In the report that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health published today, we say that we think that between £20 million and £100 million is the cost of deliberate health tourism for urgent treatment and between £50 million and £200 million for regular visitors taking advantage. Clearly there is a range, but this is an independent report that has been peer-reviewed and it is the best information we have. The hon. Lady is right; it is not a massive proportion of the overall NHS budget but £500 million that we are not collecting is a significant sum and it would make a real difference if we were able to collect it.

The Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), made some points about landlords, and we will test those issues in Committee. He also referred to e-Borders. He deserves a reasonable reply since he shared the blame around with the previous Government. We do already collect a significant amount of information on those coming into Britain and those leaving and we are working on improving that. I know that he will continue to question my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself when we appear in front of his Committee.

The hon. Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather) and I do not always agree, but she made an important point about refugees. The reason I think it is important to deal with people who have no right to be in Britain is that I want Britain to continue to be a welcoming place for those genuinely fleeing persecution. I fundamentally believe that we will only carry the public with us and have the public support a system where we protect genuine refugees—those fleeing persecution—if where we decide someone does not need our protection, and an independent judge does not think they need protection, those people leave the UK. By the way, we are not removing appeal rights for those where there is a fundamental right involved. If they abuse our hospitality by trying every trick in the book to stay here, they are damaging the interests of genuine migrants. It is our duty to make sure we do that.

Iraq War (10th Anniversary)

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 13th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood). He is of course right to mention the sheer bravery and commitment of our service personnel, the effectiveness with which they conducted Operation Telic, and the speed with which Iraq was defeated, if can use that word. I remember those days clearly, as the MP representing the regimental headquarters of the Black Watch, which was engaged in the operations. I also recall the time of the surge in Falluja, when the media came to me for comment on the many losses sustained by the Black Watch at that time. That was a difficult period for all those Members of Parliament with a military interest in the Iraq war. Those interviews, in which I paid tribute to the many soldiers from my constituency who lost their lives during that war, were among the toughest interviews I have ever had to do. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is also right to mention what happened after the war: the total lack of planning for a sustainable reinvention of Iraq and the stripping of all state infrastructure relating to the Ba’ath party. That was a massive mistake and it led to many of the difficulties that followed the invasion.

I want to go back to 18 March 2003, the day on which we debated the Iraq war. I was here that day, as a few hon. Members who are in the Chamber today were, and I remember it as a dark ugly day, a horrible day. There was nothing like the light Whip that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) described. I was the Whip of our group, and I remember seeing some of the Labour Whips’ activities on that day. People were drawn aside and told that the Prime Minister would resign if the vote did not go through. They were told that their careers would be at risk if they voted against the Government. It was a horrible day. I remember lots of good men and women being dragooned into the Lobby to support their Prime Minister and their Government against their better instincts. It was good to hear the right hon. Member for Oldham West and Royton (Mr Meacher)—it is a pity that he has now left the Chamber—acknowledge that we were fed a lot of nonsense about the case for war. Many Members of Parliament, particularly those on the Labour side, knew that, but they were dragooned into providing that perverse support for their Prime Minister and their Government.

I remember listening to Tony Blair that day. I actually watched the YouTube video of the speech this morning, just to refresh my memory of the atmosphere in the debate. We had to listen to endless drivel and nonsense. He said that the case for weapons of mass destruction was beyond debate, that they were really there, and that they could reach us in 45 minutes. He talked about collusion with al-Qaeda, and said that Saddam Hussein was preparing a nuclear programme using uranium from Niger. It was all total and utter bollocks—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman should use that word, and I am sure that he will want to withdraw it immediately.

[Pete Wishart]

I withdraw it, of course, Mr Deputy Speaker. It was not that, but something very similar, that we had to listen to on that day.

The House passed the vote on Iraq by 412 votes to 149, and 217 hon. Members voted for the amendment tabled by Chris Smith. I was among those who voted against the war, as were my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), my hon. Friends the Members for Angus (Mr Weir) and for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I am looking around the Chamber to see who else is here: I see the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), whom I commend for his fantastic speech today. It was excellent to hear a speech from the Front Bench from a former Minister who meant what he said and I thank him for that. He was listened to very carefully throughout the House. All of us here on these Benches today voted against the war. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was not a Member of Parliament at the time, but one thing is certain: had she been a Member, there is no doubt that she would have been in the Lobby with us that evening.

That vote is the one that I am most proud of in my 12 years as a parliamentarian. It defined my first Session in Parliament. I, a young whippersnapper of an MP in short trousers, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Angus, first came here in the Session that lasted from 2001 to 2005, and the Iraq war was the defining feature of that parliamentary term. That was the context and the subtext of a lot of the debates we had on similar and other issues. I certainly remember during the 2005 election the sheer anger on the doorstep about the invasion of Iraq and how the war went.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 14th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Last but certainly not least, I call Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Surely we will have a debate to mark the 10th anniversary of the invasion and the war in Iraq. Iraq remains our most damaging and appalling foreign policy adventure ever, with more than 100,000 dead and the region destabilised. I was in the House with the right hon. Gentleman when we listened to the nonsense and the lies from the Labour Government on the case for war. Surely we should revisit that next week.

Housing Benefit (Under-occupancy Penalty)

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Main Question accordingly put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

Constitutional Law

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jim McGovern]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not refer to any Member.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

That is not a point of order. Obviously, I am sure that hon. Members are desperate to get on to the debate on the section 30 order instead of picking each other off; I am sure that that is what we all want to hear.

[Pete Wishart]

Indeed, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is referring to. If he wants to have another go, I am prepared to give way to him, but I had no idea what he was suggesting then.

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, I was out of the House—we have been here for five hours, and Members come and go outside the House. I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman’s point is.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. It does not really matter whether somebody is in, out or indifferent. I am not really concerned about that. I am concerned about this debate, and we all want to hear what Pete Wishart wants to contribute.

[Pete Wishart]

Perhaps at last we can get on to the substance of this debate. I was so looking forward to debating this measure. Who would have thought that we would be here today confirming Scotland’s opportunity to determine its own future? We have the possibility and prospect of Scotland becoming a self-governing nation once again, joining the community of nations and making its own peaceful contribution to world affairs. We have the chance to become a country of our own, to make decisions for ourselves and to stand tall, with dignity, self-respect and pride, in the world. This is a fantastic moment, and I am pleased that we are here today debating the possibility, through this order, of Scotland achieving that very fine ambition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely, and is it not fantastic and fascinating that we have been able to achieve that? But let us imagine what more we can achieve. Let us imagine Scotland not getting involved in things such as illegal wars, not hosting weapons of mass destruction such as Trident but making a peaceful contribution to world affairs, and not doing what we have seen in the past 10 years. That is a Scotland I aspire to. That is what I think the Scottish people will choose once they have the opportunity to make this decision, and that is what is so exciting and so transformative about this whole debate—we have the possibility and prospect that our nation can once again become independent and make its own role in the world. There is nothing finer than that as an ambition, and I look forward to taking that debate forward.

Many people fought for that right. My hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) talked about some of the giants of the Scottish National party, who stood in this Chamber, exposed as we are continually and consistently to the barrage of overwhelming Unionist hostility—shouted down before we even get the first syllable out—but they still stood here and put the case for Scotland’s right to choose. I joined this party 20 years ago, in 1993, and Labour used to joke about the slogan, “Free by ’93”—it was quite a good joke. Now it is 63% and 2013—that is the difference. My hon. Friend was spot on: that has been achieved by the hard work of the Scottish National party Members of Parliament who inhabit these Benches and who have taken forward the case in the face of overwhelming hostility to and contempt for the idea of Scottish independence. They plugged away, they fought, they put the case and now they will be rewarded with a real opportunity for the Scottish people to make the decision on their own.

I want to pay tribute not just to the giants of our movement who have fought so hard to achieve this result but to the ordinary activists—the people who turn up on cold, frozen Saturday mornings to hand out leaflets and encourage people to put the best interests of their country first. They do that week in, week out. They include people like my constituent John Cullens, who died just last year, still trying to serve his nation. He fought alongside me to try to secure electoral victory in Perth and North Perthshire and was so excited about the prospect of a referendum for Scotland that he was always the first there and always the last to leave. As well as the giants of the party to whom my hon. Friend referred, let us remember the hard-working activists who have worked day in, day out to try to secure this result for our nation.

I want to congratulate both Governments and to pay tribute to the Minister, too, who worked exceptionally hard to deliver the Edinburgh agreement. I thought that the Secretary of State’s speech was the best today by far—it went way above any of the dreary speeches we heard from those on the Labour Benches, with their incessant negativity. It was good to hear from the Secretary of State. I also want to pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy). He made a thoughtful and non-partisan speech and was prepared to recognise some of the things in the Edinburgh agreement, including how we were prepared to make progress. That is what the Edinburgh agreement was all about: two Governments working together. Even though there is a division between our strongly felt beliefs, we can still sit down together and come together for the common purpose of ensuring that the people of Scotland get the referendum to which they are entitled and that they deserve. Why can we not continue in the spirit engendered by the Edinburgh agreement? Why can we not start to debate the possibility of both options?

I paid tribute to the Secretary of State, but it was disappointing to hear his remarks over the weekend, when he said that he was not prepared even to consider some of the technical details of a yes vote in the referendum. Surely we owe it to the Scottish people to try to do some sort of preparatory work in case there is a yes vote—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman a little. I am sure that he wants to concentrate on the section 30 order rather than trying to drag the Ministers into a debate on the outcome of the referendum. We are not going to do that.

[Pete Wishart]

That is the point, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think we should consolidate the good will that led to the Edinburgh agreement. It is important that we start to build on that. Let us see what we can do to try to ensure that that spirit of co-operation between the two Governments continues throughout the referendum process so that we continue to serve the best interests of both Governments. Let us try to make the debate as respectful as possible.

Some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Anas Sarwar) were unfortunate. He talked about bringing respect into the debate, so let us do that. Let us stop referring to people as foreigners. Let us stop talking about border patrols. That brings no credit to our debate, so, please, if we can, let us leave that to the past. Instead, let us refer to people as friends and neighbours. That is what we should do throughout the debate. No longer foreigners, the people who live in the rest of the United Kingdom will always be friends and neighbours to me. Let us make sure that we continue to refer to them in that way. That is what the English people want, too. An Ipsos MORI poll showed that 64% of English people believe that there will still be a common bond with Scotland following a decisive vote in the Scottish referendum. That is great: it demonstrates that the ties across these islands will endure and strengthen following Scotland’s independence.

There are deeply held views and opinions, but let us make sure that the debate we are about to have is as respectful as possible. People are friends and neighbours in the House, and we are friends and neighbours across the country; let us continue to refer to each other as that. Let us not have people described as foreigners, and let us please not go anywhere near border patrols or border posts. It does no credit to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

No, I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.

I do not think that MSPs can ever get enough of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing). Her speeches should be circulated, to make sure that her considered views are seen by other Members. Today, however, is the last day on which there is a formal role in the independence referendum for Members of the House of Commons, which is right and proper. Of course it is a matter for the Scottish people through their directly elected representatives in the Scottish Parliament. This is what the Scottish national party was elected to deliver, and it would be disingenuous if we did not do so.

It is great that that is now a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Select Committees are still looking at the issue, but they are handicapped by the fact that they all approach it from a Unionist persuasion, so I do not know how useful they are. They all take a strident, antagonistic attitude towards Scottish independence, but some of them are more valuable than others. May I say ever so gently to the Members who serve on them that Select Committees that cannot bring themselves to say the word “independence” will probably be treated with less respect than others? Yes, we are interested in their views, which are noted, but for goodness’ sake let us try to make sure that we talk about independence. There are no separate countries in the world. If Scotland secures its independence, are these people trying to tell me that we will be the first separate country in the world? What a ridiculous proposition. The proposition to my Labour friends is independence: that is what ordinary countries try to secure and achieve, and that is what we will achieve in the autumn of 2014.

Today marks the end of the formal role of this place in the whole debate about Scotland’s referendum. We will continue to be interested in hon. Members’ views, and I hope that they remain engaged with the issue and offer their opinion to Scottish parliamentarians, but they should note that today is the last day that this place will have a formal role in the matter. We now move on to the substance of the debate. The process ends with the passing of the order. The people of Scotland will therefore face two propositions: they can have an independent Scotland that is prosperous and successful, which reflects Scottish values of fairness and opportunity, and promotes equality and social cohesion; a Scotland with a new place in the world; an independent nation participating fully in the community of nations. Or there could be a no vote: more Tory austerity; government that we no longer vote for; a UK—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying again, although I know that he did not want to do so. I also know that he did not want to abuse the amount of time that he has been given, and he will recognise that he has taken far more time than he ought. There are three more Members who wish to speak, and as he has friends in all parts of the House, he will not want to deny them the opportunity to speak.

[Pete Wishart]

We have had a six-hour debate and one side in the debate has had maybe half an hour of that, so with due respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, we have—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I know the hon. Gentleman is not questioning my ruling. I have come into the Chair. I said to everybody that I wanted to try to share out the time evenly and I did not want anybody to take advantage of that. I know the hon. Gentleman would never dream of doing that. All I am saying is that I am sure he is coming towards the end. He is not going to get us into a debate on the referendum. I am sure he is about to wind up.

[Pete Wishart]

It is good that we get more than 10 minutes today to put the case for the independence side of the debate, but yes, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am winding up. Thank you very much for that.

We pass the order today, a section 30 order, based on the Edinburgh agreement. Based on two Governments working together, we now go into the debate side of things. This is what I and my hon. Friends have been waiting for all our political lives. We relish a fight. We know what Scotland will decide in 2014. It will vote yes to independence and yes to full nationhood.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Three more speakers. Ten minutes each. I call Mr Michael McCann.

European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

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

The hon. Lady will know that another very important European debate was to take place in Westminster Hall this afternoon, but the lead speaker did not turn up. Does the hon. Lady have any excuse for why that happened and why hon. Members did not get that debate?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That has no relevance to this debate, and hon. Members should know a little better than trying to embarrass each other. Surely we have better manners.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 26th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

There are some benefits from doing so.

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), and it is a pity that we did not get to hear the rest of his speech. SNP Members were particularly looking forward to the tour de force that his tour around Scotland would have provided. Perhaps we will have the opportunity to hear it another day.

We in the Scottish National party welcome the Lords amendments. Anything that gives more power to the Scottish Parliament will be welcome to us. At this, the last moment of the last day of the last stage of the Scotland Bill, I just want to say: what a process we have had! There are many things we could say about the Bill, but we could never describe it as being particularly exciting. It has never had much press attention in the course of the past few months. We could describe it as unambitious, uneventful or lacking the powers to grow the economy, but the main thing about the Bill is that it is so “minority Government”. It is from another day, another era—it is from the last gasp of a Unionist majority in the Scottish Parliament. It is from a day that has passed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I have just about finished my speech, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. I have had enough of Labour Members’ interventions, as they all tend to be on the same theme, but I thank him for his interest.

We will support the Lords amendments. It is in Scotland’s interests that the powers should be transferred, and we will continue to support the rest of the amendments.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Minister, do you wish to speak—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I call Anne McGuire.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 15th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I have given way to the hon. Lady already, so I will move on.

The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and many of his colleagues want to return to the good old days of the old Glasgow council, when 69 Labour members, out of 79, were elected on 48% of the vote. That is democracy Labour-style—90% of members on 40% of the vote. Thank goodness we will not be going back to that. People are saying that is right and that it is what they want and I believe that that underpins all these measures—the Labour party benefiting massively from first past the post.

In the past few years, this issue has consistently come up. In the 10 years that I have been in the House, we have had these debates about Arbuthnott and other matters. We were told that we could not call the Scottish Government a Government and that we had to call them the Scottish Executive. I remember the days of the timid, unadventurous Labour Executive, always casting their eyes southwards to London, awaiting orders, instructions and directions about what to do, but those days have gone. We now have an SNP Government in Scotland and we will never again have the House of Commons clicking its fingers and the Scottish Parliament doing that dance. I look forward to that.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We are moving completely off the new clause and I think we ought to get back to it. I know that the hon. Gentleman has been tempted by all the interventions, but we ought to stick to the new clause.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Hoyle.

I do not think that the signatories to the new clauses singularly loathe the additional member system—they also loathe the single transferable vote for local government in Scotland and everything to do with proportional representation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O'Donnell]

I wonder which party in Scotland the hon. Gentleman would say has the best record on constitutional reform—the parties in the Scottish Constitutional Convention, Labour and Lib Dems who delivered STV for local government, or an SNP Government who could not even deliver a referendum.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. That is not relevant to the new clause either.

[Pete Wishart]

The point was well made. The voting mechanism was not designed by the SNP, but we still won, which was remarkable. We hear Labour Members of Parliament down here disparage and knock the current arrangements. Those are their arrangements. When the Liberals were arguing in the Scottish Constitutional Convention—hon. Members may correct me if I am wrong—they would probably have been arguing for STV. That would be the preferred option. AMS was Labour’s system, which the Liberals agreed with in order to ensure proportionality. For Labour Members to make such a fuss about AMS now is a bit rich, given that it is their system. Our preferred system, if the hon. Lady wants to know, is full single transferable vote. That is what we want for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am no longer the Chief Whip, but I thank the hon. Gentleman for promoting me back to that distinguished role. I look forward to the outcome of a free vote in the Labour party. It will be fascinating. We will pay keen attention to who supports the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire in all this. I hope they are true to their convictions—[Interruption.] Oh, it is not a free vote, we hear.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Whether or not Labour Members have a free vote is not relevant to new clause 1. Let us get back to the new clause, and I am sure Mr Wishart would not want to keep repeating himself.

[Pete Wishart]

Indeed, Mr Hoyle. I hope I was not repeating myself, but I was interested in that free vote concept. I would love to have seen a free vote on the matter under discussion. I hope that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will press the new clause to a Division so that we get an opportunity to see who is for and who is against. Labour is totally split on the issue, and the Scottish people need to see where the Labour party is in all this. We in the SNP will of course oppose the new clause, because we believe in fair votes and in the right of the Scottish Parliament to make its own decisions and arrangements on voting and membership. That is how normal, self-respecting Parliaments do their business.