Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 27th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I describe the Government’s approach to Brexit as chaotic and clueless, and nothing will ever distract me from that principle when it comes to the way they have prosecuted this Brexit, which has been such an utter disaster.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that if by some stroke of luck this House were to come to a conclusion tonight or on Monday on a way forward that was totally contrary to the manifesto that the Government stood on, no Government would wish to negotiate a deal that was contrary to the programme they stood on in the first place?

[Pete Wishart]

I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is really keeping up with what is happening today with this innovation in which the House determines the process and decides. That should be done without any undue concern for what has been said and done before. For goodness’ sake, this is our chance. This is our moment to make sure that we ensure a decisive outcome, which the Government should respect. I really hope that the Leader of the House reconsiders her approach to the indicative votes. I encourage the right hon. Member for West Dorset to continue his approach to coming to a solution that clearly demonstrates the will of the House. At that point, the Government must accept the will of the House.

This is a good day for Parliament and for this House. We cannot make a worse job of it than the Government already have. I hope that they listen carefully to what is said today. The SNP will support the motion.

Strengthening the Union

Debate between Pete Wishart and Sammy Wilson

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let us look at where we are when it comes to Brexit. On the Brexit “madcon” scale, we are now at madcon 10. A no deal Brexit has now moved up from being possible to being likely. What does that mean for Scotland? According to a range of civil servants from right across Whitehall, the port of Dover will collapse on day one as Kent and the whole of the south-east of England becomes one big lorry park, while supermarkets in Scotland will run out of food within a couple of days and hospitals will run out of medicines within two weeks.

The UK Government—for goodness’ sake—are even preparing to issue 70 technical notices to families and businesses in the event of a no deal Brexit. We have had a little joke about can openers, but the Government are advising families to stock up on canned food, and they are telling businesses to prepare for a sudden exodus of EU nationals. That is what the UK Government are now saying to hard-pressed families in Scotland—and that before we even get on to air travel, holidays by the sea and mobile phone roaming.

However, Scotland will be hit the hardest economically by what the Conservatives are planning with their no deal, hard Brexit. Not only would we have conditions akin to a state of emergency, but Scotland’s economy could lose up to £10 billion a year—a fall of 5% in our GDP—with real household incomes falling by 9.6% for each family in Scotland, or by £2,263 per head. There may be some people who say that all these things will help to strengthen the Union, but may I offer the counter-contention? When people in Scotland get the opportunity to weigh up their constitutional options, they could choose the chaotic cluelessness of these Tories or they could decide that they want to manage their own affairs themselves, and I have a good idea of what the Scottish people will decide and conclude.

Let us look at another example of what the Conservatives are doing and assess the strengthening the Union column: what the hon. Gentlemen and the Conservative party are doing to our national Parliament with the power grab. Perhaps that is another cunning ruse to strengthen the Union and make the people of Scotland fall in love with the UK all over again. Devolution has been on an seamless trajectory since 1999—I have been in this Parliament since 2001 and I have seen three Scotland Acts, all of which gave significant new powers to our national Parliament—but with their Brexit, that has all ended, because for the first time devolution has been stopped and they have started to reverse it. The model with the reserved powers arrangement in the Scottish Parliament has served it so well—that has been the founding principle and the thing that has guided devolution through the past two decades—but the Conservative Government have decided that that is enough, and they are not prepared to allow devolution to go any further.

The Scottish Conservative MPs sometimes misunderstand the power grab, and I am quite surprised that they have not all been saying, “What powers are being grabbed from the Scottish Parliament?” I have never said that any powers will be taken from the Scottish Parliament—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Now I have their attention, let me tell them how the power grab works.

There are powers returning from Europe. According to schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, the reserved powers should go to the Westminster Parliament, but powers in devolved areas should go to the devolved legislatures. What has happened is that all the reserved powers are going back to the UK Parliament, but the devolved powers have been grabbed and given to this House. It is called a power grab because powers that should be given to the Scottish Parliament have been grabbed by this Government. I hope that helps Scottish Conservative Members to understand properly what is happening.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that what he is describing is a power release from Brussels to Scotland, rather than a power grab?

[Pete Wishart]

I have never said anything about no powers coming back to the UK. The point is that the powers that should rightly reside in the right hon. Gentleman’s Parliament and in my Parliament have been grabbed by the UK Government, and they will now be resting in Westminster, not in our devolved Assemblies. This is really important because our Parliaments—the right hon. Gentleman’s and the one in my nation—depend on the reserved powers model, and if that is broken, devolution is broken.

The Conservatives have started to muck about with the founding principles of our Parliament, and the Scottish people are watching: they are looking at what the Conservatives are doing, and they are not impressed. It is in line with what they are doing with the Sewel convention in relation to taking legitimate decisions of the Scottish Parliament to the Supreme Court to be challenged and possibly overturned. People may say that this all helps to strengthen the Union and that it is a very clever and cunning ruse by the Conservatives to get us back on board with the Union. However, I suggest that, once again, it is undermining their Union, and the power grab was very much to the weakening of the Union cause.

Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Sammy Wilson

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 15th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Let me say quite candidly to my hon. Friend that what we are waiting for is the moment when my English colleagues spring into action with this opportunity—perhaps this one-off opportunity—to meet in their English Parliament and to discuss the weighty issues of state that require that English-only attention.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the absence of any opportunities for English Members to speak on English issues, why is he taking up all the time?

[Pete Wishart]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that he may not take this seriously, and Conservative Members may not take this seriously, but I understand the importance and the significance of this English Parliament sitting in this House of Commons and I will not deride that opportunity. I stand here inviting English Members to get to their feet and to explain passionately and eloquently why they need this opportunity to debate these English-only Bills.

English Members have every right to be outraged that they have not previously had these opportunities. That is why, given that they have this opportunity today, I am fully expecting them to spring to their feet to ensure that this Parliament is properly respected. I will tell you something, Dame Rosie: Scottish National party Members fully respect the right of English Members to speak in their Parliament. We expect to hear speeches full of passion from hon. Members who have this fantastic opportunity in front of them, because we know that the English voice must be heard. It is a voice that demands its right, and today all of England will be hearing from its proud tribunes as they get to their feet in vast numbers to articulately and compellingly put that English voice. I remember why we have this Parliament, and I remember those speeches when we changed Standing Orders so that we could secure this Parliament. Can you remember, Dame Rosie, all these perfidious Scottish Members of Parliament coming down to this Parliament to make sure that that voice was going to be overridden by Caledonian votes; the hordes coming forth off that border to make sure that the outcomes were to be influenced by Scots Members of Parliament. I remember the eloquence with which that was put, why that had to be rejected, why the English Parliament was necessary, and why English votes for English laws had to be an enduring feature of this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because there was quite a lot in what he said that I could go along with and almost support. I understand English Members of Parliament wanting that English voice. Of course they have constituents to represent who demand that they have their say in all this. There are a couple of elegant solutions that might actually deliver that.

The first is Scottish independence. The second is a little concept that seems to exist perfectly well in a number of parliamentary institutions the length and breadth of Europe and the rest of the world—it is called federalism, where the hon. Gentleman has his Parliament, we have our Parliament, and we all get together as equals to decide on the stuff that we are going to reserve. What we do not do is make the Parliament of the United Kingdom a de facto English parliament and think that there will be no issue with that. That is no solution. It is what we have just now—this unsatisfactory arrangement that divides this House, is unworkable, and is an embarrassment to this House in how it operates.

Let us have a look at how it operates, this fine institution—the English parliament; the voice of England.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman has rolled out for everyone his grievance at being excluded from this discussion into which he wants to have some input. Perhaps he could tell us what it is in the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill that he finds so offensive that he wants to say something about it, because I have not heard anything about it yet.

[Pete Wishart]

I am just at the very beginning of my introductory remarks. I want to come to this fine Bill—this fine English Bill. I have lots and lots to say about the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill. Believe, me, the right hon. Gentleman will be more than satisfied when I get on to the substance of this Bill, because there is lots and lots that has to be properly—

[Sammy Wilson]

This right hon. Gentleman, along with most other people in this House, will be more than satisfied when the hon. Gentleman sits down.

[Pete Wishart]

Let me say to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the papers I have here are just a few of my brief speaking notes.

I am being very serious in all this. I know there can be a little bit of banter about English votes for English laws—how embarrassing, unworkable, stupid and ridiculous it all is—but this is a serious Bill that requires attention. The thing that surprises me more than anything else is the lack of interest from my English colleagues. We will do this job on their behalf. If they are not prepared to get to their feet to speak to this fine Bill, it will be left to Scottish National party Members—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

It is always a joy to look at my hon. Friend, Dame Rosie, but I will try to resist for the purposes of my brief contribution to this Bill today.

[Sammy Wilson]

Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that the longer he goes on, the fewer of his hon. Friends he has to face when he turns around? Maybe that should be a lesson to him: he is getting a bit beyond what even his own hon. Friends will tolerate—let alone the rest of the House.

[Pete Wishart]

I am glad that I have been able to detain the right hon. Gentleman long enough to get his attention. I know he is very much enjoying this short contribution to the debate. Look at my hon. Friends, sitting here and making sure that this important issue is discussed and debated. They think that this is important, and that is the lesson that goes forward today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I want to get back to the rule, Madam Deputy Speaker, because it is the key issue in the Bill, one that must consume and concern the House more than any other. The rule was widely understood and accepted by ratepayers. It was generally understood and I think everybody appreciated what was happening. Representatives in the Valuation Office Agency are responsible for assessing business rates. However, the rule received negative judicial treatment in the 2015 judgment of the Supreme Court in the Woolway v. Mazars case. As a result, the VOA has had to change its practice. The practice is now that separate units of property in a shared building should be treated as separate rating units and should therefore receive their own rules irrespective of whether they are in the same occupation and are contiguous.

That is what we are here today to consider properly. This is an important issue. I will try to list some of the towns and cities—hon. Members will represent some of them—throughout the United Kingdom where it will apply and where it is important. I will start with Abingdon-on-Thames, where there will be dwelling houses that are contiguous and which may or may not be part of the general rule and may have exceptions. There is Accrington, Acton, Alcester, Aldershot, Alnwick, Alston, Altrincham, Ambleside, Amersham—I think we can see where this is going—Andover, Arundel, Ashburton, Ashby-de-la-Zouch—[Laughter.] Hon. Members are laughing at my pronunciation. I challenge them to get to their feet and say Auchtermuchty. There is Axminster, Aylesbury, Bakewell, Bampton, Banbury—Madam Deputy Speaker, I could go on and go on.

[Sammy Wilson]

Since the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about those towns and wants to highlight the problems facing their residents, will he tell us whether he has visited any of them? Does he even know where they are?

[Pete Wishart]

Looking through the list, I spent a lovely hour in Berwick-upon-Tweed and I remember a lovely cup of tea in Bexhill-on-Sea in one of its very fine restaurants, but I am sure hon. Members do not want me to go through the whole list and describe the very many hours I have spent.

I shall spare the House the 35 pages of towns, villages and cities included in my list which are represented by English Members who are not doing their job. I will now give them the opportunity to get up and speak on behalf of their constituents. I hazard a guess that they are probably better at it than I am, as a Scottish National party Member of Parliament. I think that my English colleagues are probably just a little bit more qualified, experienced and skilled to speak on behalf of their own constituencies than I am, so I am perplexed as to why it has been left to me to do this job. So I will now, having provided a little bit of encouragement, give them to the opportunity to do it.

This is an absolute and utter farce, Madam Deputy Speaker. Regardless of anything else, this speech has pointed out just how ridiculous this practice is. I am just about the only Member of Parliament who has spoken in Legislative Grand Committee. I could speak for another hour if required, but I know Labour Members are keen to move on to the next business and I will accommodate that. We should be profoundly ashamed of the way we operate the English votes for English laws procedure. It has become an embarrassment to this House and makes this place look at its most ridiculous: bells ringing, maces going up and down, and nothing ever actually happening. It is time that we brought this farce to an end. I appeal to hon. Members from England. This has not worked. We have tried it. We have seen what it is like and nothing ever happens. Join us now to ensure that we rid the House of this embarrassment and go back to a united House with one class of MP where we can all have an equal say. Join us and let us end this farce.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee consents to the Rating (Property in Common Occupation) and Council Tax (Empty Dwellings) Bill.

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

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair; decision reported.

Third Reading

English Votes for English Laws

Debate between Pete Wishart and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

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

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

[Sammy Wilson]

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

[Pete Wishart]

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

Rupert Murdoch and News Corporation Bid for BSkyB

Debate between Pete Wishart and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sammy Wilson]

We must address everything that leads to that concentration of power. If that is not dealt with, there will always be a tendency to rush after and try to please those who have such influence.

We have only to consider the accusations that have flown back and forth across this House today. Why did the current Prime Minister, when he was at a low ebb in opposition, and under pressure from the Government of the day, hire a dodgy character even though he had been warned? Was that because of the influence that that might give and the doors that that person would open? Was it because of some of the other benefits that would come from the appointment?

Why did the current Prime Minister’s predecessor bottle this, despite the fact that he knew about wrongdoings? He told us today that he knew about them. Was it because the Home Office said he could not do anything? Was it because the police said there was no evidence? Or was it because he knew there was a certain limit beyond which he could not go? After all, he was the Prime Minister, so he could have made the decision. I do not wish to be partisan; I just think that we must look at what has happened under both the current Prime Minister and previous Prime Ministers. How did they behave? How did parties behave when in government and seeking the support of News International? As long as we have that concentration of power, there will always be the danger that our democracy might be undermined by those to whom we have to pander because we need the headline.

That is bad for the business concerned as well, because of what it then believes. I have no doubt that News International believed it could get away with what it did get away with, because, being in such a powerful position, it felt that politicians might pull their punches and that the police might not fully investigate matters. As it felt that it could get away with some of those activities, it did them; then it pushed the limits and went further and further. If we do not deal with the concentration of power, I believe that this might happen again, regardless of what comes out of the inquiry, who goes to jail, and what sanctions are put in place.

[Pete Wishart]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are some big critical issues for the devolved Administrations in terms of the inquiry. Does he agree that it is imperative that whoever leads the inquiry, and however they do their business, they consult fully and engage comprehensively with the devolved Administrations?

[Sammy Wilson]

I hope that will be the case, and I am disappointed that there was not more consultation with the smaller parties representing Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland about the terms of the inquiry, but I hope that will be remedied in the future.

The third reason why I believe we must deal with the concentration of power is that there will always be public mistrust of the news industry if it is felt that one group is so large that it can influence the law and politicians, and get away with things. That is not good for the press and the newspaper industry either, or for those who get on the wrong side of the door. We have seen how it has swung against the Labour party. At one stage that party was the darling of News International—but no longer. At one stage the Conservative party suffered as a result of being on the wrong side of the door. I know about that, too, from my experience in Northern Ireland, when the Conservative party joined with the Ulster Unionist party before the last election. News International had taken little interest in Northern Ireland politics and politicians, but suddenly there seemed to be an undue interest, in our party in particular. Indeed, a number of our party members were targeted—not that News International ever found any wrongdoing, but there was innuendo, and it was sufficient to sow doubts in the mind of the electorate.

That is why politicians will always try to get on the right side of the door. If we are on the wrong side, we know what will happen. We will not get the headlines, and instead we will get the investigations and the innuendo. For that reason, the concentration of power must be dealt with, even though the inquiry is not going to deal with it.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Sammy Wilson

Wednesday 9th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I shall leave it to the Labour party to decide how it wants to describe itself, but what on earth were Labour Members were thinking about? What were they trying to do with ID cards? What was a left- of-centre, notionally socialist, party doing introducing ID cards? ID cards were the low water mark of Labour’s anti-civil libertarian agenda and the high water mark of Labour’s attempt to usher in a new surveillance society. Thank goodness the cards have been stopped and Labour has not got away with it.

Listening to the right hon. Members for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), one would have thought that they were introducing nice, cuddly, friendly, inexpensive little things that would not bother a soul. The truth is that ID cards would have changed for ever the nature of the relationship between the citizen and the state. ID cards, and the much more dangerous national register, would, for ever and a day, have put the onus on the citizen to have his information shared. They would have changed the relationship around entirely, so I am pleased they have gone.

Where on earth did these things come from? I wish to be charitable—you know me, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am charitable when I can be—so I should say that perhaps they were an incoherent, bizarre, knee-jerk response to the events of the past decade. One can imagine the conversation around the Cabinet table, with the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough saying, “Listen boss, I have a new idea that will show that we are actually doing something—ID cards. They will upset the civil liberties brigade, but that plays well with the focus groups. They will certainly wrong-foot the Tories.” One can just picture the enthusiastic nodding of Messrs Reid and Clarke as they thought that they had come up with a cunning plot to get one over on the Tories and seem as though they were doing something. That is what it was all about—I am being charitable to them. They wanted to be seen to do something in the face of the dreadful events at the beginning of the previous decade.

Of course, time passed and the cards did upset the civil liberties brigade, but time also proved that, for tackling terrorism, the cards were as much use as Emu without Rod Hull. They would have done nothing to tackle terrorism. We have seen the events in Spain and Turkey. Fair enough, I accept that, as hon. Members have said, there were convictions based on the use of ID cards, but the cards did nothing to stop those events. The story had to change: the cards could no longer exclusively be about tackling terrorism, but had to be about more than that. Seemingly, they were about tackling identity fraud and illegal immigration and would even help people to play the lottery. They would be not so much ID cards but supercards—the cure of all society’s ills. The problem was that nobody believed a word of it. Despite the ridiculous rewriting of history about what identity cards were and what they were intended to be, everyone knew what they were. It was the difference between the state and the individual.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I do not want to interrupt the hon. Gentleman’s speech, which we are all enjoying, but does he accept that the ultimate irony in all this is that although ID cards were to remedy all of society’s ills, as he has outlined, they were to be voluntary at first? There was to be an attack on social security fraud, terrorism and criminality, but people had to volunteer for it.

[Pete Wishart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. That contradiction was even acknowledged by Labour Front Benchers as being the thing that would do ID cards in. What was the point of them if the scheme was to be voluntary? Could anyone see Mr Terrorist popping off to his post office voluntarily to apply for an ID card? That was never likely to happen. It was a ridiculous idea and the Labour party knew that, as has been acknowledged by its Front Benchers.

Labour persisted with the scheme, but that approach and all the talk about the new things that ID cards would do only further confused the already sceptical public about what the cards were all about. The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle is right that ID cards were quite popular in their early days. At first, about 80% of the public thought that they would be a good thing, but that number slowly went down over the years as the public became familiar with what the cards were to do and as they heard the arguments and saw the costs escalate year after year. What ID cards became for new Labour was not so much some great suggestion that it was bringing to the British people as a political virility signal—something that a dying and decaying Government had to push forward to be seen to do something.

When I was preparing this speech, I had no idea what the right hon. Gentleman was going to say. I did not know whether ID cards were to be dumped or to be the first inclusion in the next Labour party manifesto. Indeed, I still am not sure exactly what the Labour party’s position is on them. We know that it is not voting against the measure tonight. What I have heard from Labour Members so far is that they think that ID cards are still a good idea, but the way that they have described them is like no other description of them that I have ever heard.

I had thought that ID cards would be subject to the same sort of revisionism that has been seen with some of the Labour leadership candidates. I thought that they might go the same way as the Iraq war or Alf Garnett’s immigration policies, but, no, it seems that they are still to be a feature of Labour’s new vision and version to reconnect with the British public. They will be there to try to reconnect with the British public.