Tributes to the Speaker

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I say that for the last time. I was just saying to the SNP Chief Whip, given that questions were allowed to go on for 40 minutes longer, Bercow must go.

I was, of course, one of your nominees 10 years ago. I would therefore like to congratulate myself on my solid and sound judgment on that occasion. I always knew that you would make an excellent Speaker. Even that awful impersonation you did of Peter Tapsell when you were trying to be elected did not disabuse me of that notion. But I did not know that you would be such a transformative Speaker. The way in which we do business in this Chamber is now forever changed because of your speakership. You have pioneered and transformed. The speakership of this House is now no longer just about overseeing the business in the Chamber, and the way in which we debate and interact with each other. It is about asserting the rights of Parliament and championing parliamentary democracy. And you have been singularly brave in the way you have challenged various Governments who believed that it was their gift always to get their way. We will never go back to those days now, because of the way in which you have challenged that assumption.

I will never forget sitting with you in that curry house in Buckingham, when MP4 did a gig for you in your constituency. That curry house stayed open because Mr Speaker was coming with some strange guests from a rock band, and the vindaloo you ordered that night had to be specially prepared. We could not get you to come up on stage with us that evening, but now you have a bit more time. Given the Prime Minister’s Sinatra reference yesterday, maybe you could give us a rendition of “My Way”; we would happily supply the backing for that occasion.

The culture of this House has been totally and radically transformed. You have ensured that the Back Benchers are now fully accommodated. I have been here long enough to remember the days when urgent questions and statements were cut off after half an hour or 40 minutes, and it would always be the Back Benchers and Members of the smaller parties who would lose out on an opportunity to say something and give their point of view on the issue of the day. That no longer happens. Everybody is now accommodated. I hope that that transformation that you have made will continue to be adopted as we go forward. We all now get an opportunity to give our point of view in this House, and it is important that that remains the case. For that, we thank you.

We on these Benches will miss you, and you will forever be a friend of Scotland and of the Scottish National party. On behalf of our party, I wish you and your family—Sally, Freddie, Jemima and Oliver—all the very best for the future. I wish your staff, Peter, Ian and Jim, all the best as well. I hope that you enjoy the next stage of what has already been a fascinating and unique journey. You are a one-off, sir, and we will miss you.

[Mr Speaker]

Thank you.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call Pete Wishart, I appeal to Members who are leaving the Chamber—say I, playing for time—to do so quickly and quietly, so that the remaining Members can attend to what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say on the matter of this relatively narrow business statement. If people are about to be beetle out of the House walking past the hon. Gentleman, I hope that they will do so quickly so that he is not interrupted as he orates in his inimitable fashion.

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

It will not be a point for oration when I get down to the business that the Leader of the House has announced. I join the shadow Leader of the House in saying that we must stop meeting like this for these impromptu business statements. However, we will all miss them and the Leader of the House’s genuinely individual style as he announces emergency business statement after emergency business statement. We look forward to the next enthralling episode tomorrow, when we will all be congregated again, and the three of us will obviously enjoy the get-together that we have been experiencing over the past few weeks.

The SNP has no problem with or objection to the business announcement, and we look forward to the debate on Grenfell. I also look forward to our continuing get-togethers, which have become a regular feature of our time in the House. Finally, we are pleased that the Bill passed this evening. It is worth saying that, under the last Division result, the Prime Minister would have had the two-thirds majority that he was trying to secure—[Interruption.] I see the Leader of the House laughing and grinning there. The SNP is looking forward to this election and to coming back in increased numbers to ensure that we will oppose the Government’s hard Tory Brexit. We will continue to fight for Scotland’s right to choose Scotland’s future.

Prime Minister’s Statement

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) can now cheer up, because he is going to be heard.

[Pete Wishart]

I have a cheery disposition, Mr Speaker, but Scotland says we reject this—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear the hon. Gentleman, but I could not do so. I want to hear his dulcet tones. Blurt it out, man.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Scotland says today that we reject this rotten deal. We will be taken out of the European Union, which we value and cherish, against our national collective will, be deprived of the customs union and single market and be left at a competitive disadvantage to our friends in Northern Ireland. Is it not the case that Scotland can retain its EU membership only by becoming a normal independent nation?

European Union (Withdrawal) Acts

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Saturday 19th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I note what the right hon. Lady has said.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I too am grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing that additional piece of business on Monday. I share deeply the concerns of the right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) on these issues. What is happening to the Queen’s Speech? What will now happen to the debates and votes that were supposed to happen? We were supposed to conclude the Queen’s Speech debate by Wednesday.

This is a huge discourtesy to the House. If the Leader of the House wanted a vote on this Government’s deal, he could have had it 20 minutes ago. That was the right time to do it. We deserve some sort of explanation as to why this is being brought back on Monday so quickly without any conversation or discussions across the usual channels and no discussions or debate with other parties in this House. He has to get back to his feet and explain a bit more about what he is intending and why he never took advantage of the opportunity to have a vote on this 20 minutes ago.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

There is no requirement for the letter to be laid. From memory of the legislation, I do not think that there is any legal requirement for it to be laid, or for it to appear in the Library, so I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman any great comfort on that point. Knowing his indefatigability, I rather imagine that he will be pursuing this matter with considerable intensity over the next 24 hours or so, and possibly for most of those 24 hours, allowing himself, perhaps, a couple of hours here and there for sleep. I am sure that he will be making his own inquiries to try to ascertain whether the letter has been delivered, and I dare say that representatives of the fourth estate may be making such inquiries as well. I imagine that enlightenment will descend upon us at some point. I am quite sure that, by the time we sit on Monday, we will know the answer to his question, and I expect him at that point to be in his place.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. As there is just so much distrust of the Prime Minister and the signing of this letter, may I suggest, through your good offices, that this is done as publicly as possible? Now, the popular TV programme “Strictly Come Dancing” is on tonight, and I am pretty certain that Tess and Claudia would welcome the Prime Minister to the show and order that that letter be signed so that the whole nation could observe it.

[Mr Speaker]

It is not for me to advise the Prime Minister on either his viewing habits or his attendance at popular television programmes. I am certainly not aware that the Prime Minister has any plans to take part in that particular programme in a dancing capacity—I am not conscious of that. It is not something that he and I have ever discussed, but I note the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. The wider point is about transparency, and I agree that it is absolutely right and proper that we should know what action has been taken on this matter, but I do feel that colleagues will take their own steps to try to ascertain what happens over the next 24 hours or so.

I do not seek to constrain colleagues in any way, but I have a sense that some may wish to bring our proceedings to a conclusion. [Interruption.] Oh, it is very good to see the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the Chamber, albeit sitting in the second row, which is becomingly modest of him. He could perfectly well bestride the Treasury Bench if he were so minded. He is an understated fellow.

If there are no further points of order, we have to leave matters there for now. I suggest that we come now to the Adjournment.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing another exciting instalment of business for next week. I join him and the shadow Leader of the House in paying tribute to Kamal El-Hajji and Rose Hudson-Wilkin and I hope will get an opportunity to pay fulsome tributes to both individuals in the next few weeks.

The Leader of the House would do well to abandon this place for the next couple of weeks, given what is going on with this leadership contest. I am even prepared to come on his holiday bus. I would bring my banjo and my cans of Irn-Bru, and I might even be prepared to waive my fee. I would even endure his rotten jokes, because surely we should do more than endure the purgatory of the business that we are facing right up to the summer recess. So, to spice things up a bit, may we have a debate about the Tory issue of the day—the return of foxhunting—and may we have the Foreign Secretary to introduce it before this particular fox is shot? When we are through with that, maybe we could have some legislation to reintroduce the children up chimneys Act, and then maybe a Bill to reintroduce work- houses before we move on to the dunking of witches. Such are the great offerings from the Tory leadership contest to keep us up to date with the modern zeitgeist.

Then can we have a debate about the precious, precious, precious Union? The Tories are beginning to sound like a demented Gollum who is about to throw the ring that unites them all into Mount Doom, which is probably quite apt. The Prime Minister is in Scotland today with yet another devolution plan—and no, of course it is not another desperate attempt to salvage the “precious”. This is the problem, and the Tories just don’t get it. For them, it is all about doing things to Scotland; it is never about listening to what Scotland actually wants or understanding the type of nation that we want to be. Scotland will never accept their buffoons’ Brexit. For them, Scotland is probably already lost. The “precious” is already beginning to melt in the pyre.

Lastly, can we have a debate about Brexit? You know how we were given all this extra time to try to resolve it? Maybe we should debate it occasionally. We have heard both the candidates for the Tory leadership saying that they are prepared to take this country out of the EU without a deal, and we have to start to prepare the parliamentary fightback. There is a huge moment coming, and it will be the no-deal Brexiteers versus parliamentary democracy. Democracy says no to the Brexiteers, and we now have to get ready for that fight.

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Leader of the House responds, I would just say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), so that the business is not left unfinished, that there most assuredly will be tribute sessions for the Speaker’s Chaplain, the Rev. Rose, and for the departing Serjeant at Arms, Mohammed El-Hajji. Those are likely to be separate sessions—my office is in discussion about that matter—but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that, consistent with the principle of showing respect for people who have made an outstanding contribution in the service of the House, those sessions will take place.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In congratulating the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire on a particularly splendid tie, I call Mr Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Scottish Affairs Committee has just released our report on intergovernmental relations. It is an evidenced-based, wide-ranging report on a number of important issues. This cross-party report states that the Scotland Office has failed to keep pace with devolution and that most direct intergovernmental relations are conducted outwith the Secretary of State’s Department. I have noticed in some of the press comments that he is not taking this at all seriously, so will he now agree to a proper review of his Department?

Point of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 6th June 2019 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The new Leader of the House was asked three times about the prospect of Prorogation being used to facilitate a no-deal Brexit. I listened carefully to his responses, and I do not think I heard him rule out such a prospect. We know that it is a live prospect because several of the candidates to become the new Prime Minister have said that it is something they intend to do. Will you, Mr Speaker, lay out for the House what the seeking of such a Prorogation would involve and what the responsibilities, duties and rights of the House would be in the matter?

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope that he will understand if I decline to do that today, here and now. If I were minded to make further comments beyond those that I have made, I would do so at a future time and on a prepared basis. Suffice it to say that I have said what I have said and have nothing to add to or to subtract from what I have said on a number of recent occasions, including this morning. However, the hon. Gentleman is a perspicacious and adroit parliamentarian. He was that before he became his party’s shadow Leader of the House, and he has demonstrated clearly that he remains that in his current role. The issue has been aired by him and by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and of course by the shadow Leader of the House in the first instance—her lead has been followed—and I feel that the matter will continue to be aired for as long as colleagues feel that it has to be. We will leave it there for now, but the way was led by the shadow Leader of the House and others of us have followed.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 28th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, I am not debating the issue with the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] No, it is not a debate. She has raised a point of order. I have answered it. The right hon. Member for New Forest East very courteously raised his, and it was answered, and other colleagues might also wish to raise points. We always need to have a sense of other.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This follows on from the point of order made by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). We do not know whether tomorrow’s business will be the meaningful vote—the Leader of the House quite reasonably told us that we would see the motion at 5 o’clock—but it is being heavily briefed to the press that we are likely to be presented tomorrow with the withdrawal agreement without the political declaration attached. Do you think this acceptable and permissible, Mr Speaker, given what has been agreed with the EU and the clear strictures in clause 13 of the EU withdrawal Act? Will it be in order for the Government to bring that forward?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. As to the legality of such a proposition, I would have to look to others to advise. People can take their own counsel on this subject; I certainly would do so. If he is asking me whether I have seen any such motion, the answer is that I have not—I have seen no motion appertaining to tomorrow’s business beyond that which lies on the Order Paper suggesting that we might meet tomorrow. In terms of a substantive motion for tomorrow, I have as yet seen none. I am happy to tell him that, as the Leader of the House knows, I met a couple of very senior colleagues this morning who were exploring possibilities and consulting me. A conversation was had, as people would think was entirely normal and proper. I have not since heard from either of those senior right hon. or hon. Members, but I might do so during the course of the day.

As to the question of what people are briefing, I should observe that briefing is very much a phenomenon of our age: brief, brief, brief, create an impression, establish a narrative, try to dictate the course of events thereby—people do this all the time. I have not been briefed on any such plan, however, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to have changed my mind from the position that I enunciated on 18 March and reiterated on 25 March, and that I underlined again from the Chair yesterday. It remains the position so far as the convention is concerned. As the Leader of the House said—almost as a holding statement—during the business statement, we shall have to see what further work is done during the course of the day.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 21st March 2019 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you have been approached about the security arrangements for Members of Parliament—something I know you take very seriously, as does the Chairman of Ways and Means, who is in the Chamber—following the Prime Minister’s remarks last night, when she seemed to set Parliament against the people on the issues of Brexit. I have noticed a more belligerent tone in some of my communications since last night, and I am sure that other Members of Parliament are starting to experience the same issue. Given the darkening mood that has been created by what the Prime Minister said last night, is there anything else we should be doing to ensure that we take care of our own security?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I will make two points. First, if he has concerns of either a personal or wider nature, it is open to him to approach the parliamentary security director, Eric Hepburn, who will be well known to colleagues; indeed, I would encourage him to do so. Secondly, wholly unrelated to any comment or statement by any Minister or other parliamentarian, I have today a long-arranged meeting with security advisers. That meeting will take place very shortly, and if it is a service to the hon. Gentleman, I will relay the concern that he has expressed and some of the concerns that other Members from across the House have articulated about this matter. If there is a further or better particular that I have to share with the House, I will say so. Otherwise, if he wishes to approach me again next week to seek details of the substance and outcome of my meeting, I will be very happy, as is proper and appropriate, to brief him. I hope that that is helpful.

Speaker’s Statement

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 18th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

It is about the substance of the motion—what it is commending to the House, and what proposition is being put. It is not a question purely of the words, but of the meaning, the intention and the purpose.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have made today a very important and dramatic statement. Already constituents are getting in touch with me to ask exactly what that means, and we have to be clear with the country about what you have said. The Government cannot bring back another meaningful vote if it is the same in substance as the last one. The Government’s one and only intention is to achieve and secure that. This week, they intended to do that very thing, and now you have said that that cannot happen. Stressing that for clarity would be abundantly helpful.

My experience of this Government—I do not know whether it is yours—is that they will try anything to get this through, and they will have the impertinence to try to bring this back once again in any guise that they think will be possible; perhaps it will be under the guise of the Democratic Unionist party agreeing with their deal. How do you intend to be vigilant about that prospect? Under what criteria will a motion be assessed, if the Government bring one back and try to present it as being significantly different from their last one? How do we judge what they are doing, so that this ruling can stand? It is an important ruling, and it is correct.

[Mr Speaker]

It seems to me that it is principally a question of whether the proposition is the same, or substantially the same. I would confer. I would of course seek advice. I would have my eyes and ears open. I am looking to serve the House, to reflect its interests and to demonstrate respect for its wishes. I simply repeat that the convention is there for a purpose, and that purpose seems to me to be an honourable and valid purpose. I am afraid that I will have to look at the particulars in the light of what is presented, but I hope that the Government would feel that respect for procedure matters.

I note that, as the hon. Gentleman asks his question and I respond, the Leader of the House is playing with her electronic device, as is the Deputy Chief Whip. I did not include him in the category of very senior people in the House, but I readily grant that that is a debatable proposition. It would seem to me to be helpful if people showed respect for each other in these circumstances, and if, when in the Chamber, they listened to what others had to say. However, if they choose not to do so, so be it. I try to show good manners, and I hope others will try to do so as well.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House does not wish to comment. Fair enough. It is a business statement, so she can respond if she wishes but she does not wish to do so.

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

It is no wonder that the Leader of the House chose not to respond, because that was a pathetic statement, given tonight’s events and the chaotic cluelessness at the heart of Government. The public must be watching this place and wondering what on earth is going on. The Prime Minister gave a petulant and unsatisfactory response to the preceding events. This Government are still determined to flog a dead deal, but at some point they are going to have to accept that the game is over.

We have just got sight of tomorrow’s motion and it seems to me that it is readily amendable. All we need to get rid of is the first two parts and we will get to what this House really wants and requires, which is an indefinite extension of article 50 until we get the issue resolved. The will of the House has to be respected in these matters.

I have seen the provisional business for next week and there is nothing in it—nothing at all—so the Government could table a motion that reflects the wish of this House to legislate to take no deal off the table. Is that in the thinking of the Leader of the House, and does she intend to do it? That is what this House expects, and it is now what this country expects.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I was genuinely trying to be helpful. It seems to me entirely reasonable not to have the wording yet, but there we go. Anyway, the right hon. Lady says she is grateful, and I will take her at her word.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the House has continually and consistently said that the default position with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 is to leave with no deal. That is the position, and I think everybody in the House agrees with that. If there is a vote tomorrow and the House votes overwhelmingly to take no deal off the table, the way to overturn that is for legislation to be introduced. Am I right in my understanding that legislation will be required in order to overturn the requirements of the withdrawal Act, and is there any indication that that legislation will be forthcoming if the House votes to take no deal off the table?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is getting into hypotheticals, which were deprecated—or, at any rate, resisted—by the Leader of the House. The answer is that I do not dissent from what the hon. Gentleman says about the legal position, but we are not at that point yet, and therefore I am reluctant to introduce new words into this exchange that are not required at this time. I am not disagreeing with him and I entirely understand the logic of what he is saying, but we are not at that point yet. The hon. Gentleman will be in his place on subsequent days, and I am sure he will give full voice to his conviction on this matter. I dare say others will, too, on either side of that argument.

I think it would be seemly if we now drew points of order to a close.

UK’s Withdrawal from the EU

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 27th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has now been on his feet for over an hour. Is there anything that you could think of doing from the Chair to exhort him perhaps to reach his peroration?

[Mr Speaker]

Well, it has been 63 minutes. The Minister for the Cabinet Office is known for the intellectual approach that he adopts, which includes analysis in copious detail of propositions advanced by other colleagues, but I feel sure that he is nearing that peroration, which is keenly anticipated.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 21st February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. May I join in the many tributes to Paul Flynn? He was a brave but kind politician, and we will never forget his sojourn at the Dispatch Box as shadow Leader of the House, which he described as a job creation opportunity for octogenarians.

It is starting to feel distinctly different in here as the Government’s chaotic Brexit starts to play havoc on the UK’s political parties as well as the UK itself. We are all wondering who is next and looking for some willing volunteers on the Conservative Benches—[Interruption.] Oh, there we go; it might be the right hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning). The smart money certainly is not on the Leader of the House; she is more ERG than TIG. Can we have a debate on political defections, particularly on the question of the point at which defections become a realignment of British politics?

Next Wednesday, we are going to have another one of these “I can’t believe it’s not the meaningful vote” debates as the clock is run down further, and attempts to blackmail the House into accepting this rotten deal or a disastrous no deal continue apace. Once again, there will be another one of these Christmas tree motions. The Government will be told that this House will not accept no deal, and presumably the Government will just ignore the wishes of the House all over again. But at some point this nonsense has to come to an end. The House simply is not going to accept no deal, and the quicker the Leader of the House accepts that, the better we will all be. With 36 days left until we leave the EU, the Government are going to have to come back to the House with their real meaningful vote, so when will that be?

The Leader of the House has actually invented a new date—29 February next week. As the Leader of the House knows, there is no 29 February. Perhaps this is not so much running down the clock, but extending February forever so we actually never get to a meaningful vote.

I do not know what the Leader of the House has got against the private Member’s Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)—the Refugees (Family Reunion) (No. 2) Bill—but it has been almost a year since it passed its Second Reading in this House. Other Bills have been given precedence and his still has no money resolution. Again, the Government are defying the wishes of the House. When will the Leader of the House set out a motion to let this important Bill progress?

Please let us not do this week all over again. The Leader of the House’s hon. Friends gave up their skiing holidays and trips to their villas for barely-debated statutory instruments and general debates. I have been listening carefully to the Leader of the House, and it seems as if the Easter recess is under threat and is not particularly safe now. We know that this costs the House God knows how much money and has put staff at a great disadvantage, so let us make sure that we have our Easter recess. The only notable thing that happened this week was the desertion of MPs from the two big parties. In the week of the TIGgers, this Government have seemed little more than a bunch of Eeyores in a bad mood.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not want to make the hon. Gentleman envious, but I am pleased to tell the House that I have a fully up-to-date and, dare I say, sanitised version of the business of the House, and mine very clearly says “Friday 1 March”. [Interruption.] Well, I feel very sorry for colleagues. I am obviously in a privileged position and should be thankful for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

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

It certainly feels different up here on these Benches today, that’s for sure. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the young people of Scotland—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is something wrong with the microphone. It is very unusual. I have never been unable previously to hear the hon. Gentleman, but what I would say is blurt it out with vim, man!

[Pete Wishart]

I am, Mr Speaker. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the young people of Scotland who, because of his Tory Brexit, will be denied the rights and opportunities to live, work and love across the continent of Europe?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am very grateful to the Prime Minister for relenting. She is just about to rip up her backstop, and we are all wishing that she would get on with it and tell the House exactly what she plans to do. That involves an agreement—[Interruption.] Hold on a minute. That involves an agreement—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I know that Conservative Members find the hon. Gentleman mildly provocative—[Laughter] —and no, he is not in an isolated category in that regard, but he must be heard.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 17th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Pete Wishart.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and may I wish you a happy birthday for Saturday from everyone on the SNP Benches? Perhaps you can get a game of tennis in if you get the chance. I also thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.

Well, we are all still here! I congratulate the Leader of the House and her Government on winning the no-confidence vote last night. At least they can still win one vote, and the nation is grateful—or perhaps not. Amazingly, this is a Government who treat the biggest defeat in parliamentary history as a mere flesh wound. Like Monty Python’s Black Knight, they fight on, armless and legless, prepared to bite the nation into submission. With similar delusion, they fight on as though nothing has happened. The red lines remain in place, there is no sense that other options are being considered seriously, and the Government still believe that a little bit of tinkering around the edges of their deal will be enough to make everything all right. The Government need to start to get real about their position and demonstrate that they are prepared to take Tuesday’s defeat seriously. May we have a statement, to show good will towards the House, to say that the Government will stop the clock and ensure that no deal is taken off the table? That would be the best way to engage with the other parties in this House.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for clarifying the situation around the Prime Minister’s statement on Monday and the debate a week on Tuesday. However, the business statement did not cover the fact that, according to the amended business motion approved by the House relating to the meaningful vote, the Government have three days to bring forward that debate, so why is the debate coming seven days after the statement? Next week’s business is important, but the debate could be held next week. The clock is ticking, and we do not need to wait until Tuesday week. The Leader of the House did not quite confirm this to the shadow Leader of the House, so will she ensure that any motion is fully debatable and amendable and that all options will be considered?

Lastly, this has been raised previously, but we need to review the House’s appalling voting arrangements. Tuesday night was awful, with cramped conditions no better than a cattle wagon while Members of Parliament vote. What will have to happen before we decide to do something? Does somebody have to give birth in a Lobby before the matter is tackled seriously? This is the 21st century, and our voting arrangements should match the times in which we live. Get shot of these ridiculous voting arrangements.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am happy to reflect on the second point, which is not altogether dissimilar to that raised earlier by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr Duncan Smith). It is a very serious question and it warrants a serious reply. I am not sure whether it is reasonable to expect a full reply today—I am not sure whether that is what the hon. Gentleman is seeking—but if the hon. Gentleman is saying to me in his typically courteous way that this is an important matter and that we need a judgment on it, either from the Chair alone or from the Chair acting on the advice of, for example, the Procedure Committee, I agree with him.

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, the answer is that if the motion has been moved, the question on it must then be put. For the avoidance of doubt, I say that on the basis of specialist advice.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point is equally important constitutionally. Are there any means available to this House of communicating to the Conservative party that we are all now bored and tired of all these points of order? The nation is increasingly embarrassed by them. How do we therefore get on with today’s debate?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has made his point, and I am grateful to him.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 10th December 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Anybody observing these proceedings today would say that you have played a blinder in trying to get this House to demonstrate what it wants and to say exactly what is happening with this meaningful vote. It looks likely—it is almost certain—that the Government will have their say, which means that we will not be able to vote on their cancelling this meaningful vote, but I wonder whether we may have an indicative vote of this House. When the Order of the Day is read and the Whip responds, if enough of us shout “Now” while Government Members shout “Tomorrow”, would that express the indication of this House, and how would we get that formally recognised?

[Mr Speaker]

I have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said—he is an experienced parliamentarian and a passionate one—and I would say to him that we rule in this place by rules, not by shouting. That said, I have periodically over the years exhorted the hon. Gentleman not to shout, and on the whole my efforts to that end have been spectacularly unsuccessful. I have no reason to expect that if I were to exhort Members not to shout when they are minded to do so this evening, I should be any more successful. The hon. Gentleman and other Members will do what they wish to do at the appropriate moment.

Point of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 26th November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like your advice about the use of official parliamentary recordings of proceedings of this House. On Thursday, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) posted a video clip of an exchange at business questions involving me and the Leader of the House. The clip was heavily edited to give a false and erroneous impression about the nature of the exchange and to draw a false conclusion—one that was not made when I made that contribution in the House. The terms and conditions on the use of recorded parliamentary material clearly say that no one can “alter” the video and audio of the recording “in any way”, and Members have to agree to that as part of the terms of use. This exchange was clearly altered, and it was altered to give a false impression of what transpired. More than 40,000 people have already seen this heavily edited clip. I have contacted the hon. Gentleman and have given him the opportunity to take it down voluntarily—an offer he has refused. How, therefore, can he be obliged and compelled to take this clip down?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving me notice of this point of order. It is important that colleagues take care not to give a misleading impression of proceedings by selective editing or unrepresentative quotation, either of video content or of Hansard. I do not, however, think the Chair can act or be expected to act as an immediate arbiter of cases brought to its attention—I refer to the Chair as a collective—to determine whether a misleading impression has or has not been created, deliberately or otherwise. I have always stressed that it is for Members to take responsibility for their actions and for what is done on their behalf. A great many right hon. and hon. Members make use of the video clipping tool to download extracts from our debates, and this helps bring our proceedings to life. I would encourage them to exercise care when they do so, although I accept—I do not know whether he does and I am not debating the point with him here and now—that some editing must be allowed if these extracts are to be of a manageable length for social media purposes. It is really not satisfactory—I am not criticising the hon. Gentleman; I understand his frustration—for these matters repeatedly to be brought to the attention of the Chair when the Chair has no power to act. Members must, if I may politely say so, treat others as they would wish themselves to be treated. We will leave it there for now.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd November 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You said in business questions on two occasions that the Government will table an amendable motion, which is also the understanding of the whole House. However, the Government have also said that, regardless of what happens to that amendable motion, they will only put the option of the Government’s take-it-or-leave-it deal. Do you know anything more about this process? Will this amendable motion be taken to the House with a range of options, or is it your understanding that all that will be put to the House is the Government’s deal on a take-it-or-leave-it basis?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that this is an issue still in progress. [Interruption.] The Procedure Committee has produced a report in which it has helpfully set out, if memory serves me correctly—[Interruption.] Perhaps if the House is interested in listening to what I have to say in response to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart)—[Interruption.] When Ministers have finished their private conversation, perhaps I can respond to the point of order from the hon. Gentleman. I will start again. The matter is still in progress. The Procedure Committee has helpfully produced a report on this matter in which—[Interruption.] Perhaps I can start again. [Interruption.] Perhaps I can start again when the Leader of the House has finished her conversation with her hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). I would be extremely grateful for that courtesy. [Interruption.] I can happily wait. I think it would be a courtesy if Members would listen as I respond to a point that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has legitimately raised. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. [Interruption.] May I just ask the Leader of the House if she will do me the courtesy of listening while I respond to the point of order from the hon. Gentleman, as I did her the courtesy of listening to her responses to the business question?

The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire has raised an important issue, on which the right hon. Lady had some remarks to make a few moments ago. I was simply saying to him that the matter is still in progress. The Procedure Committee has produced a report in which it sets out—

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 19th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The shadow Secretary of State is nothing if not persistent. His terrier-like quality is well known to all throughout the House and to many beyond it. I do not think anything he has said is incompatible with what the Secretary of State said. The hon. Gentleman quoted the Secretary of State as saying, “As far as I understand it”. I think that what I gleaned from the Secretary of State is that he will go away and check whether what he said was correct. In the event that a correction is required, there are many witnesses to his willingness to correct the record. I think we will leave it there for now. I hope that honour is served. The shadow Secretary of State has made his point with considerable force and alacrity, and the Secretary of State has displayed his customary courtesy.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have no doubt been observing with alarm and great concern the events in the House of Lords in which Members of the other place have overturned a decision of the Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee to suspend one of its Members for the most serious of sexual allegations. This sends the appalling message that these Houses of Parliament are not serious in tackling sexual harassment, and that we as an institution are prepared to defend our own and not take complainants seriously. Mr Speaker, I know that you have no responsibility for that undemocratic disgrace of an institution down the corridor, but there were allegations that a place in the House of Lords, in our legislature, was offered in return for sexual favours. You will know that the appointment of places in the House of Lords is a matter for the Prime Minister, supplied by lists from party leaders who all have a place in this House. What can this House do to ensure that this matter is robustly and effectively investigated?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me advance notice of his intention to raise this point of order. Let me begin by saying what I suppose will be universally acknowledged—namely, that these are serious matters. I know that there are strongly held views in the House, and outside it, on the case to which he has referred and on Thursday’s proceedings in the Lords. I hope he will not object if I note, en passant, that he is well known for having strong views on the nature, composition and source of membership of the other House, which he frequently expresses in colourful terms. However, I do not think that this House would be well served by itself pursuing serious personal allegations against a Member of the Lords, especially where the House of Lords has itself not decided on any outcome. The House of Lords has, as I understand it, referred this matter back for consideration. I am not justifying that; nor am I criticising it. I am simply noting what I believe to be the factual position. These are matters for the House of Lords. I urge Members to think how we would resent it if Members of that place raised an equivalent matter about a Member here that had been remitted to the Standards Committee for its further consideration. The issue is important, and it will be considered elsewhere. I respect the integrity of the hon. Gentleman in raising his legitimate concern.

[Pete Wishart]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that, but appointments to the House of Lords are a matter for this House, and there is a serious allegation that an offer of membership of the House of Lords was based on sexual favours. Surely that must therefore be a matter for this House that must be vigorously investigated.

[Mr Speaker]

The case will have to be determined. In so far as the hon. Gentleman is drawing to my and the House’s attention the fact that there is a role for Members of this House in relation to the other House, I think it fair for me, in neutral terms, to acknowledge that what he has said, as a matter of fact, is true. Perhaps we can leave it there for now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman feels that he has made his point with force. On the assumption that the appetite of colleagues to raise points of order has now been exhausted, the Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 25th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I endorse that call. My own office undertook that training over a year ago—I cannot remember exactly when, but it was well over a year ago—and it is a very good training programme and well worth enjoying—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does not need to be frivolous about it; it is in fact a serious point.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. It has been a depressing and dispiriting few weeks for those of us who are concerned about workplace bullying in this place, and Dame Laura Cox’s report contains a damning litany of the scale of the problem. The Leader of the House has been an effective champion in tackling the problem, and I am glad to see that a debate on Dame Laura’s report has been scheduled for a week on Monday.

We know that the report will be implemented in full, but it is time to challenge the ingrained culture of and the power relationships within this House, and an easy start would be to tackle the deference. That means no more “hon. Gentlemen”, no more swords, no more spying strangers or segregated areas. For goodness’ sake, it should really mean the end of people calling themselves Lords on the parliamentary estate. If we are serious about changing the workplace culture and environment, we must challenge those symbols and power relationships, and I hope that we can include that as part of our ongoing work.

Simply appalling remarks were made in the Scottish Parliament yesterday when the Conservative social security spokesperson, a Ms Michelle Ballantyne, said about the two-child benefit cap:

“It is fair that people on benefits cannot have as many children as they like”.—[Scottish Parliament Official Report, 24 October 2018; c. 52.]

That comment has shocked and appalled mainstream opinion in Scotland. We do not want those 19th-century Tory Victorian values in Scotland. We want a social security system designed with dignity and respect at its heart. Can we have a debate on further devolution of social security so that the views of people such as Ms Ballantyne hold no sway in our nation?

Lastly, Mr Speaker, we are very grateful to you for allowing MP4 to use Speaker’s House tonight for the launch of our new single. We have teamed up with Musicians Against Homelessness and Crisis to draw cross-party attention to homelessness throughout the UK. I do not think we will bother the charts, and we are not seriously considering giving up the day job, but I hope the Leader of the House might be among the first to download the single this evening.

[Mr Speaker]

MP4 are a great band and, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, they have performed in my constituency—I have very fond memories of that experience. The band have been in Speaker’s House before, and I am keen that they should come again and again.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 13th September 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

And with his eloquence in expressing it, indeed.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for when we come back from our conference recess. As we know, she has just hot-footed it back from Cabinet, where I hope she played a productive role in arranging the state of emergency arrangements for the looming no deal Brexit. It is almost unbelievable to most of us that we have got to this point, not by design but almost by typical Tory cluelessness. Would it not be in the Government’s interest for the Prime Minister simply to make a statement to the House and concede that her Chequers plans are now dead? The Mogg-ites now control large swaths of the Conservative party, and the daily militia of the party conference will almost certainly put paid to those plans. Would it not be good to get this out of the way, because there is no way that they are going to get the plans through this House?

Last week I raised the issue of the abuse of ministerial access for Scottish Conservative MPs, but all I got was a silly flippant response from the Leader of the House. This is serious stuff. Ministerial appointments are now being arranged for party political advantage. I have been watching carefully, and I have seen the meetings promoted by Scottish Conservative MPs. I have now asked for the self-same meetings, but does the Leader of the House know what has happened? Most Ministers have not even given me the courtesy of a response, and those who have done so have refused to see me. One even suggested that I should take up the matter with her in the Tea Room. The right hon. Lady is the Leader of the House, and she must have something meaningful to say about this abuse of ministerial access.

Lastly, Mr Speaker, may I wish you a good conference recess? I do not know what Speakers do during the conference recess. Perhaps there is a conference of Speakers from around the world. The House will now break so that the political hordes can head to Brighton for the Liberal Democrat conference. It is almost incredible that we stop our crucial and critical work to accommodate what are in effect annual general meetings of voluntary associations. The public are mystified by this, because we are the only Parliament in the world that breaks so that politicians can go to meetings of their parties. Will the Leader of the House get together with the shadow Leader of the House and me to design a proper recess that takes into account all parts of the United Kingdom rather than the requirements of the political parties?

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 14th June 2018 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I echo her sentiments about the victims of Grenfell, and I congratulate you, Sir David, on your very well-deserved knighthood.

There are weeks when you get a sense that the tectonic plates have shifted and things will never be the same again—and no, I am not referring to Scotland beating England at cricket. The people of Scotland have been observing this place very closely this week. They have seen this Government disrespecting our Parliament and treating its institutions with utter contempt, with 19 minutes to turn the devolution settlement on its head—19 minutes in which no Member of Parliament from Scotland was selected to speak. Those were amendments designed in the unelected House of Lords, and we the Members of Parliament elected by the people of Scotland have had no opportunity to debate them. What sort of democracy is on offer in this House?

I warned the Leader of the House about giving—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker, look at the Government Back Benchers braying and shouting, just as they did yesterday; it is no wonder the people of Scotland are appalled by their behaviour. I warned the Leader of the House about giving sufficient time for debate, and she singularly refused to listen. She has to take responsibility for what happened the other day. She is in charge of business. I do not want to hear anything about Labour Members taking up the time for votes. Yes, they have the tactical guile of the Foreign Secretary at an ambassador’s ball, but they can vote on what they wish. It was she who designed that programme motion, and it was she who had to make sure that time was protected for debate.

Surely now the time has come for us to stop the practice of going round and round in circles for a headcount vote. Over two-and-a-half hours were wasted standing in cramped Lobbies when we should have been in this Chamber debating important issues to do with the repeal legislation. Nothing could be more useless and counterproductive, and we must end this nonsense.

Lastly, the people of Scotland are now watching fully the events here, and more and more of them are saying, “Enough.” If this is the way Westminster treats Scotland, Scotland will make its own decisions about its own future.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Leader of the House will want to respond fully to his inquiries, and the opportunity for that will arise shortly. However, it seems to me that it would be seemly for us to prepare for our one-minute silence.

We shall now observe a one-minute silence in respectful memory of those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire a year ago today. I had been intending to invite all present to join us in this commemorative silence, but it has not proved necessary to do so because everybody is so minded.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 12th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman, who entered the House with me in 1997—I have known him a very long time—will not mind if I say that I think his point of order was delivered with a puckish grin and was of what I call a rhetorical character.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you confirm that what has to happen now is that this Bill has to be presented for Royal Assent and that the timing of that presentation is a matter for the Government? Is it right that within that period they could still seek to make some arrangement with the Scottish Parliament and that Royal Assent should not be granted until a legislative consent motion has been passed in the Scottish Parliament? Surely that must now be what happens, because the Scottish people, who have been watching these proceedings today, are ashamed and appalled at what has happened in their name and at the way the devolution settlement has been turned on its head. Surely, even at this stage, something should be done to protect the devolution settlement.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I hope he will not take it amiss if I simply say that the matter of Royal Assent is not one for the Chair—it is somewhat above my pay grade. It is for people with expertise in that subject. I hope he will not mind—I am going to say this even if he does—when I say that he is a little ahead of himself. I know he is a quick thinker, but he is a bit ahead of himself, because the Bill has first to complete its passage through the two Houses before the issue of Royal Assent arises. This Bill has not yet completed its passage through the two Houses. We are still engaged in what might be described as legislative or parliamentary table tennis with the upper House. Only when that process—that game of ping-pong—has been concluded will the issue of Royal Assent arise. So although I understand what he is telling me, and it may be an issue to be broached at some point by some person, that point is not now.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Q3. As the nation’s attention was rightly focused on the royal wedding, the Prime Minister was busy stuffing the House of Lords with 13 new Members. After all these defeats, apparently—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s question must be heard. [Interruption.] It is his question. He has a right to ask his question and he will ask his question. The question will be heard and the answer will be heard. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it will continue.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker—and I will be heard.

After all these defeats, apparently we need the right type of crony. There are now more than 800 cronies, donors and aristocrats in that circus down the corridor, embarrassing this nation and mocking any notion of democracy. How many more is the Prime Minister going to appoint? When will enough be enough?

Private Members’ Bills: Money Resolutions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 21st May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say gently to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that if I am being charitable I will say that he has been diverted from the path of virtue by the spontaneous intervention from the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke). Periodic animadversion to the membership of the House of Lords is one thing, but a constant and unceasing dilation upon it is another. The former is orderly; the latter is not.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for your guidance, Mr Speaker, and I will not be driven to speak further about the House of Lords by any hon. Member—at least until the end of this debate.

In conclusion, Parliament’s credibility is on the line. The affection that the public have for this House is being called into question due to how we deal with such things. The public like the private Member’s Bill system. They want more of it, not less of it. They want the Government to be supportive and enabling; they do not want them to stymie or to block things with all manner of procedural techniques. Why do we not vow today that we have a lot of affection for our private Member’s Bill system and that we want to see it work? We should support it, and we should start by ensuring that if a Bill gets past its Second Reading, it receives a money resolution and gets through.

Tributes: Baroness Jowell

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 14th May 2018 Commons Chamber

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

On behalf of the Scottish National party, I express my deep condolences to Dame Tessa’s family and friends and note the passing of one of the truly great parliamentarians of the past 30 years. I had the great pleasure of shadowing Tessa at the Department of Culture, Media and Sport from 2001 and for the Olympics from 2005, and it would be impossible to find a more accommodating, supportive and open colleague. Even if she furiously disagreed with me, as she quite often did, she was able to do so in the most charming and personable of ways. I liked Tessa immensely. I enjoyed her company, and she was always immensely knowledgeable of every detail of her brief.

I remember when the London Olympic games were first announced, and I can say now that there was not a huge amount of enthusiasm among the SNP group for what we saw as further spending in London, but that was important to Tessa, and she had to ensure that the whole UK bought into the project. She selflessly went around the UK in order to recruit people as champions for the London Olympics, and she even convinced us of the merits of the case.

The games will be her enduring legacy, but so will all her work on Sure Start and the incredible, brave ways in which she faced the months at the end of her life. I only saw Tessa a couple of times during that period, but she was still the same Tessa—determined and feisty, but always personable and charming—and she would always remind me of the contribution of the UK music industry to the economy. I will miss her, and I wish her family all the best. Rest in peace, Tessa.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Mother of the House, Harriet Harman.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 10th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I very gently say to the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), in terms which are very straightforward and which I know he will be fully able to understand, that after each general election, the proposition about the Speaker returning to the Chair is put, and it is then voted upon by the House. He will recall that I indicated my willingness to continue in the Chair in June of last year. That proposition was put to the House, and it was accepted unanimously. If he had wanted to oppose it, he could have done so, but simply as a matter of fact—I am not making any criticism, nor favourable comment—I remind the House that he did not.

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

Long may that proposition continue, Mr Speaker.

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. As she is always so generous in wishing us all a happy birthday, I wish her a boundary- free birthday, and a signed copy of the MP4 CD is on its way.

It has been a crazy old week for the Government. Apparently, the customs partnership favoured by the Prime Minister is not the preferred option of the Foreign Secretary, who has used characteristically conciliatory language to express his concern. He could have called the customs plan clueless, delusional or unworkable, but, no; for him, it is just plain crazy. I had a look at the dictionary definition of “crazy”, and apparently it means deranged, demented, non compos mentis, unhinged or as mad as a hatter. I think the Foreign Secretary might be on to something here. However, can we have a statement to clarify exactly what someone has to say now to be sacked as Foreign Secretary?

You know, Mr Speaker, that I am not the greatest fan of our undemocratic be-ermined friends down the corridor, and, okay, I have called them a few things in the past—donors, cronies, placemen, aristocrats—but even I have never stooped so low as to call them traitors, as happened on the front page of the Tories’ favourite rag, the obnoxious Daily Mail. May we have a statement on what type of language we could use to describe what goes on in our political life?

It looks like it is the beginning of the end for our lordships—not for being an unelected embarrassment, but for doing the right thing. So I say to the Lords, the Government are probably going to abolish you now, so stand up to them. When it gets to ping-pong, do your own thing. Go down fighting, and make that ermine count for something!

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

My interpretation of what the hon. Lady just said is, “I don’t like just having to content myself with a written statement; I want an oral. Mr Speaker, can I register my point?” The truth of the matter is, as she is very well aware, that that is precisely what she has just done to considerable effect, in the sense that it has been heard. Whether there will now be an oral statement, I do not know, but events take place and matters evolve. If in subsequent days she is not satisfied, she can always seek, if she thinks the matter warrants the urgent attention of the House, to persuade me that it does, and I will have to judge on a case-by-case basis. For today, she has done her best.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is actually worse than that. These issues and matters are being determined in the unelected House of Lords, yet democratically elected Members of Parliament will have no say in the outcome. Is there anything we can do to wrest back control, to ensure that it is democratically elected Members of Parliament who determine and decide these very important issues?

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 8th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In offering my best birthday wishes to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) for tomorrow, perhaps I can borrow the legendary observation to me from the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and apply it to the hon. Gentleman: fortunately he is not yet at the age at which the cost of the candles exceeds the cost of the cake.

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

Thank you very much for that, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week and for her very kind birthday wishes. Birthdays nowadays are more to be noted than celebrated—as are majorities of 21.

I, too, wholeheartedly welcome International Women’s Day and pay tribute to all the incredible women throughout history who have contributed so much to progress in our communities, while acknowledging that we have still so much to do to reach the truly equal society to which we should all aspire. I am sure that the whole House, like half the world, saw the incredible speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black) yesterday on misogyny: a powerful, profound personal account of some of the misogynistic abuse that she has suffered just for being a young woman in politics. On International Women’s Day, will the Leader of the House at least consider making misogyny a hate crime and proactively legislating to ensuring that we could start to make this part of the history of the women’s movement in this country?

On Saturday, the Scottish National party is having a day of action against Royal Bank of Scotland branch closures—an issue that continues to upset and concern communities we represent. The Scottish Affairs Committee, which I chair, has finally secured RBS’s chief executive officer, Ross McEwan, to come before us to answer questions about this closure programme. However, the one group of people we have not heard from and who still refuse to speak to us are the majority shareholder—this Government. The Government are the stewards of the public interest in this. Will the Leader of the House therefore join me in insisting that Treasury Ministers agree to come before the Scottish Affairs Committee to answer questions about what they are doing to represent our interests?

We need a statement on the emerging constitutional crisis on Brexit. The Government now say that they will push ahead with amendments to clause 11 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill without any agreement from the Scottish Government, who are still progressing their continuity Bill. The BBC says that it has a letter in which the Government say that they cannot counter the “power grab” claims. Perhaps they cannot do that because a power grab is exactly what it is.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 7th March 2018 Commons Chamber

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

It has been the custom since 2015 that the SNP lead spokesperson gets two questions at Scottish questions.

The Scottish Secretary is obviously very much aware of the Scottish Affairs Committee’s ongoing inquiry into RBS closures. CEO Ross McEwan has now agreed to appear before the Committee. Bizarrely, the only people who will not go in front of the Committee are UK Government Treasury Ministers, even though they have a 70% share in our interest in that bank. Can he therefore join me in—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that I need no advice on procedure from him or any of his colleagues. I work on the basis of that of which the office has been notified—one question, and that was why I granted it. I am well familiar with the precedents; I know what I am doing, but I do require effective communication, which was lacking in this case. It is not appropriate for the hon. Gentleman to use his position to try to score some procedural point, which he has spectacularly failed to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st February 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Exactly!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Wishart, calm yourself. You are supposed to be setting an example to some of your colleagues. You aspire to be a statesman, one century or another.

Restoration and Renewal (Report of the Joint Committee)

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 31st January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) may be seeking to recover his composure—I certainly did not exhort him to resume his seat. We want him on his feet so that we can hear him continue.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. I will enjoy a refreshing cup of Irn Bru with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) any time, but on his substantive point, I assure him that I cannot wait to get away from this place and for my nation to take control of all its own affairs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is presupposing that a month was lost in voting in the House of Commons. Do you have any information as to how much of that month was taken up by voting on SNP amendments?

[Mr Speaker]

That is not a matter on which I have taxed my mind, and I do not think that I am required to do so, but I have known the right hon. Gentleman since we first jousted together in 1983 at a half-yearly Federation of Conservative Students conference, and I knew his puckish grin then and I know it now. He has made his own point in his own way and we will leave it there.

[Pete Wishart]

It is a puckish grin with which I am also familiar. All I want to do is to assist hon. Members: help us in our campaign to reclaim our time so that we can properly spend the time debating and looking after our constituents—[Interruption.] Yes, take back control, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) says.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 25th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am reminded also that there is a Select Committee statement, which will not absorb a great deal of time but which is important. All that adds to the pressure on time.

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

On this Burns day, may I thank the great Chieftain o’ the Hoose for announcing the business for next week? I join her and the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) in acknowledging the huge significance and importance of Holocaust Memorial Day on Saturday.

Today we celebrate the birth of Robert Burns, Scotland’s greatest poet. Just maybe we should have listened to him when he warned

“the best laid schemes o’ mice and men, aft go agley”

before we started with this chaotic Brexit scheme a few months ago.

Now is not the time for “timorous beasties”. We need the Leader of the House to be braver on restoration and renewal. We cannot have a curtailment of debate and the closing down of options on these critical issues. With the huge costs involved, our constituents expect us to have sufficient time to debate them. We must make sure we have that. We must ensure that all options are fully considered. We must also hear today that there will be no attempt to curtail debate by the rejection of the amendments.

Any motion about renewal must also consider modernisation. I hope that the whole House will join my and the SNP’s campaign to reclaim our time and end the ridiculous farce of wasting days of the parliamentary year standing in packed Lobbies simply to vote.

The fallout from the Presidents Club dinner continues to develop and appal. Can we have a debate about these clubs to see what more can be done to challenge the laws that sustain them and the culture that still thinks them acceptable? We are in a new era of zero tolerance for this pathetic behaviour, and now is the time to make real and substantial progress in tackling it.

Lastly, as our devolution settlement is passed to the great and the good in the House of Lords, let us remember what Burns said about the petty pomposity and sense of entitlement of those who consider themselves our betters:

“Ye see yon birkie ca’d a lord,

Wha struts, an’ stares, an’ a’ that;

The man o’ independent mind

He looks an’ laughs at a’ that.”

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 11th January 2018 Commons Chamber

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

Mr Speaker, I wish you and all the staff of the House a happy new year.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for announcing the business for next week. Dazzled as I was by the overwhelming success of the Cabinet reshuffle, I thought that I had missed the announcement on the deputy Leader of the House, but one had not been made. We are all grateful to the hon. Gentleman for filling in. Who knows, he might just dazzle us enough today to be given the job permanently—and who would not jump at the chance to respond to the pre-recess Adjournment debates? I am relieved to hear that the Leader of the House is still firmly in her place. It has not been a “Cruel Summer”, in the words of Bananarama, but a cruel winter, given some of these reshuffles. The reshuffle was supposed to restore the Government’s diminished authority, but it has left them between a Hunt and a hard place. Never before has a Cabinet reshuffle actually diminished the authority of a Prime Minister in quite such a way. It is an outstanding feat, even for this chaotic Government.

The repeal Bill returns next week, and there is profound disappointment in Scotland that no amendments have been made, as promised, for the devolution-threatening clause 11. It was the Secretary of State for Scotland who set himself this timetable, and the failure to deliver has even disappointed and frustrated his own Scottish Conservative colleagues. What will be totally and utterly unacceptable is for these issues to be considered in the unelected House of Lords. The nation’s aristocrats, Church of England bishops and party donors and cronies will now have more say on these critical issues than directly elected Members of Parliament from Scotland. In what sort of tin-pot democracy could that possibly be acceptable? It is a big test for my friends in the Scottish Conservative party, because they cannot possibly vote for this, knowing the flaws, in the hope that the be-ermined ones might fix it for them. [Interruption.] Is all this blind loyalty really worth it? For all their commitment to the Lobby-fodder cause, not one of them was thought to be of sufficiently quality to be promoted—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know has completed his contribution. We are deeply obliged to him.

Business without Debate

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I have not, but I do take this opportunity, en passant if you will, to congratulate the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who I imagine will be enjoying his promotion, and whose promotion I am sure will be popular in the House, as he is a most congenial colleague. It is possibly a little early for him to have got on to this matter, but what I do say to the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), on a very serious note—he refers to solemn undertakings—is that Ministers must always expect to be held to account for whatever they have previously said or committed to do. There will absolutely, definitely be opportunities to question Ministers on these matters. Ministers will expect that, and if they did not, they will now.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. There is great upset and annoyance in Scotland about this very issue. It seems to me that the Secretary of State for Scotland may have inadvertently misled the House on this matter. If he made a request, would there be an opportunity for him to come to the House to clarify his views and opinions, so that we could all be reassured and reach satisfaction on this issue?

[Mr Speaker]

It is always open to Ministers to offer to make statements, and it is always open to Members to seek to procure the attendance of a Minister in the Chamber to respond to questions that Members feel that they wish to put to the said Minister. Moreover, I think that it is reasonable gently to point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is a major Question Time session tomorrow, and he is always welcome to have a word with the right hon. Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford), the leader of his party, so that these matters can be explored—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman chunters from a sedentary position that he has a question himself tomorrow. It is up to him on what subject he wishes to focus. We have exhausted this matter for now. I hope that that is helpful to colleagues.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is a considerable appetite for points of order today. Let us begin with Mr Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

(Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Members should not go walking past the hon. Gentleman’s line of sight.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The ongoing farce on the release of the Brexit analysis papers, as mandated by a binding vote of this House on 1 November, continues today as the Secretary of State now says that no such papers exist. This follows papers being made available in the most bizarre circumstances in a restricted reading room; media reports suggest that there is nothing other than rehashed public announcements and stuff included in old press releases. The Government have singularly failed to meet the requirements of that binding vote in the House six weeks ago and must surely be in contempt. I have written to you on this matter, Mr Speaker, and await your reply, noting your generosity and typical and immense patience. However, this must come to an end. It is a case of either full compliance or contempt proceedings commencing.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Is it very specifically further to, and therefore on the point raised by, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)?

[Pete Wishart]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

It is. Point of order, Mr Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

As you will know, Mr Speaker, I wrote to you on 7 November asking you to consider contempt proceedings against the Government for failing to provide these Brexit analysis papers in full, as mandated, as you said, by the fully binding motion agreed by the House. You very generously gave the Government three weeks to comply, and you said you were awaiting the outcome of the conversations between the Secretary of State and the Chairman of the Exiting the European Union Committee. We have now had those conversations, and we have now heard the response from the Chairman of the Committee, who stated in this very Chamber just a few moments ago that the Government do not meet the motion in full. I therefore ask you to reconsider my letter of 7 November and to consider bringing contempt motions, as detailed on page 273 of “Erskine May”. I am sure you are aware of the significance of this, and I know you will deal with this sensitively. This is contempt, and the Government must be held accountable for their failure to comply.

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

Petitions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been very clear about the outcome of last Wednesday’s vote and about what is expected from the Government in light of the overwhelming result. The Government have been mandated on a binding vote of this House to deliver analysis papers to the Exiting the European Union Committee, as directed in the motion. As the motion clearly intends, they have to do so without qualification, redaction or equivocation. There is also an expectation that the Government comply with the will of the House as a matter of urgency.

Today, in response to the urgent question, the Under-Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker), indicated that no such commitment will be made. The House was told by the Minister that we may expect the publication of papers within three weeks, which appeared to be an intention, not a binding promise or guarantee. He also suggested that the publication of the papers could be partial and qualified. He even went as far as to suggest that they did not even exist.

Mr Speaker, you have said that a failure to comply fully would mean that the Government could be in contempt of this House. I have now written to you regarding a privilege complaint that this Government have held the House in contempt by refusing to fully comply with a binding vote of this House. It is of course entirely within your gift how you choose to reply to this letter and indicate whether you are prepared to see any progress. “Erskine May,” on page 273, says that you may allow precedence so that a motion may be tabled

“formally calling attention to the matter, and either proposing that it be referred to the Committee on Standards and Privileges or making some other appropriate proposition.”

Mr Speaker, I am sure you are aware of the significance of such a process, and I would be grateful to you for any response or guidance on this matter.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his courtesy in giving me advance notice of his intention to raise it. He is quite right in his assessment that the correct way in which to proceed with an allegation of contempt is in writing to the Speaker.

The hon. Gentleman has just informed the House that he has written to me, and he will understand that I have not yet seen his letter. I can, however, assure him that I will study his letter most carefully. I am sure he will also appreciate that I will not and cannot be expected to entertain, and to be fair he has not really asked me to entertain, hypothetical scenarios on what might follow. I will consider his letter carefully and, when I have formed a view about it and any allegation that it contains, I will revert, in all probability, not only to him but, as necessary, to the House.

Given what I have said, I think it reasonable for people to deduce that there cannot be further legitimate points of order on this matter today.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Barry Sheerman. [Interruption.] I apologise to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart). I have Members wittering away to me on either side, because what concerns them at that moment is more important than anything else. That is always the case, but it is my fault. I call Pete Wishart.

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

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week.

It is 50 years to the day since the stunning victory by Winnie Ewing in the Hamilton by-election—a result that transformed Scottish politics and has changed Scotland forever. The day that Winnie was elected, she said

“Stop the world, Scotland wants to get on”,

and we are closer than ever to achieving that ambition, thanks to the spark ignited by Winnie in that by-election.

I congratulate the Leader of the House on the leadership she has shown on the sexual harassment issue. We will work with her to help craft and put together an independent grievance procedure, so that everybody in this House will have a safe place to raise complaints and report any issue. It is encouraging to see people now coming forward and firm and decisive action being taken, but does she agree that this is a real opportunity to effectively tackle the in-built patriarchal hierarchy of this institution and the unsavoury entitlement culture that still pervades these corridors of power?

Last night’s shenanigans on the Opposition day motion were deeply unsatisfactory and brought shame upon this House once again. There is no doubt whatsoever that the vote is binding, and I am grateful to hear the Leader of the House confirm that today. What we need today is a clear and unambiguous statement from the Government that they accept in full what was decided last night, without qualification, and that they will, without any redaction, just hand the papers over to the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union. That is what is expected of the Government. If they do not do that, as you said, Mr Speaker, the Government will be in contempt of this House, and if that happens, we will bring proceedings to hold them to account on that very basis.

Finally, last week there was yet another pitiful attempt to reform the unelectable circus that is the House of Lords. This was brought forward by the Lords themselves, which is a little bit like asking the vampire community to reform the local blood bank. Apparently, the ambition is to reduce their number to 600, making it only the third-largest, unaccountable, unelected Chamber in the world. When will the Leader of the House produce real and decisive plans to rid the nation of this unelected embarrassment?

Exiting the EU: Sectoral Impact Assessments

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 1st November 2017 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The whole House is grateful to you for that very clear ruling. I do not know whether you noticed, but I observed defiance from the Government in the face of the ruling you have very clearly given that the motion is binding. Other than what you have said, which is very clear, are any other procedures open to Members of this House in order that this Government agree to this binding motion and come to the Dispatch Box to say that they will accept it and that these documents will be available for publication?

[Mr Speaker]

There is no other avenue open to the hon. Gentleman, whose indefatigability and commitment are understood in all parts of the House. Moreover, it would not be right, and I am sure he would not attempt, to read into what I have said anything more than what I have said.

Traditionally, such motions have been regarded as binding or effective. Consistent with that established pattern and tradition, I would expect the Humble Address to be presented by the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household in the usual way.

However, I would add that I think it sensible for the House to wait for the Government’s response. I do not propose to leap ahead. I will wait for the Government’s response. If I receive a representation, I will reflect upon it, and then I will revert to the House. Although the hon. Gentleman generously refers to my ruling, I have given only a very limited ruling to date. What I have given is on the record, and I do not resile from it, but I would need further to reflect on the basis of the Government reaction and any written representation which I may receive. I would then revert to the House. Obviously, I would intend to do so sooner rather than later, but I must assure him that it will not be tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Splendid.

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

The London School of Economics has said that a hard Tory Brexit will cost Scotland £30 billion, the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that 80,000 jobs could go and a former Department for Exiting the European Union official has said that Scotland will be get the hardest impact. The Secretary of State said at the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs yesterday that economic impact assessments are available for Scotland. Will he release them to the Scottish people so that they can examine them and know the full scale of this disastrous Tory Brexit?

Universal Credit Roll-out

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 18th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. My response is twofold. First, I do not cavil—I have known him a long time—but I have not been corrected. I have been corrected many times in my life—I make no complaint about that—but I require no correction on this occasion. [Interruption.] Oh, there is a suggestion that somebody else was being corrected. Well, I will not get into that nether region.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We will come to the hon. Gentleman. I am saving him up; I would not want to waste him.

What I said was correct. This was the expressed will of the House. If people choose not to take part in a Division, they cannot suddenly say, “Well, we didn’t lose”. We are elected to come to this place to debate and decide what our position is on motions. If people choose not to vote, that is perfectly in order, as I have explained, but the motion was carried. That is not an expression of opinion on my part. It is not an indication of bias, a display of partisanship, a siding with one party or another; it is a statement of fact. The motion was passed. End of subject.

Secondly, I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman, who has been utterly consistent with what he said the other day. I think it highly desirable that the Government, in the light of the result, should come to the House and show respect for the institution by indicating what they intend to do. It may be that a Minister would wish to do that or the Leader of the House. As we all know in this place, the Leader of the House is not merely the Government’s representative in the House; the Leader of the House has to be the House’s representative in the Government. What I have said is extremely clear, and we will await events patiently, as always.

[Pete Wishart]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear that the Government’s behaviour is bringing the working arrangements of the House into disrepute. A Minister is not going to come to the House to explain why they did not turn up to vote, but what can you do to help the House compel the Leader of the House to come to the House and make a statement about the Government’s behaviour and refusal to participate in the democratic arrangements of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

I must be absolutely explicit in response to the hon. Gentleman, for his benefit and that of the House, and the short answer is that it is not within the powers of the Speaker to compel a Minister, including the Leader of the House, to do anything in this situation. We very much depend in this House, this institution, this great place, on conventions, precedent and a sense of respect for the will of the House. He is a very experienced Member of this place and will know that mechanisms are available to him and others, on both sides of the House, to try to secure a governmental response, if they wish. If they do, they will certainly not find the Speaker an obstacle to their endeavours.

Government Policy on the Proceedings of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 10th October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

I am one of the people as well, and I will conduct my voting in this Chamber entirely on the basis of my own opinion and my own conscience. I decide when and how I vote, not the Government, and on the occasion in question, I chose to deploy my vote accordingly. I was in agreement with the first motion, because the lead I tend to take from my Front Bench was in agreement with it. Why would I therefore choose to oppose it? On the second motion, although I was against the sentiments being expressed, it was clear to me that, in accordance with the statute, however I expressed my opinion, it would make no difference. That is the matter in a nutshell.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I exercised some latitude for the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne), not least in light of his starring performance this morning, when he asked the most succinct question, but that was a mini-speech rather than an intervention. I simply take this opportunity to remind the House that the debate can last until three minutes past 6. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has not taken up a great deal of time so far, so this is not directed specifically at him, but I simply make the point that if Members want to speak, they should try to help each other, and that means refraining from, dare I say it, lengthy or self-indulgent interventions.

[Pete Wishart]

What would we have done without the contribution from the right hon. Gentleman? He does what he wants, as he always has done, and he should make sure he always does that in the future.

I got a bit sidetracked there with the very interesting intervention from the right hon. Gentleman, but I want to come back to this notion of parliamentary sovereignty, which is something my friends on the Conservative Back Benches hold dear. It is about expressing the will of the people in this House. Parliamentary sovereignty is the be-all and end-all—Conservative Members are even committing this great indulgence of economic, cultural and political self-harm by leaving the European Union so they can have more parliamentary sovereignty. They should start to demonstrate their commitment to it by recognising that this is a minority Parliament. We are here to serve all the people of the country, and we have to have arrangements to make sure we properly reflect that.

The Government seem to see not being defeated as some sort of virility symbol, as if being defeated shatters their delusion that they somehow have a majority. When it comes to these issues, the Government will have to stop behaving so arrogantly; they will have to accept their minority status and act with a bit of humility. They went to the people a few short months ago to ask for a mandate and for an increase in their majority; that is what it was all about—they wanted to take advantage of what they saw as the situation in the Labour party. What happened? They came back as a minority—they lost their majority—so maybe responding with a little less arrogance and a little more humility would do them some good.

The second principle of minority Government is that you sometimes have to work harder to get your way. That, again, is what happens in other Parliaments, but we have seen no example of it from the Leader of the House today. There is no point the Government trying to bludgeon their will through in Parliament, as they are currently doing; it is much better to negotiate and make deals to ensure they get solutions. I thought that that was what we were going to get. I will not break the confidence of the Leader of the House by talking about my meetings with her, except to say that when I had my first conversation with her, I was encouraged by what she had to say about her approach to Parliament. She talked about a basis of consensus—trying to get agreement and progress legislation and motions through Parliament on the basis of agreement—but all that seems to have gone. I wish we had the earlier Leader of the House instead of the one who is standing here now.

Scheduling of Parliamentary Business

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it right and appropriate that while my hon. and learned Friend makes a speech, Tory heavies stand at the Bar of the House and heckle and chunter away, though they are not part of this debate?

[Mr Speaker]

I had not heard the alleged chuntering. Hon. Members certainly should not chunter; it is unseemly behaviour. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) is a robust individual and is well able to fend for herself, but they should not stand in an aggressive, Mafioso posture. It is rather disagreeable and quite unnecessary.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

As the Leader of the House knows, lots of my constituents are very hacked off about the matter as well.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing what passes for the business for next week. I join her in wishing well all those who are participating in Pride week during the next few days.

There were no votes this week. There are not going to be any votes next week, and there will probably not be any votes during the week after that, so there will be no votes before we get to the summer recess. This is quickly becoming the zombie apocalypse Parliament where the Government undead wander the streets of Whitehall looking for brains, only to discover they have all left the country because of Brexit, like everybody else. I do not know how much longer the Government will be able to pad out the business with uncontroversial Bills and measures, but at some time the will of the House will have to be tested once again.

There will, however, be votes next week—thank goodness—because we will all be deciding who the Chairs of Select Committees are to be. I declare an interest in that matter. It is good to see the Select Committees up and running, but what on earth is happening with Standing Committees of this House? We have already passed a couple of Bills on Second Reading—I know they will be taken in a Committee of the whole House—and there is another Second Reading debate next week. We must have a conversation and discussion about Standing Committees, because they are important in passing legislation. I looked at the arithmetic and figured out that there should be nine Conservative Members, seven Labour Members and two SNP Members on a Standing Committee, giving no one an overall majority. That is my understanding, but the Leader of the House can correct me if I am wrong. When will a motion come to the House, and when will the Standing Committees be up and running?

I very much support the shadow Leader of the House in calling for a full debate on the WASPI issue. Westminster Hall was packed to the gunwales yesterdays, with so many Members of Parliament wanting to represent their female constituents born in the 1950s. We have to have the debate here on Floor of the House. I have noticed that there is a cooling in the mood of Conservative Members about the issue, as they recognise this injustice. We saw the £1 billion bung go to the DUP. Let us have a debate here on the Floor of the House, where Members can put the case.

Lastly, it is a year ago that we got the Chilcot report. You will remember, Mr Speaker, that we debated it for two days. Today, Sir John Chilcot said that Tony Blair was not “straight with the nation”. Is it not time for a parliamentary Committee to investigate this properly and take appropriate action against the former Prime Minister?

Select Committees

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Harriet Harman. [Interruption.] Oh, I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon. Let us hear first from Mr Wishart.

Confidence and Supply Arrangement

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 27th June 2017 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to propose that the House debates a specific and important matter for urgent consideration—namely, the Government’s confidence and supply deal with the Democratic Unionist party and the associated funding arrangements.

Yesterday morning, the Government confirmed a confidence and supply agreement with the Democratic Unionist party to secure a working majority in this Parliament. The central part of the deal involved a funding arrangement that would see Northern Ireland benefit from more than £1 billion of extra investment, while the other nations of the United Kingdom would secure next to nothing. The full details of the deal must be fully debated and all the issues properly scrutinised as quickly as possible, certainly ahead of Thursday’s votes on the Humble Address. Yesterday there was an hour-long statement, with little notice, from the First Secretary of State, who took questions from hon. Members. That cannot be considered satisfactory, given the significance and importance of the deal. Members must be given a chance to debate all the issues fully.

The normal arrangements for the funding of the nations of the United Kingdom have been turned on their head with the disregard of the Barnett formula. Had the Barnett formula been applied, Scotland would have been entitled to nearly £2.9 billion of additional funding and Wales would have got an extra £1.7 billion. The First Secretary yesterday claimed that the deal was to be compared to allocations made under city deals. That is not the case and that assertion must be tested. City deals in Scotland are match-funded by the Scottish Government and local authority partners; and Northern Ireland is not a city.

There are also questions about the role of the Scotland Office in all this. On Sunday, the Secretary of State for Scotland noted he would not support any funding that,

“is deliberately sought to subvert the Barnett rules”.

This deal clearly does—it fails that test. We and all the new Scottish Members of Parliament need to know whether the Scotland Office made representations to the Prime Minister in advance of this deal being announced, and whether it did anything at all to protect Scotland’s vital funding interests in this deal.

While we welcome the increased funding for Northern Ireland, we believe there are serious questions regarding the relevance of the Barnett formula in the light of this new deal. If this represents a relaxation of ideological austerity, all regions and nations of the UK should benefit. This matter requires more attention from the House, and I humbly request an emergency debate to get the answers that this House and this country need.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member asks leave to propose a debate on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely the DUP funding deal. I have listened carefully—it was my decision to allocate to the hon. Gentleman three minutes in which to make his case—to the application from the hon. Member. However, I am not persuaded that this matter is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 24.

I do realise that that will disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but he is a persistent terrier, and I feel sure that he and other Members from his Benches will raise this matter in all sorts of ways in days to come, and they will not be deterred in any way by the thought that they might be repeating themselves. [Interruption.] They will very properly return to this matter as and when they wish—preferably, however, when they are on their feet, rather than, as exemplified by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil), from the comfort of their seat. We will leave it there for now.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House will decide its sitting hours—that is a matter for colleagues—pursuant to what the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) has said. I simply underline the point that I am a servant of the House, and whatever hours the House wants to sit to debate important matters, I am very happy to be in the Chair.

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

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. His response thus far to the High Court ruling simply is not good enough. This is an important, significant ruling, which suggests that this House is sovereign on these matters. As a leader of this House, not just of this Government, he should respect that. What plans does he therefore have to bring an early vote on these matters to the House? It is little wonder that the Foreign Secretary compared this process to the Titanic, because what we have is a stricken, doomed liner going to the bottom of the ocean, taking its captain with it. Well, we in Scotland are preparing our lifeboat to get out of this, because there is no way we are going to the deeps with this stricken Government.

May we have a debate on animal welfare? The nation is simply gripped by the story of Kim the Alsatian, and how the poor dog came to meet her ultimate maker. Lord Heseltine, of course, claims he did not strangle that dog, but it would not be the first time he had tried to dispatch a frothing-at-the-mouth but much-loved family member for the betterment of this nation.

Looking at the business, what meagre business we have. It is full of general debates and Backbench Business debates. I am glad that we have some time for the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), but there is no legislation, save one piece programmed for a week on Monday. It took the last Parliament four years to acquire the moniker of the zombie Parliament; it looks like this Leader of the House is trying to achieve that in less than two years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 27th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) is a notable practitioner of what I call the shoehorning technique, which is to shoehorn the matter of concern to oneself into any question whether it naturally fits or not.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) is absolutely right that EVEL has been a bureaucratic, cumbersome and misunderstood nightmare, which has divided this House on the basis of nationality and geography. Given that the Government have a majority in both England and the rest of the United Kingdom, what difference has this useless apparatus made to any legislative outcome that we have considered in the past year?

House of Lords Reform and Size of the House of Commons

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr MacNeil]

My hon. Friend has mentioned that there are 61 peers from Scotland but the number of MPs is going down. Is that not simply more grist to the mill and another reason why people will, this time, vote for independence in the second referendum that will come within two years of the triggering of article 50?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) has been generous to a fault in giving way, and I think that that is appreciated by the House. May I very gently make the point that 11 Back-Bench Members wish to contribute, and the Chair will be looking to call the Front-Bench wind-ups at approximately 6.40 pm? There will have to be a very tight time limit on Back-Bench contributions, a fact of which I know the hon. Gentleman will wish to take account in the continuation and conclusion of his eloquent contribution.

[Pete Wishart]

As you say, Mr Speaker, I was coming to my peroration. I have been as generous as possible when it comes to interventions.

Enough is enough. Surely, now is the time to address this matter. We have to look at what we are doing with the House of Lords. I am immensely proud of my party for failing to take places in the House of Lords, and I appeal to the Labour party to take no more places in the House of Lords. Several things have to happen almost immediately. There must be no more new Lords. We need a moratorium on appointments to the House of Lords. The Leader of the House must bring forward plans to reduce significantly the membership of the Lords, with a view to abolishing that place.

The House of Lords is a national embarrassment that should shame the country. It needs to be looked at and it needs to be reformed. Let us make this nation proud by creating a second Chamber that represents this country. Let us start to look at ways to address this. No more cronies in ermine; let us have a democratic Chamber.

Point of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

1st reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Page 49 of “Erskine May” refers to the official Opposition as

“the largest minority party which is prepared, in the event of the resignation of the Government, to assume office”.

The current official Opposition has lost two thirds of its shadow Cabinet. Their leader and what remains of the Front-Bench team no longer command the support of the overwhelming majority of their Back Benchers. They can now no longer provide shadow Ministers for large Departments of State. They are clearly in no shape to assume power or to meet the key responsibilities outlined in “Erskine May”. Given these obvious failings, what steps would now need to be taken to have the official Opposition replaced with one that can meet the responsibilities set out clearly in “Erskine May”?

[Mr Speaker]

I am familiar with “Erskine May”, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, and I am genuinely grateful to him for giving me notice of his point of order. I can confirm that the Labour party currently constitutes the official Opposition and that its leader is recognised by me, for statutory and parliamentary purposes, as the Leader of the Opposition. He will have noticed that I called the Leader of the Opposition earlier to ask a series of questions of the Prime Minister. He will also be aware that today we have Opposition business duly chosen by the Leader of the Opposition, as indicated on the Order Paper. I should perhaps add that in making these judgments and pronouncing in response to points of order, I do give, and have given, thought to the matter, and I have also benefited from expert advice. These matters are not broached lightly. I understand the vantage point from which he speaks, but he raised the question and I have given him the answer. We will leave it there for now.

Bills presented

Sexual Offences (Pardons Etc) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Nicolson, supported by Amanda Solloway, Keir Starmer, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Iain Stewart, Sarah Champion, Tommy Sheppard, Paula Sherriff, Nigel Huddleston, Stephen Twigg and Dr Philippa Whitford, presented a Bill to make provision for the pardoning, or otherwise setting aside, of cautions and convictions for specified sexual offences that have now been abolished; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 6).

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Bob Blackman, supported by Mr Clive Betts, Helen Hayes, Mr Mark Prisk, Kevin Hollinrake, David Mackintosh, Alison Thewliss, Jim Shannon, Mary Robinson, Julian Knight, Mr David Burrowes and Liz Kendall, presented a Bill to amend the Housing Act 1996 to make provision about measures for reducing homelessness; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 7).

National Minimum Wage (Workplace Internships) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Alec Shelbrooke presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to apply the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to workplace internships; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 November, and to be printed (Bill 8).

Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Pat Glass presented a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 to make provision about the number and size of parliamentary constituencies in the United Kingdom; to specify how the size of a constituency is to be calculated; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 9).

Awards for Valour (Protection) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Kelly Tolhurst, on behalf of Gareth Johnson, presented a Bill to prohibit the wearing or public display, by a person not entitled to do so, of medals or insignia awarded for valour, with the intent to deceive.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 10).

Benefit Claimants Sanctions (Required Assessment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mhairi Black, supported by Chris Law, Mr Dennis Skinner, Liz Saville Roberts, Caroline Lucas, Ian Blackford, Carolyn Harris, Angela Crawley and Andrew Percy, presented a Bill to require assessment of a benefit claimant’s circumstances before the implementation of sanctions; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed (Bill 11).

Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dr Eilidh Whiteford, supported by Mrs Maria Miller, Jess Phillips, Gavin Newlands, Liz Saville Roberts, Fiona Mactaggart, Angela Crawley, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Ms Margaret Ritchie, Alison Thewliss and Lady Hermon, presented a Bill to require the United Kingdom to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence (the Istanbul Convention); and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 12).

Families with Children and Young People in Debt (Respite) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Kelly Tolhurst, supported by Mark Garnier, Amanda Milling, Craig Mackinlay, Victoria Borwick, Roger Mullin, Angela Crawley, Antoinette Sandbach, Yvonne Fovargue, Ian Paisley, Ben Howlett and Jo Churchill, presented a Bill to place a duty on lenders and creditors to provide periods of financial respite for families with children and young people in debt in certain circumstances; to place a duty on public authorities to provide access to related advice, guidance and support in those circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 October, and to be printed (Bill 13).

Registration of Marriage Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Edward Argar, supported by Sir Simon Burns, Victoria Atkins, Simon Hoare, Seema Kennedy, Wes Streeting, Christina Rees, Jess Phillips, Stephen Doughty, Nigel Huddleston and Greg Mulholland, presented a Bill to make provision about the registration of marriages.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 21 October, and to be printed (Bill 14).

Assets of Community Value Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

James Morris presented a Bill to make provision about the disposal of land included in a local authority’s list of assets of community value; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 15).

Double Taxation Treaties (Developing Countries)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Roger Mullin, supported by Kirsty Blackman, Patrick Grady, Michelle Thomson, George Kerevan and Ian Blackford, presented a Bill to place a duty on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to align the outcomes of double taxation treaties with developing countries with the goal of the United Kingdom’s overseas development aid programme for reducing poverty and to report to Parliament thereon; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 December, and to be printed (Bill 16).

Farriers (Registration)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Byron Davies, supported by Chris Davies, Dr James Davies, Craig Williams and Mike Wood, presented a Bill to make provision about the constitution of the Farriers Registration Council and its committees.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 13 January, and to be printed (Bill 17).

Parking Places (Variation of Charges)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

David Tredinnick presented a Bill to make provision in relation to the procedure to be followed by local authorities when varying the charges to be paid in connection with the use of certain parking places.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November, and to be printed (Bill 18).

Disability Equality Training (Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Drivers)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Andrew Gwynne, supported by Andrew Stephenson, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Byron Davies, Norman Lamb, Lyn Brown, Mark Menzies, Barbara Keeley, Robert Flello, Mims Davies, Helen Jones and Diana Johnson, presented a Bill to make the completion of disability equality training a requirement for the licensing of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers in England and Wales; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 19).

Gangmasters (Licensing) and Labour Abuse Authority

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Louise Haigh, supported by Mr Chuka Umunna, Mr Iain Wright, Chris White, James Cleverly, Paul Blomfield, Lisa Nandy, Will Quince, Greg Mulholland, Chris Stephens, Stella Creasy and Mr Dennis Skinner, presented Bill to amend the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004 to apply its provisions to certain sectors including construction, care services, retail, cleaning, warehousing and the transportation of goods; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 November, and to be printed (Bill 20).

International Trade and Investment (NHS Protection)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mrs Anne Main, on behalf of Mr Peter Lilley, presented a Bill to require the National Health Service to be exempted from the provisions of international trade and investment agreements; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 2 December, and to be printed (Bill 21).

Kew Gardens (Leases)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger presented a Bill to provide that the Secretary of State’s powers in relation to the management of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, include the power to grant a lease in respect of land for a period of up to 150 years.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 18 November, and to be printed (Bill 22).

Merchant Shipping (Homosexual Conduct)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

John Glen presented a Bill to repeal sections 146(4) and 147(3) of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 20 January, and to be printed (Bill 23).

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Amendment)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Lucy Allan presented a Bill to repeal provisions in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 requiring teachers, carers and responsible adults to report signs of extremism or radicalisation amongst children in primary school, nursery school or other pre-school educational settings; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 January, and to be printed (Bill 24).

Child Poverty in the UK (Target for Reduction)

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Dan Jarvis presented a Bill to establish a target for the reduction of child poverty in the United Kingdom; to make provision about reporting against such a target; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 3 February, and to be printed (Bill 25).

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 27th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me, but I must say to the right hon. Gentleman that I do not think that there is a matter contained within that purported point of order that relates to the procedures of the House for the protection of the interests of European Union citizens. Notwithstanding the expression of unrivalled solemnity on the face of a former Deputy Leader of this House as he put that point of order to me, I am still struggling to come to terms with the notion that it is a point of order rather than a point of perfectly legitimate and understandable concern, frustration and anxiety. In so far as it is the latter, the right hon. Gentleman is a sufficiently experienced and accomplished parliamentarian to find several opportunities further to expand on his concerns in the days and weeks that lie ahead.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Have you been approached by the Leader of the House about the House’s business and even the Government’s legislative programme being reviewed, given the dramatic decision made by this country last week? [Interruption.] You were not listening to a word I said, Mr Speaker, so shall I ask again?

[Mr Speaker]

As a courtesy, I should hear the hon. Gentleman again. I am not sure the point will improve with repetition, but we can try. I beg his pardon for listening to someone else at the same time. Let him say it again. It was something to do with the Government’s legislative programme, but I am sure it is not tendentious.

[Pete Wishart]

Let us see whether I can improve on my point of order. Have you been approached by the Leader of the House about an urgent statement so that we can review the House’s business and even the Government’s legislative programme, given the dramatic decision that was taken last week?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer to that is no. There will be the opportunity of business questions on Thursday, an occasion with which the hon. Gentleman, in view of his Front-Bench responsibilities, is very familiar, but on the question whether I have had any indication about a business statement before then, or an intended revisiting of the business of the House or of the legislative programme, the answer is no.

EU Membership: Economic Benefits

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I want to make an appeal to the hon. Gentleman and the Labour Party: please don’t go near immigration. You have no credibility on that issue. You’re all over the place. You’ve been bullied by the Tories, and raising immigration will only help the leave case.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I have never been bullied by anybody, and I am not all “over the place” on this matter. The Speaker is keeping out of it. I am simply seeking to facilitate fair play, and I remind the hon. Gentleman of the correct parliamentary language.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will call Mr Wishart first. [Interruption.] Order. That is a perfectly proper way to proceed, to which no one should object. I simply say to the House that this statement is on a narrow, although very important, matter. Exchanges are therefore necessarily limited—I will not say circumscribed—to the question of the rescheduling of business tomorrow. This is not an opportunity for a general airing of opinions about overall business, still less for an exchange of views about aspects of the EU referendum question. [Interruption.] I do not know why I thought the hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) might be so tempted—perhaps it is simply the cheeky expression on his face—but this is purely about the scheduled business for tomorrow, to the narrow confines of which I know the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) will stick with rigid propriety, as always.

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

Most certainly, Mr Speaker, and may I add our gratitude to the Leader of the House for changing the business for tomorrow? However, this situation demonstrates a deep systemic failure in our electoral registration system. It should be a gold standard, for what is probably the biggest decision that this House and this country have ever taken, yet we have descended into a panicky response to a potentially disastrous situation in which loads of people could have been disfranchised. I hope that when we have the debate tomorrow all the issues are properly aired, so we get to the heart of what actually happened and what the Government will do to make sure that something like it never happens again.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 6th June 2016 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are now some 30 hon. Members being investigated by 18 different police forces across England in relation to the very serious allegation that the Representation of the People Act 1983 may have been contravened in the declaration of candidate expenditure. Can you make a ruling on what may or may not be raised in this House in reference to those allegations, given the deep concern among the public and the fact that any successful prosecution may result in serious consequences for the hon. Member involved, and even call into question last year’s general election result?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman, to whom I am grateful, is as follows. First, the matter is not sub judice—he was not suggesting that it is, but I understand that it is not. Secondly, however, I think it prudent and wise to leave the investigating authorities to conduct their investigations, and not to seek to do so ourselves in this Chamber with an imagined expertise and authority. Last, when the hon. Gentleman seeks my wider guidance, I think it best to avoid the hypothetical and to deal with these matters as and when—but only as and when—they arise. We will leave it there.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. [Interruption.] Order. Leave me to deal with this. Mr Cleverly, I have known you for years and you have always struck me as a very polite fellow. You are getting over-excited, young man. You will have an opportunity to intervene, perhaps in due course, but you don’t do it like that. Learn from a few old hands.

[Pete Wishart]

I am surprised that the shadow Chancellor is taken in by some of the crocodile tears from the Tories and this concern for the disabled. Surely he agrees that this is nothing to do with the Tories’ new-found concern for the disabled in this country—it is all about their euro civil war.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 10th March 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. Let us see whether we can get through this business quickly so that he can resume his core business of slagging off his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

The big issue of the day is whether Her Majesty the Queen is a Brexiteer or not. I have an elegant solution for how we can try to discover that: we could perhaps dispatch the Prime Minister to the palace to ask her indirectly—one purr for in, two purrs for out. That would solve the issue, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He said what he said, but for the benefit of the House, and particularly for the benefit of new Members, may I underline that we do not discuss the views of the monarch in this Chamber? There have occasionally been debates on matters appertaining to the royal family, which I have happily granted, but we do not discuss that matter. I think it better if we just leave it there. Mr Wishart, please continue.

[Pete Wishart]

You are absolutely right, Mr Speaker. We will leave it entirely to Government figures to do that.

Yesterday, the Government were defeated and it was the SNP wot won it—[Interruption.] I am afraid that we cannot take exclusive credit for that incredible victory—there were others, of course, and we did have some friends in the Conservative party—but we SNP Members really enjoyed the wailing and gnashing of Conservative teeth. There was something almost delicious about the way in which the Tories lashed out at the SNP. This Government, having imposed English votes for English laws, criticised our temerity for getting up and supporting Scottish workers. Do the Government believe for a minute that normal rules stand when it comes to issues such as this?

The Government have imposed these ridiculous EVEL rules without the agreement or support of any other party in the House. What about those rules, Mr Speaker? No one had a Scooby what was going on yesterday. I asked the Deputy Speaker and he did not know. I do not blame him, Mr Speaker; you would need an advanced degree in madness and impenetrable inconsequentials even to start to understand what is going on with the dog’s breakfast that is EVEL. The time has come to abandon EVEL and to decide that it does not work. If anything was to happen to the Leader of the House—some accidental consequence of his support for the leave Europe campaign—this will be his legacy. What a legacy to leave the House divided on an issue such as EVEL.

I support the calls that were made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson). We should have a debate on the treatment of asylum seekers in this country and especially the evidence that has been uncovered thus far about their treatment. Perhaps we could have a proper look at the use of private services in dealing with asylum seekers.

We are also grateful to the Leader of the House for announcing the recess dates and that there will, after all, be a Queen’s Speech before the European referendum, but once again the recess dates do not cover the Scottish National party conference. We are the third largest party in the House. The recess covers the Liberal conference, but may I have a guarantee from the Leader of the House that 14 October will be a non-sitting day so that the members of the third party in the House can also get to their conference?

Once again, all the time that we are having off in the summer does not include the Scottish school holidays. My hon. Friends will not be able to spend the same amount of time with their families as hon. Members from other parts of the United Kingdom. We need to get that fixed for next year, get the SNP conference covered, and for goodness sake try to cover the holidays of every nation of the United Kingdom.

Scotland Bill (Programme) (No.2)

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 9th November 2015 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to orate?

[Pete Wishart]

I do wish to take the opportunity to orate because we are profoundly disappointed with the time available to discuss significant and important issues, including amendments to the Scotland Bill, which is a critical piece of legislation for our nation. More than 100 amendments have been selected for debate this afternoon, and that follows the 76-page document that listed amendments tabled by right hon. and hon. Members across the House. We now have something like two and a half hours to debate critical amendments on tax powers and the constitution. After that, we will probably have less than two hours to discuss the equally significant welfare powers in the rest of the Bill.

We know how this place works. There will be Divisions, and 20 minutes will be taken up with the 18th-century arcane practice of wandering through a Lobby to be counted. When will this House start to enter the 21st century and leave the 18th century so that Divisions do not eat into our time-limited debates? How can it possibly be right that we have so little time? Realistically, we will have something like four hours, perhaps three and a half hours, which is little more than an hon. Member would get—[Interruption.] Hon. Members are chuntering. Do they not know that this 45-minute debate is time reserved? Even this is eating into time—they cannot even bother looking at their Order Papers.

Scotland is watching these proceedings, and people just will not understand the gross disrespect shown to our nation’s debate and business. It will feel as if Scotland has been given an almighty slap in the face and told just to get on with it in whatever time this House deems fit to provide to our nation—[Interruption.]

Standing Orders (Public Business)

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I did not have it in mind to make any such statement on Monday. I am aware that there is a relative urgency about these matters, and before long there will be a practical requirement to address cases that will arise under the revised arrangements. If such matters are to be addressed by me and others, and if there is an implication for the House as a whole, the necessary administration will need to be put in place.

It is not immediately obvious to me that the matter is so urgent that it requires a statement to the House on Monday. It may be that this issue is what we in the Speaker’s office call UIMOM—urgent in mind of Member—and that is not necessarily the same as being urgent for the House on Monday. However, if on the basis of further and better advice I decide that the matter is urgent for Monday, I will do my duty—of that the shadow Leader of the House need be in no doubt.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. This matter may be urgent because future business contains two pieces of legislation and matters for consideration that may be subject to the EVEL procedure. Will there be guidance for Members on how we approach the Divisions if certification is to be put in place? The House needs to know and be entirely clearly about how this will work.

[Mr Speaker]

Again, thinking on my feet I would say that such guidance as is necessary to facilitate Members in the House and ensure that what they are expected to do is intelligible to them, shall be provided. Whether it will be necessary for written guidance to be provided, or whether oral guidance from the Chair can be issued on the appropriate occasions, remains to be seen. I make that latter point not least because there was an obvious example of that at the start of today’s proceedings on these matters. I provided oral guidance to the House because I thought it would be helpful to Members to have an idea in advance about the order of proceedings and the choreography of the occasion. Advice might be written or it might be oral, but I would not want the hon. Gentleman to be unguided when in need.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

In establishing the background to, and context of, the present debate, it is perfectly legitimate for the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) to say something about factors that he thinks might be informing—rightly or wrongly, in his judgment—the composition of the Committee. However, there is a difference between establishing the context and a tendency to dilate. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not wish to dilate on the matter of the Lords make-up of this Committee, or to theorise about the possible injurious effect on SNP chances of being on that Committee as a consequence of not taking up seats in the House of Lords. The matter with which the hon. Gentleman should be concerned is the Commons contribution to, and Commons Members of, this Joint Committee, which I think is quite sufficient for his eloquent dilation.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker. All we want is to sit on this Committee. We want to play a meaningful role in the assessing and scrutinising of human rights. Apparently, the only way we can get on it is to take up places in the House of Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds to the intervention, it may benefit the House to know the factual position as I understand it, which is that it would have been perfectly possible for anybody to table an amendment to the list of names proposed, but an amendment beyond that would not have been in order, because other than in respect of the names it is not an amendable motion.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful for that ruling, Mr Speaker, and clarification. It was also my understanding of the position.

Sensing a degree of support for what we are trying to do, I appeal to the Government not to put this to the House tonight, but to take it away and then come back. Let us have a look at this properly. They should come and speak to the SNP. We will propose a membership change. If necessary, the Government can get them in from down the road—get the unelected ones up, have a conversation with them, get an arrangement and agreement whereby the unelected donors and cronies could still have their places on the Joint Committee. We want to hear from them as some of them are very eminent—some of them are very good donors—and we want to hear their views, but should they have parity with this House? No, they should not. The public observe what goes on in this place with ever deeper cynicism. When they see unelected donors and cronies having parity with elected Members, they see something fundamentally rotten with our democracy.

Of course the third party should be on this Committee. Let us make sure that that happens. We must do whatever it takes. I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take this motion away, and come back and speak to us. We will provide a name. Let us get this resolved and fixed. For the sake of democracy, let us get this sorted.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 17th September 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Leader of the House for outlining the business for when we return from the recess. I offer my congratulations to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is one of the few constants in the great Labour revolution of 2015. My colleagues and I on the Scottish National party Benches look forward to working with him in getting rid of Trident as early as possible and in our resolute opposition to Tory austerity.

We are going on recess again today, and we are only just back! This recess is called the conference recess. Apparently, it is designed to accommodate the conferences of the three main UK parties, but we actually return in the week when the third party has its conference. We are disrupting the work of this House to accommodate eight Liberal Democrats. I get the sense that we could just about muddle through without the contributions of those hon. Members, if they felt that they had to be at their conference. May we look at the ridiculous conference recess and decide that we should instead be in this House, addressing our many key responsibilities? Let us get rid of this silly conference recess.

Tomorrow it will be one year since the independence referendum. I am surprised that there is to be nothing in this House to mark that defining moment in UK politics. That experience certainly changed Scotland, if not the UK, for ever. Perhaps when we come back, we could have a State of the Union debate. I and my hon. Friends are in the Union-ending business, but we seem to have been joined in that mission by the Conservative Government. They seem to be doing absolutely everything they can to throw us out the door—making us second-class Members in this House and rejecting any amendment to the Scotland Bill. Perhaps we could have such a debate, so that the Scottish public can observe the Conservatives in action. Just about 50% of them are for independence. If they could listen to what the Conservatives are suggesting, perhaps we could get it up to 60%.

You will have noted, Mr Speaker, that we objected to the setting up of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That is not because we have any issue with having a Committee on human rights, but we do have every issue with the membership of the Committee. Four Conservative and two Labour Members from this House will be joined by six Members from the House of cronors down at the bottom of the corridor. I do not know why, on such an important issue, there should be parity between that unelected House and this House. Within that Joint Committee we will find a Liberal, who comes from a party that has been overwhelmingly rejected, and an unelected Cross Bencher. Will the Leader of the House go away, have a think about the motion and ensure that the third party of the United Kingdom is included in what is such an important Joint Committee?

Lastly, as we go on the conference recess, the Leader of the House needs to promise that if there are any developments in the great international issues, such as the refugee crisis and the Conservatives’ desire to push us further towards conflict in Syria, he will recall this House, even if it might disrupt the eight Liberal Democrats.

[Mr Speaker]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that each of the party conferences could perfectly well take place over a weekend—something that some of us have long argued should happen. However, there will be a change of the kind that he wants only if there is consensus across the House.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 7th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I will come to the right hon. Gentleman in a moment, but I have been saving up the precious commodity of Mr Pete Wishart. Let us hear from the hon. Gentleman.

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that we are all grateful that we will have an extra three hours to debate the refugee crisis, but the Labour party knew that the Scottish National party was giving our Opposition day to discuss the crisis, and it knew that because it requested us to make the whole day about the crisis. It is such an important issue that we must not play party politics with it. [Interruption.] It must not be a feature of the Labour leadership contest. The House deserves much better than that. [Interruption.] Will you make a ruling, Mr Speaker, that our debate will still stand—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of commotion and I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. I need to hear what he is saying.

[Pete Wishart]

Mr Speaker, will you confirm that on Wednesday it will still be in order for the Scottish National party to table a cross-party motion to agree to debate the refugee crisis on a substantive issue, and that we should stop playing games with something so important, because it is more important than any feature of the Labour leadership contest?

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and appreciate his patience in waiting to be called. It will be entirely orderly for the hon. Gentleman or his party so to table. As Speaker, my responsibility is simply to hear an application and judge whether it has merit, rather than to become embroiled in what might be considered to be competitions between parties. He has asked me a straight question—will it be orderly?—and the answer is yes. That seems to satisfy not only the hon. Gentleman, but, very importantly—and I mean this—the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) to boot.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 20th July 2015 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the neutral arbiter of this House, is there any way in which you could help and advise me on how we can achieve this? Can we rearrange the furniture of this House so that the SNP becomes the official Opposition while the Labour party abstains on the Back Benches?

[Mr Speaker]

Notwithstanding the earnest expression on the face of the hon. Gentleman, his point of order was cheeky and tendentious, as he well knows.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill: Programme

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Welfare Reform and Work Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.

Proceedings in Public Bill Committee

(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 15 October.

(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.

Consideration and Third Reading

(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.

(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.

(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—( Guy Opperman.)

Question agreed to.

Welfare Reform And Work Bill: Money

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Welfare Reform and Work Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:

(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by the Secretary of State; and

(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided; and

(2) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—(Guy Opperman.)

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 15th July 2015 Commons Chamber

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

That will not do, Secretary of State. You have been asked a very straight and clear question: will you now rule out bringing significant and substantial changes to the Scotland Bill in the unelected House of Lords? The House of Lords has never been held in such contempt by the Scottish people, who see it as nothing but a repository for the cronies of, and donors, to the UK parties. Will you rule out making significant changes through the House of Lords and do it in front of the elected Members of the House of Commons?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say very gently to the hon. Gentleman that I will rule out nothing, but I will leave it to the Secretary of State to do so. The debate runs through the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced denizen of this House, should know that.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I say this to the hon. Lady: we will put up with it. We will deal with it. I know that it is difficult, but it is better than what we are securing now, because that is not working.

This places you, Mr Speaker, in the most unenviable, pernicious political situation—a situation that is almost intolerable. Given what was said by the Leader of the House, I think that you will be receiving your orders about certification from him. That is very much what seemed, from his remarks, to be intended. He will tell you what is English-only legislation, and you will have probably the most political role in the House. You will either have to stand up to the Leader of the House as he attempts to bully you, or you will have to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In what is a highly charged debate in which strong feelings are being expressed, I must of course leave the House to make its own assessment of the merits of these proposals, but, for the avoidance of doubt, let me just say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that I have never been pushed around by anyone in the House. To be fair, the Leader of the House has never tried to push me around, and I think he knows that it would be a forlorn mission.

[Pete Wishart]

I know you very well, Mr Speaker, and I also know that that is what the Leader of the House will attempt to do. He will tell you what you should—

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I beg to move—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Question is going to be put anyway. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman had finished his speech at any rate.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

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

May I, too, thank the Leader of the House for giving us next week’s business? I shall start with a bit of consensus, as I sense a forlorn expression in the House at the fact that the English women’s football team did not make it through to the final. I think I speak for all Members when I say it was a fantastic performance, which will encourage women into sport.

Monday is the last day for debating amendments to the Scotland Bill. Amendments accepted thus far: absolutely nil, zilch, zero—despite the fact that the Scottish Parliament, through its all-party devolution Committee, said the Bill had to be improved and the spirit of the Smith Commission met; that the House of Commons Library has huge reservations; and that 56 out of 59 Scottish MPs were elected to secure and achieve such an outcome.

This week, 98% of Scottish MPs voted to improve the Scotland Bill, but those improvements were voted down by English Members of Parliament. We are about to have a statement on English votes for English laws, but this seems to be about English votes for Scottish laws. The Leader of the House has to make sure that the Secretary of State comes to the House on Monday in a much more accommodating mood and that he listens to the voice of Scotland on these matters. I am not in the business of saving the Union, but Tory commentators in Scotland are saying that unless this matter is addressed, it will be as though we are being forced out. We have to have a better attitude from the Government on the way they deal with Scotland, and that has to start on Monday.

The Prime Minister hinted yesterday that he was going to revisit the reduction of the number of Members of Parliament. It will be interesting to see which of the new Tory turkeys votes for an extended Christmas. Besides that, perhaps we should start by thinking about the other place down the corridor. The plans for an additional 80 to 100 peers would make it an extraordinarily bloated and absurd place. Surely we could start by cutting the number of peers. Could the other place bring forward a measure to ensure that this House has a say in the appointment of peers to the House of Lords? Surely this House should have a say in who goes into the Lords.

The Defence Secretary has been going round the TV and radio studios this morning. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) was right to suggest that there can be no move towards military action without a full debate and vote in this House. Can the Leader of the House assure me that will indeed be the case and that, if necessary—and with your permission, Mr Speaker—the House will be recalled if that decision needs to be taken during the recess?

[Mr Speaker]

Before the Leader of the House replies, I must say to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) that the parliamentary rock band, MP4, was absolutely splendid in Speaker’s House last night. Just in case any colleagues are unaware of this, I should also say that he is a dab hand on the keyboards.

English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This issue, of course, evokes very strong feeling in all parts of the House. Let me say at this early stage that colleagues can be assured that if they wish to contribute to the exchanges on this statement, they will have the opportunity—everyone will have the opportunity—to do so.

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

What a lot of constitutional bilge and unworkable garbage! What this statement is creating is two classes of Members of Parliament in this House, which will have a significant impact on our ability to look after our constituents and to stand up for their interests in this House of Commons. With this double majority—the new thing introduced this morning—we would do as well to stamp the foreheads of Scottish MPs before they go into the Lobby, and I thought that the Leader of the House was quite close to suggesting or proposing it.

This is the most dramatic and important constitutional statement that we have had since the days of Gladstone. Never before has there been an assault on the rights of Members of Parliament in this House to look after the interests of their constituents. This places you, Mr Speaker, in the most intolerable and politically invidious situation where you will be dragged into a political role and you will have to decide and determine, almost on your own, whether my honourable colleagues get to vote and participate in full. I wish you all the best with that, Mr Speaker. The fact that the Government have placed you in such a situation is a matter of eternal shame on them.

This is the reality of asymmetric devolution across the United Kingdom. It is never going to be tidy: there is unhappiness in England and there is most definitely unhappiness in Scotland and increasing unhappiness in Wales. The way to solve this is to have our own Parliaments. What is wrong with an English Parliament? Then we could all come to this House as equal Members and determine and decide issues such as foreign affairs, defence and international obligations. Instead, we get this cobbled-together, unworkable mess that will indeed be challenged all the way, right down the line, and it will probably end up in the courts.

Only this week, 99% of my hon. Friends voted for something that is the sovereign will of the people of Scotland, but it was voted down by English Members of Parliament. English votes for English laws? Then there is a veto, and it becomes English votes for Scottish laws. This is unacceptable, Mr Speaker.

We had a referendum last year and we lost it. By God, though, this lot are doing their best to ensure that Scotland becomes an independent nation. I almost congratulate them on the almost ham-fisted approach they are adopting on Scottish issues. All this is going to do is to make the whole movement towards independence even more irresistible. For that, I almost thank the Leader of the House.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 4th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Forgive me; this will, I hope, be the last intervention from the Chair. For the benefit of the House, I should emphasise that the third party spokesman has acknowledged rights on this occasion, as was the case when the Liberal Democrats were the third party, so I hope that there will be proper forbearance and tolerance as I call Mr Pete Wishart and allow him to develop his line of questioning.

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

I am very grateful, Mr Speaker.

May I pay my tributes to Charles Kennedy? I was with him on the night of the tuition fees vote when we left the building through the back door, as thousands of angry students descended on the House. Even though Charles had not voted for the tuition fees measure, he told me, “Pete, if you fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows, and tonight you are with the crows.” I can report that we made it to Waterloo station safely.

The Leader of the House does not know how excited SNP Members are that the first Bill is the Scotland Bill on Monday. I am very grateful to him for giving us an extra day to improve the Bill, because improvement it needs, as I think he knows. We want to see all the Smith proposals in full, but that is just the baseline—the very minimum that we expect to improve the Bill. It is fantastic that we are getting such time to debate it and that the first Bill in the House is about getting more powers to Scotland. I hope that he is listening to the many representations from the Scottish Government and that he will accept the mandate of the 56 SNP MPs out of 59 as we try to improve the Bill. That is the way to do it—a Bill is brought in and we have First Reading, Second Reading, and then long debate and scrutiny.

I just wish the Leader of the House would do the same for English votes for English laws, something with such significant constitutional implications. There is not even a Bill, just a change to Standing Orders. Will he tell us a bit more about what he intends to do with EVEL? Will we get to amend it? Will we get to scrutinise it? How will scrutiny be exercised? What about the House of Lords? There are 100 Scottish peers down the corridor—will it be English votes for English Lords? Where are we on that sort of thing?

I noted that there was no discussion or debate on the Queen’s Speech about reform of the House of Lords. The only thing that the Leader of the House wants to do is put more of his cronies and donors into that already overstuffed House. Ermine-coated, never been voted—let us get rid of the House of Lords. It has almost a thousand Members, and the public need reassurance that we will have some sort of reform.

We are almost three weeks into the House’s business, and we have not yet had a departmental statement. May I suggest that the first statement should be a clear statement of what the Government intend to do about the Mediterranean crisis? They should be willing to play a bigger part and take seriously their responsibilities, particularly when it comes to assisting refugees.

Procedure of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Thursday 26th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the great unhappiness about this process and the way this House has been bounced into considering it, is there any way that this question could not now be put?

[Mr Speaker]

There is, of course, a device of moving the previous question, but it would affect only the first of the motions, which is not the one that has excited the debate. It could be done, but I rather suspect that it would not be effective.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 25th February 2015 Commons Chamber

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

As we await the dualling of the A1, has the Minister heard of the success of the average speed cameras on the A9? Accidents have been cut by 97%, speeding is down by 90% and the road experience has been totally transformed. Will he now get his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to abandon his reckless and irresponsible campaign to take those cameras down and put my constituents at risk once again?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think I was very generous. The hon. Gentleman started banging on about the A9, rather than the A1, but we will let him off on this occasion.

Trident Renewal

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 20th January 2015 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 Speaker]

I wonder whether in the light of the delay—it has been 17 minutes thus far—the Serjeant at Arms might investigate the delay in both Lobbies.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

All we can do today is have a debate, and after that debate Members will have either to vote for or against the regulations or decide to abstain upon them. What motions might or might not be put forward on a subsequent occasion, either to satisfy Members’ appetite or for the purposes of the clarity that the hon. Gentleman hankers after, is another matter. That, of course, is in the hands of the usual channels.

I think I have given a fairly clear indication that this has been a rather sorry saga and that the House should not be put in this position. Most of us think that a commitment made is a commitment that should be honoured, and we should try to operate according to sensible standards rather than trying to slip things through by some sort of artifice. It may be the sort of thing that some people think is very clever, but people outside the House expect straightforward dealing, and they are frankly contemptuous—I use the word advisedly —of what is not straight dealing. Let us try to learn from this experience and do better.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you not simply rule that this is an utter and absolute shambles? Have you any explanation of how we have got to this sorry state?

[Mr Speaker]

I have expressed my own thoughts to the House on how we should proceed, and I have tried to be very fair and candid about the matter. Whatever opinion people have about these matters, they will express it, and that is nothing to do with the Chair.

I cannot really go further than I have gone today. The handling of matters in the future, as ordinarily, is in the hands of the business managers. In the best, pragmatic British tradition, what we must do is work with what we have before the House today and, if I may say so to the hon. Gentleman, do our best.

Business of the House (Today)

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite clear that the Government Whips and those on the Treasury Bench have concocted some sort of conclusion to this utter shambles. May we not hear, right now, from the Home Secretary, the Justice Secretary or the Chief Whip? Let us get this over and done with. For goodness’ sake, there are people watching this who will be appalled at what is going on in the House. Put an end to it now!

[Mr Speaker]

I understand what people are saying, but procedure does allow other colleagues to speak and I do not want to deprive them of that opportunity if they still wish to contribute.

Criminal Law

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 10th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your ruling, you made it clear that reference to the European arrest warrant was to be made only in passing. The Home Secretary has been speaking about the European arrest warrant for the past 10 minutes. Is that not in total contravention of what you ruled earlier?

[Mr Speaker]

I said in my statement that I intended to offer latitude, so that the matters of which the House wishes to treat may be properly aired. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s intentions in seeking clarity from the Chair, but nothing I have heard so far has conflicted with that. I intended—and I intend—pragmatically to handle matters from where we are, which, as I think we all agree, is sub-optimal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman can do so, but it is for the Chair—[Interruption.] No, no other debate is required, as has politely been suggested from a sedentary position. It is for the Chair to decide whether to accept what is effectively a closure motion, and the answer to the hon. Gentleman is that at this rather early stage in debating these particular matters—the previous question—I do not accept the closure motion. We are in the middle of a speech by the Home Secretary and there may be other contributions. A former senior Cabinet Minister wishes to contribute and possibly other Members, so I would take a view on that matter in due course, but not now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that it is very difficult to interpret the precise will of the House on these matters without notice. I am alert to the argument for closure, which is what he is seeking, but several other Members have been standing—[Interruption.] Order. Therefore, I am quite open to the case for closure after a reasonable interval, but I would like to see whether, when the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) has concluded his speech—before it becomes even more disorderly—there are other hon. Members still seeking to catch my eye. If there are, and if my assessment is that they are likely to want to make orderly speeches, I might wish to hear them. If the hon. Gentleman is hopeful that closure might be accepted before too long has passed—I leave the House to consider what constitutes “too long”—he may not be disappointed.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 9th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, not least because, as he reminded the House, he has done so on the back of considerable experience of leading the House and, previously, of leadership responsibilities in Wales. My understanding is his understanding, and it is also the understanding of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). In any case, in so far as purdah is an applicable concept in this regard, it applies to what is said outside the House as well as what is said inside the House. There does seem to be a slightly paradoxical notion that it is okay to say something outside the House, but not okay to say it inside the House. The issue, it seems to me, is whether the basic convention is being adhered to or not: whether what is being said is a proper thing to be said. If it is a proper thing to be said, it is perfectly proper for it to be said in this House.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. What we have learnt from the media is that significant new powers for Scotland will be offered during a purdah period. I listened very carefully to your rulings in response to both the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), but it seems to me that purdah will be broken, and that there is no excuse for the fact that the statement is being made outside the House, because it is still being made.

Can you tell us, Mr Speaker, whether this does indeed break purdah? Can you also tell us when you were first advised that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would not be present for Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow, what arrangements have been put in place, and why they are fleeing—at such notice, and in such blind panic—to Scotland tomorrow?

[Mr Speaker]

I think that there are just two points for me to make in response to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order. First, although I have happily responded to points of order on the matter, it is important for me to emphasise—consistent with what I have said about purdah not being a convention of a parliamentary character—that purdah is not a matter for the Chair.

The second point relates to a factual inquiry from the hon. Gentleman about when I heard that the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would not be here for Prime Minister’s questions tomorrow. I did receive an indication of that within, I think, the last hour—

[Pete Wishart]

The last hour?

[Mr Speaker]

I can only say to the hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding the expression of shock upon his countenance, that absolutely nothing disorderly has taken place here. The hon. Gentleman is an experienced—I will not say “old hand”, but he is an experienced hand. He knows that, periodically, Prime Minister’s questions take place with the principals absent, and that in those circumstances it is quite common for the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Mr Hague) to represent the Government, and very common for the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) to represent the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman may disapprove of that state of affairs, but nothing disorderly has happened.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In case the House is not aware, I can inform colleagues that the House of Commons has received its accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation.

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Keeping our clear focus on Scotland, I call Mr Pete Wishart.

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

Of course the Minister knows the rises he pointed out in his answer to the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (John Robertson) are all down to the reciprocal arrangement with China. That figure is down 25% from Pakistan, and down 14% from Nigeria. This Government’s United Kingdom Independence party-based immigration policies are hurting our universities and our ability to attract students to Scotland. Why should our universities suffer because of the appalling race to the bottom between the Minister’s Government and UKIP?

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 10th March 2014 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

I was about to thank the Prime Minister and the 47 Back Benchers who questioned him, in 47 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which shows just what we can do when the questions and answers are pithy. But things would not be complete without points of order.

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Last Thursday, the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement on the radiation leak at the Government’s Vulcan nuclear reactor test establishment at Dounreay. He said that

“there has been no measurable change in the radiation discharge.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 1085.]

We have since learned that all the environment agencies throughout the UK have found a tenfold increase in radioactive emissions. Clearly, both cannot be right. Have you had any indication, Mr Speaker, whether either the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister will come forward to put the record straight? If it is the Prime Minister, may we also have an explanation as to why Scottish Ministers were not told and perhaps even an apology for that omission?

[Mr Speaker]

The short answer is that I have had no indication from any Minister of an intention to make a statement on this matter. Whether intentions will change on the back of the hon. Gentleman’s observations, I leave time and speculation by colleagues to reveal. We will leave it there for today, but the hon. Gentleman has put his point on the record.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 9th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for being so co-operative.

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

It is unfortunate that the Deputy Leader of the House has not had the opportunity to address my very important amendments 2 and 3, which were part of this group of amendments. I very much support the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) and we will support him in the Lobby tonight.

I do not have an opportunity to talk about Scotland, which is what I wanted to talk a little bit about before I got on to my own amendments, other than to say what a dog’s breakfast the Bill has concocted on issues connected with the referendum. The failure to see this is a travesty on the Government’s part. The fact that we have the same expenditure threshold as Northern Ireland is a total disgrace. Northern Ireland has a population of 1.8 million. We have a population of 5.2 million, which is more than double, yet once again we are lumped in with the same threshold.

I shall speak briefly to my amendments 2 and 3. It has surprised me that there has been very little talk about big money and the House of Lords. One of the defining features of the previous Parliament was the cash for honours crisis. It was a disgrace that a sitting Prime Minister was interviewed by the police because there was a belief that millions of pounds had changed hands for a place in that place down the road. The police eventually did not pursue the matter, not because they could not find particular evidence, but because they believed that it was not in the public interest.

The public were appalled by cash for honours, but the Bill does absolutely nothing to address big money in the House of Lords. Only China’s National People’s Congress is larger than that big bloated Chamber, which has 786 Members, but in their wisdom they decided that it required another 30 Members. When we look at a list of those 30 new Members, we see that—surprise, surprise—£1.26 million had been donated in the last round of honours. The public will be aghast that that has been ignored and that the Bill does not even touch on cash for honours.

I will explain what I propose very quickly, because I know that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith) is still to speak. We have seen £1.26 million donated by the 30 new Members of the upper House. Sir William Haughey is among them, as is Sir Anthony Bamford and Howard Leigh, all Labour or Tory donors. Do not think the Liberals get off lightly, because they have already suggested a few Members who have given them significant amounts of money over the years. This is a cash cow for the UK parties and it has to stop.

We cannot have this as a feature of our democracy. The fact that someone can donate to a political party and then be rewarded with ermine in the unelected House of Lords, which the hon. Member for Nottingham North hopes might fix this mess of a Bill, is absurd. Is that any way to run a democracy in what is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world? There will soon be 1,000 of these people if we do not do something about it. I do not know how much money that would bring in for the UK parties, but I suggest that it would be a lot.

My gentle little amendments are all about trying to address at least some of those concerns. I do not have time to go through them in detail, because I see that Labour Front Benchers are getting twitchy. I will not push this to a vote, but let us look at what goes on with big money and cash for honours. It is a disgrace and the public are appalled, so let us stop it.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In Question 3 in Scottish questions today, something was referred to as a “separate Scotland”. I do not know what a separate Scotland is, and I presume that you do not know what a separate Scotland is, and certainly nobody is trying to create one. It is an argumentative term and a pejorative one used by the opponents of Scottish independence. I raised this issue with the Clerks yesterday and they agreed that the term should not have been on the Order Paper today. Can you assure me that “separate Scotland” will not appear again in any question on the Order Paper?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order and for his characteristic courtesy in giving me notice of his intention to raise it. He is, essentially, asking me whether the use of the word “separate” contravenes the rule against argument in parliamentary questions. The very fact that I am being invited to make a ruling suggests to me that a degree of controversy surrounds the word. There is a perfectly serviceable word that is used in legislation—“independent”. I think it would be best if we stuck to that in future where the rules of the House require neutral expressions. However, the use of the phrase “a separate Scotland” in debate or in supplementary questions is not unparliamentary. I hope that that is helpful.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House. Points of order come after statements. I feel sure that he will be just as keen at that point and will spring up from his seat to favour the House with his thoughts.

We shall now have a statement from the Secretary of State for Health, who is at this moment beetling towards the Dispatch Box.

Point of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 12th June 2013 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apologies for my over-eagerness just after Prime Minister’s questions. Last night, the Labour party did not submit the motion for today’s debate until about 7 o’clock in the evening. Do you not think that is a gross discourtesy to the House? It does not allow Members time to prepare and reorganise their schedules. What can you do, through your office, to encourage the Labour party to get its act together and get its motions in on time?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. To be fair, I think that the motion was in on time, to use his words. However, I note what he says, and I think others will have noted it. Obviously, it is helpful to the House to have maximum notice of these things, so that people who wish to table amendments have the opportunity to do so. I emphasise that nothing disorderly has occurred, but the hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to his concern in his characteristically rumbustious fashion.

Point of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 11th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Last night we secured today’s Opposition day motion on tuition fees with barely 20 minutes left before the House adjourned. Not only was that a discourtesy to you, Mr. Speaker, and to officials of the House, but it meant that right hon. and hon. Members had very little opportunity to prepare and submit an amendment to the motion. Is there anything that you can do to oblige Labour to give us the topic of their Opposition day in time for the previous week’s business statement, and to ensure that all Members have at least 24 hours in which to prepare and submit amendments to Opposition day motions?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. Although the rules of the House require that notice of Opposition day motions need only be given by the rise of the House on the previous day, it is obviously helpful if longer notice is given.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 11th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are discussing extremely important matters and we should do so in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

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

We now know that there will be an independence referendum in the autumn of 1914—[Laughter.] That, of course, was the year that the great war started. There will be an independence referendum in 2014, designed and decided by the people of Scotland. If the Secretary of State is so concerned about the legal powers for the referendum, why does he not just devolve the powers, through section 30, without condition? I see that the Prime Minister has walked into this debate. I really hope that the Secretary of State can encourage the Prime Minister to come to Scotland as much as possible in the next two weeks, because the Prime Minister is the best recruiting sergeant for a “yes” to independence vote that we have.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

I am not going to give way to the hon. Gentleman. As he is standing right next to me, I do not know why he cannot hear me.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) must resume his seat.

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It takes a long time for Members to understand that I am not going to give way.

Once the Bill has completed its passage in the House of Lords it will return to the Scottish Parliament, and a further legislative consent motion will be required because of the many amendments passed by the House of Commons. I know that colleagues in all parties in the Scottish Parliament will want to look closely at a number of those amendments, and I know that the Secretary of State and the House will respect the views of the Scottish Parliament. I know they will accept that the Scottish Government have a massive mandate.

Many Members have talked about this being part of the devolution story, and it is. This is the second major Bill on devolution to have come before the House. The devolution story will continue to unfold, and we will continue to go down that road, but a new story is now also starting to emerge. It is about a new journey that Scotland is about to embark upon, because at some point over the next few years we will have a proper referendum on the future of Scotland—a proper, constitutional referendum that will be about independence, and I am absolutely sure that the Scottish people will make the right choice and that Scotland will once again join the nations of the world.

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Tuesday 23rd November 2010 Commons Chamber

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

If the hon. Gentleman has a totally unrelated point of order, I am happy to hear it.

[Pete Wishart]

The BBC may or may not have got the Home Secretary’s statement, but the smaller parties most certainly did not get a copy of it in advance. The Government have been pretty good at getting statements to us recently. Will you ensure that the smaller parties, such as the Labour party, get a copy of the statement in advance of its being given?

[Mr Speaker]

In so far as I could fully hear the hon. Gentleman—I apologise if I failed to hear him, but there was quite a lot of noise in the Chamber—I would simply reiterate that there are certain requirements of courtesy on Ministers. Generally speaking, the requirements are complied with and I know that it is always the intention of Ministers to do so. Generally speaking, that happens and if it did not in this case, that was a mistake.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Angus Robertson.

[Mr Speaker]

No, the hon. Gentleman is not standing. He was poised, perched like a panther. I call Mr Pete Wishart.

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Gentleman assure me that the House business committee will be a Committee of the whole of the House, not just the Government parties and the Labour Opposition? What is he and the Leader of the House doing personally to ensure that smaller parties are properly represented on the new Committee?

Points of Order

Debate between Pete Wishart and John Bercow

Wednesday 23rd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

There is nothing disorderly about the remark that the hon. Gentleman has just made, but unfortunately his attempted point of order suffered from the disadvantage of not being a point of order. However, he has made his point very clearly, and it is on the record. I have a hunch that he knew that before he got up to speak.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given your statement on the Backbench Business Committee, does that mean, therefore, that we in the smaller parties are excluded from it? In a Committee that is designed to increase accountability and democracy in the House, how can that be right?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, and I recognise that he and other Members will be dissatisfied with the situation. However, what I want simply to say to him is twofold: first, the Committee is being constituted in accordance with party strength in the House; and, secondly, we are operating in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House by doing it that way. Not to proceed in that way would require us to revisit Standing Orders. Now, whether we should do so or not is a matter for the House to decide, but I am stating the factual position to the hon. Gentleman and for the benefit of the House.