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.