Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 17th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Dr Coffey]

No, I do not.

Business of the House

Debate between Pete Wishart and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 26th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend raises a really important matter, and I know that the Government are looking at it carefully. The vitality of our oceans and our rivers is important for nature and for our country. Businesses are trying to eradicate these things from their products, and the Government are working on that with them and encouraging them to do so. Some people might say that this is a good example of something on which we can work with our European neighbours to ensure that action goes across many more markets so that we can eradicate these potential dangers. I am sure that the Government are leading on that matter.

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

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I wish I could thank the Office of the Leader of the House for sending me a note to tell me that the Leader of the House would not be here this morning; if they had done so, my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh) would certainly have done business questions. That is another obvious failure by the Leader of the House.

We need an urgent debate on the Representation of the People Acts. The Prime Minister effectively admitted at the weekend that the Conservative party had broken electoral law. To be fair, according to him it was just a “misdeclaration”—an honest mistake—as though our electoral laws were some sort of optional extra. Our electoral laws are in place to secure the integrity of our democracy, and any transgression must be viewed as a very serious matter. That is why this week I have reported the Conservative party to the Metropolitan police to ensure that this is properly investigated. Now is the time for the Government to start to take these issues seriously. We need a debate on the Floor of the House so that we can properly consider the matter.

Even though he is not here, I am sure that the Leader of the House will be thrilled to learn that the Scottish Parliament will today formally back EU membership. Only a couple of Tories will vote against it; all other MSPs will support the motion. May we have a debate about the impact on our devolved legislatures and the consequences of a leave vote, particularly given that the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday conceded to the Scottish Affairs Committee that no contingency plans are in place if Scotland is dragged out of the European Union against our national collective will? We need to know what the consequences will be for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if we are dragged out, particularly if we do not vote to be taken out of the European Union.

Lastly, I do not know when the Leader of the House intends to bring forward his legislation to reform the House of Lords in response to the Strathclyde report, but we must have an opportunity to table an amendment so that this House can vote on the abolition of the House of Lords, with Labour reformers and Conservative Members who are very unhappy with the other place joining us to rid this nation of that circus of donors and cronies once and for all.

[Dr Coffey]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman was not listening because the Leader of the House announced today’s arrangements last week. I am very sorry that we will not hear from his hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Ms Ahmed-Sheikh). When I was at the Chelsea flower show, I spotted the tansy flower, also known as the golden button, which I thought would be very appropriate for SNP Members with their yellow rosettes.

The hon. gentleman talked about election expenses and similar issues. Frankly, I know that SNP Members are very happy to get their choppers out and about around the country, but they should really think about whether they want to continue that particular debate. It is not a matter for the Government, and in relation to what the hon. Gentleman mentioned, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made no particular assertion.

I recognise SNP Members’ opposition to the House of Lords. I respect them for the view they hold and I appreciate that it is included in their amendment on which we will vote later today, but I am sure there will continue to be other opportunities in the future. Indeed, SNP Members, none of whom had a private Member’s Bill during the last Session, now have three of the top seven slots for private Members’ Bills, so—who knows?—they may have a chance to bring forward legislation of their own.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 21st April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I can honestly say that I have never been handed a question by a Whip. Dare I say that, on today’s Order Paper, the Scottish National party has tabled two sets of the same question? Members will want to work together in this way to pursue a particular theme. I do not think it is right for the Government to try to tell Back Benchers what questions they can or cannot submit.

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

Perhaps the most dysfunctional departmental question session is Scottish questions. We have English votes for English laws, but Scottish Question Time is still very much dominated by English Members of Parliament. I have written to the Leader of the House with a few modest reforms that we could perhaps work on, given that we now have English votes for English laws, including the proposal that a little part of that session be devoted exclusively to Scottish Members, to enable us to ask our departmental questions. Has the Leader of the House had an opportunity to consider these modest reforms, and is he in a position to respond to them?

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman opposed the proposals for English votes for English laws. The Government strongly believe in the United Kingdom, and therefore it is absolutely appropriate for any Member to ask a question on matters that are not devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. That also applies to Welsh and Northern Ireland matters—and, indeed, any matter for which this United Kingdom Government are responsible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 22nd October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

This House already meets for over 150 days a year. I recognise the length of the recess. A decision was made in the previous Parliament to remove the extended recess so that we would sit in September. I think that is the right approach. It worked well in the previous Parliament and it worked well last month, too.

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

These are disappointing comments from the Deputy Leader of the House. There is now a real willingness in this House to reconsider its recess plans. It is simply absurd that we abandon our business for one week to accommodate eight Liberal Democrat Members of Parliament. When we come to consider the recess period, may we also look at when the recess starts? Surely it is within the wit of this House to have a summer recess that includes all the summer holidays of every nation of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman has made this representation before. I note that the Scottish Parliament reconvened the week before we did in September and, as a consequence, did not quite cover all its school holidays. Dare I say that the result in May 2015 was not exactly predicted when the parties set up their initial conference arrangements? As Deputy Leader of the House, I always listen to representations.

Human Rights (Joint Committee)

Debate between Pete Wishart and Thérèse Coffey

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We cannot understand it. We are allowed on practically every institution and Committee of the House, and we are prepared to serve assiduously on them. We want to be part of this Committee. We have something to contribute. Why are we being excluded? Why is the House happy with our exclusion?

[Dr Coffey]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

Will the hon. Lady explain?

[Dr Coffey]

I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the second Opposition party in the last Parliament was the Democratic Unionist party, because the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. As for the Committee, this House gets six members and the other place has six. He will be aware that when Committees get to seven or above, that is when the second Opposition party gains a seat.

[Pete Wishart]

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, but here is an obvious solution: why not change the rules? Why are we bound to having parity with the unelected, absurd House down there, which represents absolutely nobody? She represents a constituency, and I represent a constituency. We represent real people and have an interest in a Committee of this place; they represent absolutely nobody. It is an absurd and ridiculous institution that should have no parity with this House.

There are 12 places on this Committee. There are six Conservative Members and four Labour Members. Who is next? There is one Liberal Democrat and one Cross Bencher. Now, we have just had an election, and the Liberal Democrats, roundly thrashed and rejected by the vast majority of the country, were left with a rump of eight MPs. Yet the Liberal Democrats have been given a place on this Committee, ahead of the third party of the United Kingdom—the Scottish National party with a 56-seat victory in the last election. How can that possibly be right?

There is even a Cross Bencher on the Joint Committee. I do not even know what Cross Benchers do. I think they are somehow supposed to be neutral or arbitrary, and are appointed on the basis of the greatness and goodness they bring, but why is a Cross Bencher ahead of directly elected Members from the third party of this House? I ask again, how can this possibly be right?

What really gets me about this affair is that this Committee is vitally important. Mr Speaker, I know that you take a keen interest in the working of the Joint Committee. It exists to scrutinise Government Bills for compatibility with human rights, to scrutinise the Government’s response to judgments on human rights and, importantly, it looks for opportunities to enhance human rights across the United Kingdom. Surely this House wants the third party of the UK to play a part in that process. I simply cannot understand why it would not want that to happen.

Scotland Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Thérèse Coffey

Monday 15th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Well, that is very sweet. The hon. Gentleman and I, in our very first summer here together as Members of Parliament, had the joy of going to the United States of America to participate in the British-American parliamentary group. We have been firm friends since. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Exactly—what goes on in Vegas, stays in Vegas.

Clause 10 implements paragraph 27 of the Smith commission agreement, which identified that it is important to have an adequate check on certain types of Scottish Parliament electoral legislation. The Smith commission recommended that UK legislation should provide that such legislation is passed by a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament. The Government agree that this provides an important safeguard. It is possible, of course, that there may be discussions on whether a particular Bill is in fact this type of legislation.

Clause 10 also allows the Advocate General, the Lord Advocate or the Attorney General to refer to the Supreme Court the question of whether a certain piece of legislation requires a two-thirds majority of the Scottish Parliament. The Supreme Court already provides a similar role on whether a particular matter is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, so I will move that clause 10 stand part of the Bill.

Amendments 67 to 88 concern clause 11, which delivers on the Smith commission recommendation to give the Scottish Parliament greater powers in relation to the arrangements and operation of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. It does this by enabling the Scottish Parliament to modify relevant sections of the Scotland Act 1998. I am sure that the Secretary of State will wish to reflect on this to ensure that the agreed powers work correctly, but the Government are clear that the substantial new powers devolved under clause 11 are the right ones.

A number of the amendments to clause 11 would allow further modification of the 1998 Act beyond the scope of the transfer of powers envisaged by the Smith commission. The Bill already transfers substantial powers to modify the Act, consistent with the commission, and the Government do not believe it is right to go beyond that.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West referred in particular to amendment 67. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said that this matter should be consistent across the UK, reinforcing that this is a reserved for the UK Parliament and not a devolved matter. The hon. and learned Lady said that the UK Government had not been clear on some aspects of this matter. I believe that the Prime Minister has been clear at this Dispatch Box. Amendment 67 would amend the Bill such that paragraph 1 of schedule 4 to the 1998 Act would be modified to remove the Human Rights Act 1998 from the list of legislation the Scottish Parliament cannot modify, otherwise known as the “protected enactments”.

The Committee will be aware that the Government outlined their proposal to reform and modernise our human rights framework by replacing the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights. That was reinforced today by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the celebration of the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. Of course, we are aware of the possible devolution implications of reform and we can engage with the devolved Administrations as we develop the proposals. As the Secretary of State said, the Sewel convention, as intended by Lord Sewel, has been placed in the Bill, but this Parliament remains sovereign. The Government are certainly committed to human rights and, as I indicated earlier, we will consider the devolution implications.

[Pete Wishart]

That is just not good enough. These are fundamental and profound issues for the Scottish Parliament. We are dependent on the Human Rights Act for the competence of the Parliament. Will the Minister vow to go forward, make sure this is looked at properly, and come back with a more suitable and substantial response?

Immigration Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Thérèse Coffey

Thursday 30th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not expecting that, but I am delighted to be called so early in the debate.

This is a rotten Bill made all the more rotten by some of these appalling amendments. We are in this position because the Government are in an appalling race to the bottom with the UK Independence party—this is all about seeing who can be toughest on immigration. I have to say to the Home Secretary, “You’re not gonnae win that one—forget about it. You cannot out-UKIP UKIP. They are the masters of nasty, pernicious populism, and you’ll never beat them.” It is a credit to the Government that they will not be able to beat UKIP on such issues but, by God, with this Bill and their amendments, they are having a good stab at it. I expect the right hon. Lady to lose that particular battle.

The Government’s stated aim through the Bill is to make the UK a more hostile environment for illegal immigrants. Well done Home Secretary; you have certainly achieved that with fantastic aplomb. The job of these right-wing immigration Bills is to do two simple, straightforward things: stop people coming in; and kick out as many people we do not like as we can at the same time. The Bill manages to achieve both those objectives, and the addition of the Government’s amendments and new clauses means that it will be done even more thoroughly.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Is the hon. Gentleman happy about how long it can take to remove someone who has broken the law and is not legally entitled to be here, despite the risk of their committing further crime in this country?