Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 Oct 2025 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Just as we opposed ID cards under Tony Blair, we will oppose digital ID under this Labour Government, as they seek once again to impose this unwanted scheme on a sceptical public. The whole idea of digital ID is an attack on our liberty and privacy. It is a treasure trove for hackers and those who would hoard personal data. It will do little to tackle illegal immigration and it will cost billions of pounds. We in Scotland want nothing to do with this Britcard, and the Scottish Government will energetically oppose it. My question to the Secretary of State is this: when we rightly and inevitably oppose and reject this, will she do the usual UK thing of imposing it on us anyway?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Palestine Action: Proscription and Protests · Hansard source

  More

  The optics of octogenarian priests being arrested alongside hundreds of peaceful protesters are absolutely awful for this Government. We had only three arrests over the weekend in Scotland, because Police Scotland seemed to deploy a much more conciliatory and community-based approach. Does the Minister support operational independence across the UK? If police forces feel it is in their interests to have different policing arrangements from the Metropolitan police, will he support them and say that there will be no Government interference in their operations?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely spot on. We are entering dangerous territory with some of this debate, but I am immensely encouraged that so many Labour MPs have turned up today to say something positive about immigration and the positive impacts and effects it has on our society. Will he join me in encouraging them to go further? Say good things about asylum seekers. Stop stripping people of their human rights. Let us make sure that a positive case for immigration and asylum is given in this House.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For the completeness of history, it is 115 years since the Labour party promised to abolish the House of Lords, and I think we will be waiting another 100 before it even gets close to that. The Minister is absolutely right that the public cannot stand the hereditaries—it is something they are bitterly opposed to—but they are also opposed to prime ministerial patronage. It is almost as unpopular as the House of Lords. Now, 57 new peers have gone into the House of Lords since Labour came to power, and The Guardian has reported that dozens more are set to follow. Are we just going to be replacing the old nobility with new Labour nobility?

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, there are of course some appalling practices with the Conservatives rewarding their donors with peerages, but does the hon. Member not remember cash for honours? There was a police investigation, and Tony Blair was actually questioned by the police. This goes on in all parties, and each of them is a disgrace.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I find this to be quite a curious debate thus far. There is not any great energy among Members on the Conservative Benches; I fully expected and anticipated that they would be down here in great numbers to defend their noble colleagues. I think there is only one Conservative speaker left—I look forward to the remarks of the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin). There was not the usual energy in the speech of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart); I just do not know what was missing. There is a sense that they cannot be bothered defending this issue any more, which is a good thing. I am also beginning to detect a little bit of a drift between noble Lords in the Conservative party in the House of Lords and Conservative Members here.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That is the way to do it. I hope the rest of the Members on the Conservative Benches are paying close attention, because that is how they defend the indefensible Conservative peers. I have detected one other thing in this debate. There seems to be a concession that there will not be a democratic second Chamber—I have not heard that properly yet, so perhaps the Minister can clarify in his summing up. That was implied and suggested, and I have not heard anything thus far that contradicts it. Perhaps we could hear the Minister say that that idea is now gone, because I do not think that there will be any more reform than this. I think this is it; I said in the earlier stages of the Bill that this is as far as Lords reform goes in this Parliament. The great, Gordon Brownian vision of a senate of the nations and regions is totally for the birds. It is some sort of fever dream; it is not going to happen. This Bill is all that this House will do about Lords reform. I find the amendments to be a snivelling, contemptuous bunch of amendments. They demonstrate the Lords’ contempt for parliamentary democracy and for the democratic will of this House—us, the Members of Parliament who are democratically elected to represent the people of this country. This House passed the Bill with a large majority, and for all its faults, this Government said that they would pass it. It was a manifesto commitment, so they should be allowed to get on with it, but since then, the Lords have done everything possible to thwart the Bill. Barely had we finished voting before the Conservatives in the House of Lords commenced their “save the aristocrat” campaign. For them, the principle of democracy through birthright was something that had to be defended and protected. Since the Bill went down the corridor, those peers have tried to delay it through filibustering, keeping the Lords up half the night and stacking the Bill full of amendments. It only has two pages, but they spent 52 hours and 10 minutes debating it; it only has four clauses, but 154 amendments were tabled to it. Defending the hereditaries was much more important to the House of Lords than addressing things like poverty, growing the economy or global conflict. I paid real attention to its Hansard, and some of the contributions were truly bizarre. The oozing sense of entitlement from our upper and ruling classes was simply extraordinary. The thing that got me was when those contributions started to get a little threatening—I think the Minister implied this. The noble Lord True warned that if the purge went ahead, we would face very aggressive procedural action, which could involve filibustering, wrecking amendments and, even worse, the parliamentary nuclear option of more ping-pong. He said that this toff rebellion would only be stood down if a goodly number of the hereditaries were to remain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am positively quaking in my oiky boots. The prospect of a be-ermined banshee charging me with a vintage claret jug and snuff box practically terrifies me half to death. The thing is, these peers really do believe that they were born to rule—that their role in our legislature through birthright is a gift that we should be eternally grateful for. They have now returned the Bill with these amendments, with the main one being to keep the aristocrats in place until death or retirement by rewarding them with a life peerage. That is not getting rid of the hereditaries; it is giving them a retirement plan. After seeing these amendments, I just wish that we could introduce even more amendments ourselves. I would table an amendment that would get them out tomorrow. I would also be thinking about stripping them of their lands and titles. [ Interruption. ] I have got more—maybe a little bit of re-education, such as a couple of shifts in Aldi or Lidl, living on the living wage for a week or, even worse, having them speak in regional accents just for a day. Given that these peers have made this about public contribution—given that that is so important to them—how about handing over some of their mansions and castles for social housing? There is a suggestion for how they could be publicly useful. I know that I am being a little bit comical, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what this does is endorse the view that the House of Lords is the most embarrassing, bizarre legislature anywhere in the world. This weird assortment of aristocrats, be-cassocked bishops, party donors, cronies and placemen feel that they can continue with impunity, and they are probably right in that assumption. The aristocrats will soon be gone—I do not think there is any real desire to defend them any more—but the other members of that circus will continue unabashed. They will continue to develop, grow and thrive. The House of Lords is increasingly going to become a House of patronage—a plaything for Prime Ministers.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, was it right to say to me that I was going off topic when it came to a small Bill with a number of Lords amendments, when it seems like the hon. Gentleman is doing exactly the same thing? From what I recall, practically everybody else has done that, too.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am getting a little bit carried away. The amendments would ensure that the aristocrats remain in the other place, but they will not succeed in that aim—I think we have all sort of agreed on that; it looks like they are gone—but the rest of the strange assortment of people who we find in the House of Lords will still be there. It will become a House of patronage from the Prime Minister, and we are already beginning to see that. Some 57 new Labour peers have been introduced to the House of Lords since the last general election, and we have heard from The Guardian that dozens of new Labour peers are about to be introduced. That does not seem like a Government who are keen on even more House of Lords reform; it seems like a Government who want to create a new set of Labour Lords at the expense of the hereditaries, and the public are thoroughly and utterly sick of it. Only 21% of the British public approve of the House of Lords in its current condition. Most want to see it abolished. Certainly nearly everybody wants to see the hereditaries gone, and I support them in that vision. The Labour party promised, 115 years ago, to abolish the House of Lords. I think it will take at least another 115 years before we see the next set of reforms.

• 4 Sept 2025 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. So the Budget date has finally been announced, and once again, Scotland is some sort of distant afterthought. The Budget date has been left to the 11th hour because the Government do not know how to resolve their countless counter-bùrachs. It is a Budget date that has practically wrecked Scotland’s budgetary process, leaving it almost impossible for us to pass a budget before Christmas, and leaving great uncertainty for Scotland’s public services. Did you know, Mr Speaker, that they could not even be bothered to notify the Scottish Government, leaving them to find this out on social media? I ask the Prime Minister: how is this reset in relationships working out?

• 1 Sept 2025 · Borders and Asylum · Hansard source

  More

  What a country the UK is becoming! Rarely has the national mood been so ugly and intimidating. People are congregating at hotels, screaming at asylum seekers to go home, and those on the right wing are so emboldened that they feel the streets belong to them. Does the Home Secretary not realise that every time she moves on to Reform’s ground, all she is doing is further encouraging and emboldening them? How about trying something different? How about just occasionally saying something positive about immigration? How about not dehumanising asylum seekers, and instead showing them some compassion, decency and humanity?

• 14 Jul 2025 · UK-France Migration: Co-operation · Hansard source

  More

  This is a grubby, grotesque little deal, which in itself trades in lives with the selection of who qualifies for this one in, one out basis. This gimmick means we will now have different classes of the wretched, and it does nothing to address the crisis that compels so many people to make these dangerous journeys in the first place. It is a gimmick doomed to fail and it simply will not work. But there is one thing that could smash the gangs in one simple blow: establish the safe and legal routes, which have worked so perfectly in the past, for people to come to this country.

• 14 Jul 2025 · Future of the Post Office · Hansard source

  More

  Scotland has seen an 8.3% decline in post offices, while London has seen an increase of 9.3% across the past decade. The Minister will know that outreach offices help people in rural areas and post offices to thrive. The Green Paper recognises that, but the Government seem to dismiss it. What is he going to do to help rural post offices? Will he reconsider his attitude and his views towards outreach offices? What will he do to reduce the number of post office closures in Scotland?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Live Music: Creative Industries Sector Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I very much support the creative industries sector plan. I think it will do a lot of good in ensuring that live music is promoted, and I hope to see some of the trickle-down effect that the Secretary of State talks about, but the creative industries sector plan also talks about establishing a copyright regime that values and protects human creativity. Can she say when we might see the promised report, when the working groups might be set up, and who will be asked to serve on them?

• 3 Jul 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The city of Perth is still recovering from a devastating fire, which unfortunately resulted in loss of life. Residents were evacuated, and people were unable to access their properties. Last week, together with local MSP John Swinney, I hosted a meeting with affected residents and businesses, and we found that support from insurance companies is nothing other than a lottery. Can we have a debate about what people can rightly expect from insurance companies in such emergencies, and can we look at insurance companies being obliged to offer support to all customers who are unable to access their properties?

• 2 Jul 2025 · Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, the issues around the proscription of Palestine Action has thrown up a number of legitimate concerns. There is no doubt that it will have an impact on our right to protest and on the civil liberties that we have enjoyed for decades. Although it is absolutely right to condemn and prosecute criminal activity, especially those that threaten our national security, surely this must be done within the framework of existing legislation, as it always has been. This order looks nothing other than a direct response to Palestine Action being able to infiltrate an RAF base and cause damage to a defence aircraft. The decision to proscribe an organisation is ultimately a matter for the Government, and it is up to the Home Secretary to decide who goes on that list. It is based on intelligence that the Government hold. I do not think that the Minister has convinced many of us today that this has met the threshold for proscription, and we need to hear more about their concerns about this particular group. Before reaching for that power, the Government must take into account whether it is proportionate, justified and in the national interest to proscribe such an organisation. Terrorism legislation, as we know, hands extremely broad powers to the state and, as such, it must always be treated with the highest degree of caution and restraint. We live in a society where groups and organisations have the democratic right to campaign and express their views on particular issues in a democratic, respectful and lawful manner. It is important that the right to lawful protest is not affected by the Home Secretary’s decision today, and it is extremely concerning that this decision could lead to these powers being extended to other campaigning organisations. Palestine Action has inexplicably been linked to groups such as the Maniacs Murder Cult and the Russian Imperial Movement—groups unknown to the House until this measure was on the Order Paper today, but they are groups that, from a cursory glance at their activities, should of course be proscribed. For Palestine Action to be included alongside those groups is, at best, a cynical and calculated move by the Government to ensure that this order gets through today. People all over the UK, including many of my constituents, rightly feel very strongly about the appalling crimes that are being committed against innocent civilians in Gaza on a daily basis. Many of those people have been taking part in weekly protests to make their voices heard, and to show solidarity with the Palestinian people. These people are now concerned that they might be caught up in this proscription. I am also concerned that many young people who are sharing social media posts from Palestine Action could now be considered to have glorified what will soon be a proscribed group. We need clarity on what actions would result in people being charged under this terrorism legislation. For example, could a person wearing a Palestine Action badge handed out at a demonstration or a rally be charged with terrorism? Organisations such as Amnesty International and even the United Nations have expressed their concern about the UK’s broad definition of terrorism in this regard. This week, an Israeli strike on a Gaza seafront café killed at least 20 Palestinians. This is what we should be discussing today and every day until a permanent ceasefire is reached and all the hostages are released. The Government must act in the national interest and keep us safe from all the challenges presented to them, but we need clear reassurance about the wider impact of what is proposed.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s disastrous welfare debacle was all down to the Chancellor’s obsessive pursuit to stick to the grotesque Tory fiscal rules. Yet 150,000 people could still be saved from poverty if all the Scottish Labour MPs joined those prepared to vote down the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. Does she agree that if Scottish Labour MPs go through the lobby to support the Bill, they would be as well not bothering standing again?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is making good and valid points. He is not entirely right, as I tabled a series of amendments on this very issue in Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which were supported by the Liberals, of course. I am grateful that he has been able to bring the issue to Westminster Hall today, but the situation is worse than he says. With a lack of safe and legal routes to access the UK, migrants have no other option but to arrive irregularly, such as in the small boats that the hon. Gentleman describes. What is happening as a result of these measures is a disenfranchisement of practically everybody who comes to the UK. Surely he agrees that cannot ever be right.

• 1 Jul 2025 · Refugee Citizenship Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman is sort of saying that citizenship is a good thing and a bad thing, but it is a central aspect of life within our society—an entitlement to so many things that he and I take for granted. If his citizenship were ever taken away from him, God forbid, he would feel it in a minute. Another thing: this is perhaps the most profound change to the good character requirement that I have ever seen—it has gone from lapsing after 10 years to not at all. He should recognise that that is an appalling new change to our immigration system.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Minister understands that due process is important and appreciates that the appeals process must be respected fully. He is intending making people temporarily stateless, so can he guarantee that the appeals process will be speeded up and people will have an opportunity to have their case heard in a timeous manner, so they can have their case resolved, not hanging over them for a long time?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  If I heard the Foreign Secretary correctly, he said that the UK would act if Iran sought to block the strait of Hormuz. Did he mean “act militarily”? In what other conditions would he consider military action, and what would he say if the Americans turned to this Government and asked them for support in any military adventure to do with this conflict?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. I remember when the Deputy Prime Minister was a fierce critic of austerity and a proud champion for the disabled, but today her Government are introducing their £5 billion disability cuts Bill that will push another 250,000 people into poverty. Does she agree that everyone has the right to oppose such devastating cuts? Is it the Prime Minister’s intention to remove the Whip from any Labour MP who does the right thing and votes against these disability cuts?

• 10 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am thrilled and excited by the prospect of being part of that work, and I look forward to joining the Minister, but I think that it must be as open as possible so that every single aspect of this can be harnessed and used as part of the Government’s work. What the Government amendments do not do, however—and this is a key issue—is pay attention to the transparency issues. The peers have rejected amendments that the Government have tabled previously. As the Chair of the Select Committee said, the Government are bringing these amendments back to try to distract us and give us the impression that they listened to the House of Lords and were near to reaching a compromise, but nothing of the sort is the case, because the key issue is the transparency that the House of Lords, the creative sector and artists across the UK want to see. The existing law should be enforced to protect the wages of 2.4 million creative workers, and the Government must produce a “meaningful compromise” amendment. It is also entirely possible for the Government to take powers to introduce transparency via regulations, recognising the urgent need to prevent mass theft by AI firms at the earliest opportunity, and I do not know why they have not explored that option. The wages of those 2.4 million UK creators are at stake, as is the principle of the rule of law. The creative industries have made it clear that inaction on the Government’s part is giving “big tech” the freedom to break our laws and destroy jobs. Copyright is not an abstract concept; it is what secures our creative success. The Government will win in this House today, and they will probably win the whole debate—they will get their way. However, they have lost the battle. One good thing that has come out of this is the fact that people now understand that our copyright laws—our gold-standard copyright regime—underpins the success of the UK’s creative industries across the board. Some of the greatest artists in the world are from these islands, and they have achieved their success because of intellectual property rights and our copyright laws. To muck about with those as we have over the past few months undermines all that, and undermines the ability of those artists to continue to lead in their sectors. I hope that, even at this late stage, some sort of compromise can be found with transparency at the heart of it, and I appeal to the Minister to consider that seriously.

• 10 Jun 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is being generous, as always, in giving way. I welcome the amendments—I think they are helpful and useful—but they miss out and exclude transparency, which is what this is all about. The Lords, the creative sector and artists around this country want a commitment that this Government will deal with issues of transparency. Why will the Minister not sit down and compromise with the House of Lords and ensure that we get a solution that works for everybody?