Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I am really pleased that the hon. Lady raised that issue, and she is right to do so. I have received countless briefings from a number of organisations, including the Royal College of Nursing, that are genuinely concerned about where this leads. Scotland is in the early stages of depopulation; just wait till they get it down here. If the Government think immigration is a bad thing, just wait till they get to the negative consequences of emigration. We are starting to get there, because it looks like immigration this year will be net zero. The rest of the UK is about to experience the end of population growth, which will put all sorts of strains on demographic issues throughout this country. The hon. Lady is right to raise that point. It is not only that people are being forced out; I have high-value constituents from Sri Lanka who are just going home. They have had enough. They cannot be bothered dealing with a Government who treat them so shabbily and shoddily and do not see any value in what they do. That is what the Government are doing with the immigration changes. All this essentially delivers prolonged uncertainty, fear and anxiety in the asylum system. It will undermine every and all positive efforts towards integration. It will leave a generation of people living permanently in limbo, constantly looking over their shoulder and fearing that, at any moment, they may be forcibly removed. Whole communities that have already been traumatised by having to leave their home, sometimes in the most extraordinary conditions, fleeing oppression, with their own lives sometimes at risk, feel they are being traumatised all over again. But do not worry—the Home Secretary tells us this is the plan. She says we have to make the UK an unattractive country for people who want to come here, as if they could make hostile-environment UK even more unattractive. That is the Government’s mission, and by God are they making a good go of it! They are not just making the UK an unattractive place for asylum seekers; they are making it an unattractive place for all of us who have to live in this country—all of us who care deeply and passionately about community harmony, consensus, building communities and giving honourable people a break and an opportunity to get on with their lives. Well done, Minister: you have managed to make this place even more unattractive than the Conservatives did, and I did not believe that would be possible for a minute. The Government do not have the courage to bring their proposal to the House. They do not have the guts to bring it forward and ask us to support them, because they know what will happen: all the Labour MPs who oppose this will be there to voice that opposition, call them out and join us in standing up for some of the most wretched souls who inhabit this country. That is why they will not bring anything to the House. The Home Secretary did not even have the courtesy to come to the House and make a proper statement. She was forced to answer an urgent question from the Conservatives, who actually told her that she did not go far enough, but she did not have the courtesy to come to the House to announce the reforms. She was in Denmark, in the British embassy in Copenhagen. She is asking us to emulate what is happening in Denmark—a country that could not be more different from the United Kingdom in terms of our historical roles in the world. Denmark’s approach has not produced anything resembling a humane, fair or effective asylum system. It has not defeated the rise of the far right. Denmark has what it calls “parallel societies”, a sinister development that seems like some sort of weird ghetto law. Denmark has seen growing calls from its far right for remigration—that is where the debate is going there—and it has some of the worst structural discrimination in any welfare system in Europe. “Let’s copy Denmark,” they say. Well done on that one! I remind the Minister, because he is such a fan of Denmark, that the Social Democratic alliance that introduced those measures was facing political annihilation until Trump ensured political and national unity with all his Greenland ambitions. But even so, many social democrats and progressives have abandoned those parties and are looking to the Greens and other progressive parties in Denmark. Maybe that is the real lesson from Denmark: look at what is happening to core Social Democrat support. The truth is that the Government will not bring the reforms to the House because they know what will happen if they do. More than 100 Labour MPs have written to the Home Secretary to say that they have deep concerns about what is proposed. I hope that if they are given the chance to vote, many of them will join us in beating the proposals. The question that always gets me in this particular Parliament is: why are the Government doing this? What is motivating them to take such an approach to immigration and asylum, and why do it now? The conventional view from the Government, and what we continue to hear from various Ministers and the Home Secretary, is that if they are not seen to be hard on asylum seekers, refugees and immigrants, their votes will go to Reform—that Reform will continue to grow unless Labour is seen to be as hard as Reform when it comes to these issues. But there is absolutely no evidence that Labour supporters are moving towards Reform. There is loads of evidence that Labour voters are moving towards the Greens; we have seen that in a couple of—

• 4 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q13. After his inept and failed coup against the Prime Minister, Anas Sarwar last week announced Scottish Labour’s new campaign slogan—not “Into the abyss”, but, rather, the inspiring “Hold your nose and vote Labour”. But with the stench of the Mandelson scandal still in their nostrils and the stink still emanating from the Labour Together affair, as well as the general whiff of rot hanging over this doomed Prime Minister after his hammering in Gorton and Denton, is it not the case for Scottish voters that some smells are simply too unpleasant to ignore?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On Saturday, the cream of UK music will gather in Manchester for the annual Brit awards, and I am sure the Secretary of State would like to wish everybody all the best for that. UK music has grown for the 11th consecutive year, and UK artists are starting once again to re-emerge in global markets, including through the success of Lola Young and Olivia Dean, but there are issues. Artist remuneration, touring in Europe and the threat of AI continue to emerge as threats. Will the Secretary of State continue to engage with the sector and ensure that all those issues are addressed?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely right that student debt has been one of the main focuses this week. Students are graduating with an average debt of £53,000. That simply is an appalling and debilitating financial burden at the start of their working lives. But the Leader of the House will know that this is not the story in the whole of the UK; in Scotland, under the SNP policy of free tuition, students graduate with an average debt of £17,990—a third of what students graduate with in England. Will he ensure that that is pointed out when this issue is debated and student debt is referenced? I have heard about U-turns on student debt. If those happen, will he encourage his Ministers to look at the Scottish system of free education and ensure that graduates in England have the same opportunities as graduates in Scotland?

• 25 Feb 2026 · World Cup: Travelling Fans · Hansard source

  More

  I am quite surprised at that last question, because one of the things that Scotland qualifying for the world cup brings is a unity to the nation. We are all looking forward to Scotland competing for the first time since 1998. We will all get selfies—it will be us with the tartan army. Does the Secretary of State think that there is any chance that we will get a photograph with the Prime Minister and Anas Sarwar?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Electronic Travel Authorisation: Dual Nationals · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister put the changes on the gov.uk website. Why did not he do something original, like maybe writing to people with dual nationalities across the UK? He would not have got to everybody, but there would be records in the Home Office of everybody who has been naturalised in the UK, just as there will be files relating to citizenship and immigration. Why did he not get in touch with them directly? Is this not just a result of Brexit chaos catching up with British nationals? We now have people with dual nationality paying a Brexit border tax; where does this chaos end? With chaos in holiday airports across Europe, and limits on residence in the EU, has Brexit not been absolutely fantastic for this country?

• 23 Feb 2026 · Labour Together and APCO Worldwide: Cabinet Office Review · Hansard source

  More

  What is of no doubt whatsoever is that countless Labour MPs took money from Labour Together. Anas Sarwar and his now estranged Scottish Labour MPs must come clean about their close financial and personal relationships with this sullied organisation, but for some reason they have all developed collective amnesia. They have forgotten about their links with this rotten organisation, their only defence being that they are utterly clueless. Will the Minister now insist that Scottish Labour hand back the £100,000 that it took from this dodgy and disgraced organisation?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I rise of course to support this legislation, and I am grateful that the Scottish Parliament, if it is passed, will now be able to consider the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill without concerns about legislative competence. I am utterly amazed to hear the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine say that His Majesty’s Opposition are going to vote against the measure without any solution for how the Scottish Bill would be able to progress without the measure being passed. I urge members of the Committee to support the measure to ensure that Scotland gets the opportunity, just like Westminster, to consider with moral conscience the position on assisted dying. I find it astounding that the Conservatives are going to vote against it.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to get an explanation from the hon. Gentleman.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is right that the Scotland Office has an appropriate role, but to have the final say is quite different from anything we have considered in section 34. She has not given any explanation of why that is required.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s words of wisdom, so would he attempt to respond if I set out the conditions that are required in order for the Scottish Bill to progress? The Scottish Bill cannot progress unless we have the devolution of poisons. I do not know if he is aware, but as we are talking about assisted dying, there has to be an end product of somebody dying, and the only way that is going to be done is through us having the opportunity to use the poisons that are currently reserved to Westminster. I do not know what proposal he has for that to take place. How can a Scottish Bill go forward in the Scottish Parliament without the comfort that it will be within devolved responsibility and MSPs will be competent to make a decision? It is an absurd position from the Scottish Conservatives, and I cannot believe that they have come here today with this approach in mind. I ask them to reconsider, because just as this place has the opportunity to consider such a Bill, we need that opportunity in Scotland. This is an important issue, which should not be confined to this House. I hope the Scottish Conservatives think again. In saying that, I find this a curious and convoluted piece of parliamentary procedure, which seems excessive and unnecessarily cumbersome, given the issues involved. Once again, a section 30 order is being used as the main means to allow the Scottish Parliament to legislate if required. I listened carefully to the Minister’s comments and I think that, if the Bill is passed, it will be accompanied by a section 104 order to devolve further specific identified provisions. I heard the Minister say there would be a section 104 order, and then I heard her say that there would not be one. She has to clarify, for all the other outstanding issues beyond the use and resourcing of poisons and medicines, how the Government intend to afford the comfort that the Scottish Parliament Bill could proceed, and what they would do if that Bill is passed. The section 104 order is an obvious means and mechanism to achieve that, so I hope that is exactly what she will tell me when she responds. I have been in this place for 25 years. I know you cannot believe it, Mr Twigg, looking at this youthful Member of Parliament. In my time in Parliament, I have seen some 15 or so section 30 orders issued. The most notable, as has been mentioned, was the section 30 order through the Edinburgh agreement to devolve temporarily the right of the Scottish Parliament to hold devolved competence so it could have the referendum on Scottish independence. None has been accompanied by any other associated orders and none, other than the order for the referendum, has been issued with a sunset clause. It is therefore unusual to have a time-limited devolution section 30 order with a sunset clause, which will be on the face of that order. As the Minister says, three areas have been identified where the proposed legislation of the Scottish Parliament strays into reserved responsibility. The main one, as the Minister outlined, is relevant to provisions that involve medicines, medical supplies and poisons. As I have just said to Conservative friends, those resources would be absolutely necessary if a terminally ill person asked for assistance to die. There will be general mystification in Scotland that, in a fully devolved health service, those vital responsibilities and resources remain with Westminster. The Minister will have to explain to us properly why, given that we are responsible for practically everything else to do with the national health service, as is right and proper in a devolved Scotland, those powers are not properly devolved. If I was to suggest anything to the Minister, it would be to use this opportunity to make these powers permanent so that we could properly resource and equip our NHS to do its job. [ Interruption. ] I hear grumbles of complaint from my colleagues across the Floor, but I do not understand for a minute why the Scottish Parliament could not have these powers, just as the NHS in England has. Why is this the state of play just now? The other issues are less clear, but apparently may stray into the “regulation of health professions” and “employment and industrial relations” reservations. I believe that is mainly to do with matters of conscience. I think we require more clarity; a further explanation of how that affects what are considered to be reserved regulations. There was great confusion in the Scottish Parliament that this would be the case. It is certainly the case that Liam McArthur and the supporters of his Bill in the Scottish Parliament had absolutely no idea when presenting it that any of it strayed into reserved responsibilities. It came as a great surprise that that was the case. It was only when Scottish Government lawyers had a look at the Bill—as is their right and as they are right to do—that they discovered that there were issues to do with reservations. I am grateful that they had that look, so that we could try to resolve the issue. As we have heard, the responsibilities will now be devolved under section 30, but only until this Parliament is dissolved. That time window is designed to allow the Scottish Parliament to consider the Bill and pass it, if it is agreed. But why not give the responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament without a time limit? There are only six weeks until the Scottish Parliament is dissolved for the Scottish general election, and there are questions about whether there will be enough time for the Bill to be considered properly. It is likely, or possible at least, that the next Parliament will want to revisit the debate, and I am pretty certain that some private Member will be keen to introduce it if there has been no opportunity to conclude the parliamentary consideration of the assisted dying Bill as it stands. The second issue that concerns me is that the delegated powers can be exercised only with the agreement of the Secretary of State. Effectively, that gives a veto to the Secretary of State for Scotland over powers that will rightly be devolved, temporarily, to the Scottish Parliament. I have never seen anything quite like that in all the 15 or 16 section 30 orders that have been put through this House. We need a proper explanation of why that is the case. Regardless of the fact that, for some reason, most Scottish MPs opted to exercise their right to a conscience vote in this House on an England and Wales-only Bill that has absolutely no impact on their constituencies, the Scottish Government rightly have no say on the English Bill. Why should Westminster have the last word on the provisions in the Scottish Bill? We need a proper explanation. I will support the order; I have encouraged colleagues to do this, and I am utterly flummoxed by the position of the Scottish Conservatives. [Interruption.] I agree with the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that this debate should have been conducted on the Floor of the House, as it poses massive questions and issues for the devolved settlement. I wish the Minister had decided to do that; I think it was one of the recommendations in the report by the Scottish Affairs Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Member for Glasgow West, and it should have happened. I would be grateful for answers to the questions I have asked the Minister this afternoon.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but I thought he was going to offer a solution. If not a section 30 order, in order for the Bill to be considered, what does he propose we do?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) Order 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot see why there could not be a section 30 order for the outstanding provisions beyond the medical resources. The Minister could do that. This is a failsafe. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee requested, which is some sort of draft order, so that we could see specifically what would be included. That would at least give some comfort to the MSPs who are considering this Bill.

• 9 Feb 2026 · Standards in Public Life · Hansard source

  More

  The only statement that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform that they want is the reform that takes this Prime Minister out of No. 10 Downing Street, and it does not matter how many reviews, inquiries or fireguards the Government put in the way. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. We need a Government who will end this chaos. This Government promised to end the chaos when they came to power, but instead, it has gone through the stratosphere. The Prime Minister knows, everybody in this House knows, and everybody in this country knows that he is toast, so why do the Government not just get on with it and get rid of him?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I was at the Westminster Hall petition debate on indefinite leave to remain. Some 60 Labour MPs turned up and unanimously rubbished and disparaged the Home Secretary’s proposals. I got the impression that they were highly unlikely to support them, so can she guarantee that any changes to ILR will be brought to this House for debate and a vote?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is absolutely right in his summary of all Jeffrey Epstein’s misdoings. We heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister’s questions, such as the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s position is becoming increasingly untenable?

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman share my opinion that Labour Members just do not seem to get it? There is rising anger right across the country, and it is directed at Jeffrey Epstein and all the things that have been going on, but this is now primarily becoming focused on the Prime Minister. His position is becoming increasingly untenable but they are not seeing what is happening in the commentariat and the press. This is happening in real time.

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm, very clearly, from the Dispatch Box that any changes to ILR will be voted on by the whole House, giving all his colleagues in the Chamber tonight the opportunity to express their genuine hostility to these proposals?

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. When people are given security, it takes away that limbo. I do not know whether many people around this room can imagine that type of uncertain status, but that is what people have to live with every single day of their lives. Because of the proposed changes, people will remain for longer in the immigration system, where they face repeated applications, fees, health charges and often legal costs. Illness, injury or redundancy can throw everything into question, and it might even be penalised. What is most unforgiveable, though, is that the Government have left open the possibility that the changes could apply retrospectively to people who have already started their journey towards citizenship in the UK, and who are building their lives under the current rules. This is a profound betrayal of those who trusted the system and have made the UK their home. I have a large Sri Lankan community in my constituency. They are partly—almost exclusively—responsible for keeping our social care service together. I met them a couple of weeks ago, and they told me they are going home, just because of the threat of this. They have had enough. They do not want to be treated like this any more. They are refusing to go along with this, and I have to say I do not blame them, but I worry: where we will get the staff to replace them in a Scotland that is in the early stages of depopulation and has some of the most challenging demographics in the whole of western Europe? They are irreplaceable. Migrant families are already in survival mode, working long hours in low-wage jobs, saving for Home Office fees and living in insecure housing. Some risk destitution simply to keep up with the cost of maintaining lawful status. These pressures leave them with little time or energy to contribute to the volunteer initiatives that will be required of them. They have grown up here, and they have no home but this. It is so encouraging to see so many Labour Members here today. I say to them: “Get down to the PLP this evening and put your case forward. Let’s make sure that they know the voice of the Labour Members of this House—and please, for goodness’ sake, get another one of those famous U-turns.”

• 2 Feb 2026 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Of all the grotesque and grim things that have been conducted by the Labour and Conservative parties in the race to the bottom with Reform, this is by the far the grimmest and most grotesque. In my constituency, I have met countless families who will be on the wrong side of this—families who do not deserve any of it, and have done everything asked of them. They work, they study, their children speak with a Scottish accent, and Scotland is the only home that many of them have ever known. They are cherished members of our community, yet many of them still wake up every morning unsure whether the life they are building for themselves and their family will be taken away. That is why indefinite leave to remain matters: it is the difference between planning for the future and simply enduring the present.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Police Reform White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Over the weekend, the Home Secretary was trailing this proposal as a British FBI. While it might indeed be their FBI, British it most definitely is not, as it applies only to England and Wales. In Scotland, we are immensely proud of our culture and ethos of policing by consent and the fact that we have the lowest crime rates in the whole of the UK. The last thing we want is this creeping Americanisation. Can she say today—clearly and concisely—that this proposal will not apply to Scotland and no attempt will be made to foist it on us?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We support this Bill and its efforts to tackle cyber-security, but it does not address the mass unauthorised scraping of trusted news content by generative AI systems. That content, as the Minister knows, is often taken without consent or compensation. As the Bill progresses, will he be prepared to look at some measures—maybe something like a bot register where people have to declare their intent when it comes to this type of activity? Will the Government look at this seriously so that news can be protected in this new environment?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Venezuela · Hansard source

  More

  It would be hard to find an occasion on which a British Prime Minister has looked as irrelevant and spineless on an era-defining international issue as this one does on this occasion. We are witnessing an existential threat to the international rules-based order, and the Prime Minister cannot rouse himself to give it even the meekest of defences. France, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and the UN Secretary-General have all been clear that the Trump Administration have violated international law. When will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary find their voices and join that chorus of condemnation?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Asylum Hotels · Hansard source

  More

  Those protesting at hotels are usually there because they have been served misinformation and far-right political rhetoric by those with sinister political agendas. One way we found to tackle that is to give proper information—tell the stories of what drove people to this country and the real conditions in their homelands. Will the Minister consider doing a similar type of initiative to dampen down some of the misinformation and terrible political rhetoric that we get at these asylum hotels?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Access to Arts and Culture · Hansard source

  More

  UK Music’s excellent “This is Music” report found that it has become increasingly difficult for new musical artists to be heard and for careers to be built. Recompense through streaming services is minuscule and artist remuneration a real issue. On the live side, Brexit has made touring the EU almost impossible, and grassroots venues continue to close. Does the Secretary of State recognise that without meaningful action, we risk creating a music industry where only the privileged and rich can afford to build a career?