Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) not only on this debate, but on his birthday—I hope he goes on to enjoy himself much more than sitting in Westminster Hall for the rest of the day. Of all the issues that the Government thought they would be confronting nine months after being elected, I do not think they thought they would be in some sort of spat with the creative industries, finding that they, almost as one voice, have real difficulties and issues with the Government initiative. First, we have to pay tribute to the wonderful campaign that has been mounted over the past few weeks and months from all our artists and creatives. When everybody from Thom Yorke to Rupert Murdoch, from Paul McCartney to the director general of the BBC is upset, there really are difficulties. The Government asked the creative industries what they thought of their proposals, particularly of their preferred opt-out plan, and like a finely tuned chorus, the creative sector came back as one and told them it does not like it one bit. Our constituents have been magnificent in the way that they have responded. For the 20-odd years I have been in Parliament I have tried to evangelise about the role of IP and the value of copyright, but one thing that has come out of this consultation is that, inadvertently, this Government’s clumsy attempt to martial this debate has made our constituents realise the value of copyright. They have got behind it and started to understand it and see that it is the basis of all the wonderful works they enjoy throughout their lives. They know it is our gold-standard copyright regime that gives our artists protection and renumeration and ensures that they are rewarded for producing all these wonderful works. One good thing that has come out of this is that the value of copyright has now started to be seen by all our constituents. The Government are sincere in trying to bridge the gap between artificial intelligence and the creative industries, and they want to satisfy all sectors, but we have to see what we are up against—just have a look at some of the big tech companies’ submissions to the consultation. Have a look at OpenAI’s submission—even the opt-out proposal is too far for it; it wants unfettered access to our cultural treasure trove, without any inhibitions or difficulty. The first thing that the Minister has to say to the big AI companies is that our creative heritage—everything we have built in the past few decades—is not there to be plundered and taken for nothing. We must make progress, and I really hope that the Government now decide that they will not pursue the opt-out proposal—it cannot work; there is no way that it could be a technical solution. We have seen that within the EU. The Government have to drop it. Look at this licensing system—the Minister has talked about it consistently in the past few weeks and months. Let us make sure that we unravel the idea of copyright from that of transparency; we have to make sure that those are separated. Let us use the Data (Use and Access) Bill—it is there in front of us, so why cannot we use it to make real progress on this issue?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Intellectual Property: Artificial Intelligence · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Supporting Musicians · Hansard source

  More

  For the first time since 2003, no UK artist has made it into the world top 10 album or singles charts. That is partly down to effectively closing the EU to touring artists, where followings now cannot get built and remuneration is not made for artists. The Minister promised to fix this. When will we get our artists back into Europe?

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

  More

  Today, the consultation on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020—introduced by Boris Johnson to constrain devolution at the height of the Brexit chaos—closes. That Act is equally loathed by the SNP Scottish Government and the Labour Welsh Government. For some reason, abolition of the UK internal market was not included in the consultation’s terms of reference, so when the Government respond to the consultation, will they make sure that that option appears and that we get the opportunity to get rid of that awful, devolution-destroying Act?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Asylum Policy: Refugee Convention · Hansard source

  More

  One of the most shocking and egregious things this Government have done is impose a blanket ban on British citizenship for all individuals who have entered the UK irregularly, without any parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation, effectively disenfranchising all asylum seekers and refugees, including those who have made this country their home for years. The Refugee Council estimates that up to 71,000 refugees who have already been granted asylum could now be blocked from securing naturalisation. The Minister knows that there are no safe routes to get to the UK, so nearly all asylum seekers have to arrive irregularly. Surely the policy clearly breaches article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, which prohibits penalising those seeking protection for their mode of entry? [Interruption.]

• 31 Mar 2025 · Asylum Policy: Refugee Convention · Hansard source

  More

  11. Whether she has received legal advice on the compatibility of recent changes to her Department’s guidance entitled “Good character: caseworker guidance”, updated on 10 February 2025, with the 1951 refugee convention.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Asylum Hotels and Illegal Channel Crossings · Hansard source

  More

  During Committee proceedings on the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, I said to the Minister that it would only be a matter of time before the Government concocted some sort of Rwanda-style deportation scheme. Even I did not think that it would come so quickly, if weekend press reports are to be believed. Can the Minister say that those reports are totally not true, and will she now rule out ever implementing a third country deportation scheme like the one introduced by the Conservatives?

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  What the Minister has just said will come as a crushing blow to all the Europhiles in the Labour party that we have heard from—no ambition for the single market or the customs union—but will she at least suggest that she will possibly look at a youth mobility scheme?

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  I remind Labour Members that the petition actually reads: “Apply for the UK to join the European Union as a full member as soon as possible”. There are two key parts to it: “as a full member” and “as soon as possible”. It does not ask for a positive and good reset, but for the UK to rejoin the EU. That is the sort of territory that we must start to get back into, and that will come only from Labour Members. They have such a huge majority that if they all come together and ensure that we have a collective voice on that point, it will make a difference. I encourage Labour Members to pursue this issue and keep on taking it to their Government—to argue with passion and conviction that they want the UK to be back in the European Union. That is the only thing that will satisfy the petitioners, because that is what they want. As has been rightly said, the UK public are way ahead of the House on this issue; some 60% of them now want the UK to rejoin the European Union. We should look at what they want. If one of the parties—just one—were to say, “We are totally committed to full EU membership,” that would be immensely popular; it would go with the grain of public opinion throughout the United Kingdom. I say to Labour Members that economic growth has been pretty hard to find; they have not been able to do much in the past few months, and we have another reset coming up on Wednesday. When it comes to the economic conditions of this country, addressing Brexit and rejoining the single market would unlock massive investment for the United Kingdom and get us back on our feet again—that is where economic growth could come from. Labour Members have to look at this issue as a way to address some of the economic difficulties that they find themselves in. I am encouraged that we now have group of Labour Members of Parliament who are sincere in their desire to rejoin the European Union. That does not have to happen tomorrow or next year, but the Government have to say today that it is their intention to rejoin the European Union as a full member. That is what the petitioners are asking for, and, if I have it correctly, they want it to happen as soon as possible.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot believe we are still debating that. What happened that day, and this is my final word on the issue—the hon. Gentleman was not there, but I was—is that the vote was on a customs union, not the customs union. That proposition was unacceptable to us and other colleagues across the House. Now I have dealt with that myth, and now it is out of the way, let us get back to the beginning. That was a disappointing intervention, because I am actually praising Labour Members. I am saying that there is hope at last for those of us who want to return to the European Union, and that is great.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think that anyone in this Chamber, or the petitioners, expects the Labour party to lead us back into the EU tomorrow. What we want to hear from this Labour Government is a commitment that that is their objective and that is what they will work towards.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is doing a valiant job of introducing the debate. Does he agree that a Government who are not even prepared to countenance a youth mobility scheme to try to reset the relationship will not get far? We will certainly not get into the territory of what we really need, which is re-entry to the single market and the customs union. That is where we should look to make progress.

• 24 Mar 2025 · European Union: UK Membership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I have listened very carefully to all the speeches today. Some were fine; some were perhaps not so fine. And I have to say that I am not entirely sure where we are. I do not know what to make of this debate. I am really confused, and I hope the winding-up speeches will help me to get a better understanding of where the House is. I say that because I heard Labour say throughout last year’s general election campaign that the only important thing are the red lines. It was all about not joining the single market or the customs union, and that was about it. As the months passed, we started to hear about this reset, and I thought, “Okay, let’s examine this. What does it mean? What are we going to get from this reset?” We have found that it is not very much. For this Government, a “reset” is the EU doing this Government some sort of favour to mitigate some of the impacts of Brexit without the Government giving anything back in return. People have raised the issues of touring musicians and the youth mobility scheme, with both of which I am particularly associated. I do not know if I have mentioned it before, but I was a rock musician back in the day and toured Europe extensively. These two issues are related, because a negotiation started to happen within the EU. There was a sense that, in return for offering a youth mobility scheme to Europe, we would secure the rights for our artists to tour freely within the European Union once again, and that some sort of creative passport and visa would be given to our bands so they could once again have the pleasure of playing within the European Union. However, that was rejected out of hand. The Government were not interested, and these are their last words when it comes to a youth mobility scheme: “We do not have plans for a youth mobility agreement.” I say to Labour Members and colleagues in the Chamber today that I am encouraged by their enthusiasm for the European Union. I take heart from the fact they are starting to talk again about the single market and the customs union. And I say sincerely to them, “Go for it! Please, go for it! You’re our only hope.”

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is not a holiday; it is a funeral.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am struggling to understand this new clause. There are a number of reasons why other countries may not be able co-operate with the UK on immigration and visa cases—it could be political instability, or there could be a right-wing despot in charge—but that impacts on ordinary asylum seekers. Does the hon. Lady not accept that there are a number of political or even administrative reasons why they are not always able to co-operate?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I was not going to speak to the new clause; I was just going to let the hon. Gentleman drone on, in the hope that we could possibly get away on Thursday morning, but I have been irked to my feet. I am not sure whether I prefer the new loquacious hon. Member for Stockton West. I do not know what he has done about his speechwriting, but I preferred the version that we had last week. That was probably more in keeping with the Conservatives’ contributions to this Committee. This is a horrible new clause, which penalises lower-income workers, deters skilled immigration and harms vulnerable groups. The retrospective nature of some of the provisions is simply absurd, and would lead only to legal challenges and all sorts of administrative complications. The new clause would introduce retrospective punishments, taking ILR away from individuals who had received it under the previous rules simply because a future Government—thank goodness this will never be so—had later decided to raise the bar. People make long-term decisions to buy homes, raise families and contribute to communities based on the stability of ILR. Changing the rules after the fact destroys trust in the whole system. The proposal sets an arbitrary income threshold of £38,700, meaning that a nurse, teacher or social worker—people the UK depends on—could lose their ILR. Many industries, including healthcare, hospitality and retail have workers earning below that level. Are we really saying that under no circumstances would they be welcome? The proposal also ignores economic realities. People face job losses, illness or temporary hardships. Should losing a job also mean losing the right to live in the UK? New clause 32 states that ILR should be revoked if a person has received any sort of “social protection”, including housing support. This would punish people who have worked hard and contributed but who need temporary support due to circumstances often beyond their control. It targets families, disabled people and those facing financial hardship, effectively saying, “If you need help, you don’t belong here.” Skilled workers, investors and entrepreneurs want certainty. If they fear that a downturn in income or a short period of hardship could see them lose their right to remain, they will choose other countries over the UK. As we have also heard, how can this be enforced? Constantly monitoring ILR-holders’ income, benefits and job status would be an administrative disaster; it would be costly, error prone and unfairly target individuals. This new clause is simply cruel. It is unnecessary and unworkable, and I hope that it is rejected out of hand.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  While the Minister is on her feet, could she perhaps ask the Opposition spokesperson whether he actually means hotels?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am compelled again to rise in opposition to what is probably the most egregious of all the new clauses that we are having to consider in today’s marshalled groups. The hon. Gentleman has laid some competition before us, but this new clause is by far the most disgraceful and appalling. The Human Rights Act is an important guarantee. It is what makes us good world citizens and provides rights that are universal. It protects fundamental freedoms such as the right to life, the prohibition on torture and the right to a fair trial—and the Tories do not like it one bit. The right-wing nonsense that we heard from the hon. Gentleman is a fundamental departure from the principle that human rights apply universally, not just to those the Government deem worthy. It is a dangerous precedent that undermines the UK’s long-standing commitment to justice, fairness and the rule of law.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  We really cannot let them away with this, because it is just cruelty personified. Would the hon. Gentleman not make every effort and take every risk to return to his country of origin if it were the funeral of his mother or father?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to detain the Committee for long with this amendment, but this is just another abhorrent amendment from the warped imagination of the Conservative party. I do not know where they come up with things like this. They would have to be very creative and very cruel to propose something quite like this. The amendment would allow immigration enforcement officers to visit accommodation centres at any time without prior notice. Asylum seekers and other residents at these centres are often fleeing persecution, war and violence and will have suffered severe trauma. The constant threat of unannounced visits from immigration enforcement will create an atmosphere of fear, making it even more difficult for individuals to feel safe. Allowing immigration enforcement to visit any resident at any time is a clear violation of privacy. It undermines their dignity and wellbeing and could lead to harassment or increased surveillance, further marginalising already vulnerable populations. Vulnerable individuals should not be made to feel constantly watched or threatened by authorities, especially when they are seeking safety and stability. The presence of immigration enforcement officers may discourage asylum seekers and migrants from seeking support or reporting issues of abuse, exploitation or trafficking. All this could do is undermine the very support structures designed to help individuals rebuild their lives in the UK. The amendment lacks any clear safeguards or accountability mechanisms for how immigration enforcement would operate, and I urge the Committee to reject it. I hope it rejects the rest of the Conservative party’s amendments, too.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Just to clarify, I think the hon. Lady is saying clearly that what she intends to do is to take decisions about immigration out of the hands of judges, and leave them in the hands of politicians. Is that her intention?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Twelfth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I have studied this measure closely. Conditions change within the countries that people leave, and asylum status and human rights records change accordingly. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that there is no reason whatsoever that an asylum seeker may go back to their country of origin and then come back to the UK? What about family emergencies? Surely the Conservatives are not so callous as to suggest that people cannot go back to their country of origin for a family funeral, for example.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to new clause 43 on age determination by the Home Office. The one thing we can agree on with the Conservative Front Benchers is that my new clause could not be more different in objective and tone than what we have heard from the shadow Minister. My new clause aims to uphold a simple yet vital principle that no child should be wrongly treated as an adult, subjected to detention or placed in inappropriate accommodation, as happens right now. The new clause would ensure that the Home Office treats as an adult an individual who claims to be a child only in exceptional circumstances or following a Merton-compliant age assessment conducted by local authority social workers. Furthermore, any decision to treat a young person as an adult would have to be made by an appropriately trained official, with reasons recorded and subject to independent oversight. Where such a decision results in the person being placed in adult accommodation or detention, the relevant local authority would have to be notified immediately. Labour Members are right to have a go at the shadow Minister, but it is imperative that we get this right. This is life-determining and life-shaping for the individuals at the sharp end of these age assessments. The consequences of flawed age assessments at our borders are severe. Recent data reveals that between January and June 2024 alone, at least 262 children were wrongly assessed as adults and placed in adult accommodation or detention, exposing them to significant safeguarding risks including exploitation, violence and even criminal prosecution. It is worth noting that in many cases, those children endure months of uncertainty before being correctly identified and moved into appropriate care settings. Such errors not only violate child protection principles but undermine the credibility of our asylum system. The current process of visual assessment, often conducted at the border by immigration officers, is wholly inadequate. Assessments based solely on appearance and demeanour are inherently flawed and have led to serious misjudgments. International and domestic guidance is clear that age assessments should be undertaken only when necessary and should be conducted using holistic, multidisciplinary approaches, yet that is far from the reality. Concerns about visual assessments have been raised not just by non-governmental organisations, but by the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration, the Children’s Commissioner, parliamentary Committees and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. In response to those great concerns, the Government have argued that they are improving the age assessment process through the national age assessment board, and by introducing scientific methods of assessing age—we are back to that debate again. It is important to note that neither of those initiatives has any impact on visual assessments made by officials at the border. Biological methods such as dental X-rays and bone age assessment remain highly unreliable, as medical and scientific bodies repeatedly state. I listened to the hon. Member for Stockton West make great play of saying that that is what all of Europe does, but there are countless cases that the EU and other European nations have got wrong. I can send them to him; he can spend most of the day looking at them. They get cases wrong, just as we do with visual assessments. It is right that in this Bill the Government seek to repeal clause 58 of the Illegal Migration Act, which would have meant that children who refuse to undergo these invasive and questionable procedures are presumed to be adults by default—an approach that runs contrary to any safeguarding principles. The previous Government attempted to justify that policy by highlighting the risk of adults falsely claiming to be children to access benefits and services designed for minors. However, the reality is that the greater danger lies in the wrongful treatment of children as adults, which places them in unsafe environments, denies them their rights and can have devastating long-term consequences. The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs the number of cases where an adult has falsely claimed to be a child, so we have the balance totally wrong. Crucially, there are greater risks and consequences to placing a child among adults, where there are no safeguards in place, than to placing a young adult in local authority care. It is essential that we restore local authority-led age assessments as a primary mechanism for resolving age disputes. As child protection professionals, local authority social workers are best placed to conduct those assessments in a manner that is thorough, fair and in the child’s best interests. The new clause would ensure that young people who assert that they are children are treated as such unless and until a proper assessment proves otherwise. It also guarantees transparency, independent oversight and accountability in decision making, thereby restoring trust in the system.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  He doesn’t know!