Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Jun 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I whole- heartedly congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on the customarily forthright and direct way in which he opened the debate. I agree with all the points he made; he would expect that of me, as his loyal deputy on the all-party parliamentary group. It is great that we have heard so many solid and significant contributions today. Once we are a couple of hours into a debate, we start to get a feeling for how it is going, the emerging themes and the sense of direction. We all acknowledge and appreciate the huge progress that has been made. When I started out on this campaign more than 20 years ago, I would never have believed that we could get to this point, at which payments are being made to those impacted and those affected. The Minister is starting to hear that the same issues are emerging. Constituents are experiencing the same complications and difficulties, and the same representations are being made. I will not touch on those, because so many have been raised, but I might just reinforce some of the points made. The Minister is beginning to hear a chorus of things that need to be addressed—and addressed they must be. We are on the cusp of having something of which we can be proud—of this House having addressed one of the biggest scandals that we have ever experienced in parliamentary life. We took control of it; we handled it; we got a report and an inquiry; and we got billions of pounds of compensation. We have the opportunity to pay that compensation right now, and I hope that the Government grab it. I pay tribute to IBCA for the work that it has done. It is amazing that we have put together the infrastructure and a support scheme as quickly as we have. IBCA has done remarkable work in such a short time. It is starting to deliver, and I think we are all immensely pleased and proud that this House has collectively been able to construct it, and to make sure that it is functional and works. I have visited IBCA on a couple of occasions, and I have met the staff and discussed many of these issues with them. I recognise their sheer dedication to the work that they are pursuing, in the best interests of everybody whom they serve; and their commitment, as an arm’s length body. It is amazing that we have got here, but it was not always like this. I remember what happened back in the early 2000s. I am looking at the chair of the APPG, my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, and he will remember this, too. We were fobbed off, disregarded and lied to when we took up the cases of our constituents. They presented to us at our various surgeries with these unexplained difficulties and complications. They would say, “How did I get HIV?”, or “I’ve got hepatitis. I do not know how on earth this happened.” We would write to successive Ministers in the Department of Health, making representations, and asking for assistance or acknowledgement, only to be told that they were not interested, and that there was nothing to see here. They would say, “Move along. We are not prepared to take this up. Believe me, we are doing everything in our power, and there’s really nothing to acknowledge.” For years, we were fobbed off and disregarded, and for years, we fought on. Over the years, I have got to know the campaigners. They came together with a common purpose, determined to get to the heart of the issue and to support each other. We call them the community, and we could not find a better community than the campaigners who have led this, been at the forefront, and refused to accept “No”. They are people with different lives from different backgrounds, but they all carry the burden of what happened to them. All of them are still here, fighting the good fight, determined to get justice for the whole community, and that whole community is the key thing today. I was the APPG chair for all those years, and the community has some of the finest people I have ever encountered. I have seen lots of campaigns in this House, and I have seen how people approach these issues, how they take them forward, how they engage and how they access their Members of Parliament to make sure that things are done. It is the most fantastic campaign we have ever had. Unfortunately, I could not make the ceremony at St Paul’s, as I was recovering from an illness, but I know from friends, colleagues and campaigners who were there the importance to them of that ceremony, where they were recognised as a community for their work. There have been high points, and we should acknowledge that. Few of us would have expected Theresa May to have made the announcement back in 2017 that there was to be a full inquiry. A lot of us were surprised that she chose Sir Brian Langstaff to lead it, and lead it he did. Like many people in this debate, I listened to lots of the evidence in the inquiry sessions, and I cheered along with the community when the report was produced. I was in this House when the report was launched, and the Government took full responsibility and said that there would be a full repayment scheme and that people would get what they should. Those were great days, met with real enthusiasm and euphoria by those who have campaigned. There have been good days, but we have to address the biggest issue. It has been mentioned on several occasions, so I will not labour the point, but people have been waiting decades. Even at this point, the majority of these people are still waiting just to start their claim. That is not to receive compensation—we might think that we would be at that stage now—but just to get into the system. Even at this stage, only a relatively small number have been paid. People have mentioned that these are real people—people who are unwell and who know that time is not on their side. I do not know which Member mentioned it, but people are dying weekly because they are not having their situation attended to and their payments made. Families still have no clarity about when their case will move forward. That is made worse by what is being asked of them. I have been surprised—I have listened carefully to colleagues who have raised this—that we see people being asked for evidence that in many cases simply does not exist. They have been asked for records from decades ago, such as proof of cohabitation between parents and children in the 1980s. Those things were probably never properly recorded in the first place, and if they had been, it may have been lost over time. That means that so many people are being delayed or sometimes shut out completely because they cannot meet requirements that are not realistic. In some cases, people run into a purely arbitrary administrative date, rather than when harm was actually suffered. Members have mentioned the bereaved families in whose cases support can stop at the point of death rather than reflecting the full impact of what has been lost. Another theme that has developed—I think it was the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) who raised this in particular—is the growing concern about those with hepatitis C who were treated with interferon. That has to be addressed. Of all the issues that have started to emerge, that is the one that the community in general wants us to press as strongly and as directly as we can with the Minister. I hope that we get some satisfaction.

• 18 Jun 2026 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  Interferon was introduced as almost like a chemotherapy drug back in the day, and some of its impacts and consequences have been similar to the side effects and impacts of chemotherapy. Physically and mentally, the effects are often severe and long-lasting. When the Minister is on his feet, perhaps he can explain a little more about what he intends to do with this group and this community. The Government have introduced a new level 2B to recognise some of these harms, and my understanding is that it provides a temporary uplift, but it seems to apply only in certain circumstances. What it does not seem to do—I have read about it carefully—is reflect the long-term reality for many. The argument appears to be that the higher category covers just about everything else when it comes to interferon treatment for hepatitis C, and that levels 3 and 4 already take interferon into account. My colleagues in Haemophilia Scotland asked for the evidence showing how that was factored in, and none was provided, so can the Minister tell us a more about that evidence in relation to levels 3 and 4? A similar set of concerns relate to unethical research, as we have heard. The Government have expanded eligibility and increased awards. That is welcome in principle, because it means that people are recognised without having to jump over additional evidential hurdles, but there is still a lack of clarity as to whether the level of award properly reflects what actually happened to people. The issue seems to be the arbitrary 1985 cut-off date. Perhaps the Minister can provide clarity. Officials say that there is no evidence of unethical research beyond that point, but the inquiry itself referred to evidence beyond that date, and even up to the 1990s, of children being recruited without proper information or consent. Why did the Government arrive at 1985 as a cut-off date for eligibility for unethical research awards, given that there is evidence that unethical trials and research continued well into the 1990s? There are also ongoing concerns about estate claims, because the structure of the payments could disadvantage those who died earlier, and about unpaid care over the years. That, again, has been reflected by several hon. Members. A few people referred to some of the different schemes around the devolved nations. I am particularly proud of what we did in the Scottish Parliament, and the Minister will be aware of the bespoke schemes across the whole United Kingdom, not just in Scotland. The one that particularly worked in Scotland—I want the Minister’s response regarding what has happened to it—is the special category mechanism known as the severely affected category. This was open to people who had significant problems and issues; they could apply, and were given an increased payout and support. That has since been subsumed under the general supplementary scheme; that scheme is welcome, but this is disadvantageous compared with the superior scheme in Scotland. Those who were initially on that superior scheme have been kept on it, but those who wished to apply for it have to go through bigger hoops and hurdles to get there. We need to know that scheme will still be available and that it will be easier for people to apply to it, because we were particularly pleased about the way it operated in Scotland. Let me turn finally to accountability. Throughout the decades, the Government repeatedly dismissed those asking questions and trying to achieve justice. The final report acknowledged that the infected and the affected were fed lies and lines, and that serious concerns were dismissed outright. We have to address this. We cannot leave it. We have to look at how we get round some of the things that were encountered. I remember the letters I got from various Government Ministers: “The Government do not accept that any wrongful practices were employed and do not consider that a public inquiry is justified.” I got that for years, every time I raised these issues on behalf of a constituent. I listened carefully to the infected blood inquiry. The evidence I found most compelling was from a certain Andy Burnham, who was Health Minister at one point during that period—I believe he is in the news today for some other reason, not particularly related to this. I remember Andy Burnham candidly telling the inquiry that he now knew that the lines he had been given by senior officials in the civil service were wrong, and that he had sent lies to me and other Members who raised these issues in Parliament. That is what he said, in effect, in evidence to the inquiry. That is simply unacceptable. The current Ministers are probably much better than their predecessors, and will look carefully at what comes across their desks, but this must not be allowed to happen again. That is why we need a statutory duty of candour on all public officials, including civil servants and senior civil servants. More than that, we need an independent compensation body to oversee all Government compensation schemes. Such a body would retain expertise and experience, would save time and money when schemes are set up, and would be capable of ramping up and down according to need. The Hillsborough law must be enacted without delay, introducing a duty of candour for everybody involved in public life. A national oversight mechanism should be established to monitor and scrutinise the implementation of recommendations from all public inquiries and hold the Government to account. After all this, it is hard to believe that the first meeting I had about the issue was back in about 2004, with a lovely lady from Blairgowrie, in my old constituency. She came to see me in what could only be described as a hell of a state; she could not account for why she had HIV following a blood transfusion after a medical emergency. It was because of her that I started to get involved in all this, tried to find answers and tried to ensure that campaigners got justice. The name of that lady was Tricia Titheridge. After contracting HIV, she died in 2013, without seeing the huge progress that we have made. It is because of people like Tricia that we are all still here—still fighting to ensure that everybody is included and that there is a scheme that works for all our constituents. Looking at the Minister and knowing the qualities that he will bring to this job, I am pretty certain that he is going to be the man who delivers this for everybody, meets our concerns and looks at the difficulties we have presented today.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Pride in Place Programme · Hansard source

  More

  Perth is still the only city in Scotland that has not received one penny from the Conservatives’ levelling-up fund or the Government’s Pride in Place programme. When I wrote to the Minister at the last allocation, she told me that we did not meet the methodologies or indices of deprivation. The Secretary of State was once a failed candidate in the city of Perth and surely noticed that we have poverty, just like every other city in Scotland. Why have we not received a penny, and when will we get our share?

• 23 Mar 2026 · Hatzola Ambulance Attack · Hansard source

  More

  What happened at Golders Green this morning was simply sickening and abhorrent, and the rise of antisemitism should alarm all of us in the House. The recent attacks on the Jewish community have been national and international in scope, and we simply do not know where the next attack might be. Will the Minister assure me that he is working with police forces right across the United Kingdom and doing everything possible to share information and seek co-operation when required?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is spot on, and entirely right to raise those issues. The changes will effectively retraumatise so many asylum seekers and refugees who have already experienced of all sorts of abusive arrangements. I am glad the Minister is here to listen to the hon. Lady’s remarks. Only a couple of days after the announcement on refugee status, the Home Secretary announced what she called an “emergency brake” on visa applications from nationals from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Myanmar and Sudan. Those are some of the most dangerous countries in the world, where conflict, oppression and human rights abuses are an everyday feature and continue to drive people from their homes. The Home Secretary says she wants to expand safe and legal routes, but at one stroke she took away meaningful safe and legal routes from some of the most dangerous countries in the world. Not content with that, the Home Secretary then went on to announce a pilot scheme offering financial inducements for failed asylum seekers to return to their country of origin. It was a voluntary scheme, but only in the context of, “If you refuse that inducement, you may be forcibly removed.” The proposal is chillingly reminiscent of what we are seeing in the United States, where Trump’s paramilitary Immigration and Customs Enforcement force is forcibly evicting people who are on the wrong side of the refugee and asylum system there. The Home Secretary actually said—I could not believe it when I heard it—that she is currently consulting on how removals can be carried out “humanely and effectively”, particularly where children are involved. Let us pause and think for a minute about the forcible removal of families in the United Kingdom where children might be involved. Even after that—this was in only one week—it went on. Next, the Home Secretary announced changes to the law that will mean it is no longer a legal duty to provide financial support to asylum seekers. Payments will stop for anyone working illegally, anyone convicted of a crime or anyone with independent financial means. I am sure people listen to that and think, “That sounds fair enough and pretty reasonable. If people are in any of those categories, it’s quite right that they shouldn’t receive Government support.” But that is only until we consider what is required for an asylum seeker to work in the United Kingdom. They can work only with the permission of the Home Office, and securing that permission is a complex, byzantine, bureaucratic task that some people in the asylum community say is barely possible. The only thing that will be achieved is more people being put into destitution. If we look at the Trussell Trust or any of the food banks, we see that the number of asylum seekers who are now seeking assistance and help is going through the roof—and it will only go further.

• 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—

• 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.

• 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.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Council of Europe and the European Convention on Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate. When politicians such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), Conservative Members or, indeed, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) want us to leave the European convention on human rights, it tells us something quite reassuring, which is that the ECHR is doing precisely the job it was designed to do to protect all of us from the whims of tinpot populists like the hon. Member for Clacton. When parties such as Reform, and indeed the Conservative party, rail against the ECHR, it tells us everything we need to know about why it is so desperately required. Those politicians want to remove our basic rights in order to leave the disadvantaged unprotected and their authoritarian tendencies unchallenged. It is in situations like this, when our human rights are most under attack, that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they are preserved. Let us remind ourselves of the company that the hon. Member for Clacton wants to keep: Russia and Belarus—perhaps that should not surprise us either. He spends half his time as an apologist for the Kremlin, and he has the slight inconvenience of his party’s treasurer in Wales having been found guilty of taking bribes from Russian interests. Let us remind ourselves what this is all about. The ECHR was created from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to ensure that the atrocities of that dark time could never be repeated. It enshrines our freedoms of speech, to assemble, to worship, to protest and to live our private lives free from interference, and it is a living instrument that evolves as our society evolves. It is everything that the populists despise. Most of the time, we are not aware of the ECHR—most of our constituents probably do not know what is actually in the document—but it is always there, guaranteeing our freedoms and our rights. It does not seek attention; it simply ensures that the Government—any Government—act in a way that respects our rights. It is our silent guardian. Leaving the ECHR will not stop the boats or allow the Government to deport masses of our fellow citizens, but it will tear holes in our domestic law. Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in just 13 cases, only four of them concerning family life. But those politicians do not just want to leave the ECHR; they want to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 as well. They would seek to abolish its 16 core protections, leaving the UK as about the only country with no chapter on human rights. I say this to Labour Members: instead of fully defending the ECHR, the Government accept the premise that there is something wrong with it—that it needs to be amended and made compliant with Government interests. They talk about article 8 as being redefined—

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Just to explain why Labour is not in power and we are, I will list a few things we have done for the Scottish people and see what the hon. Member thinks: free tuition, free personal care, 1,100—

• 22 Oct 2025 · Devolution in Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member recognise the over 100 SNP achievements? I could list them if she wants, but I am not going to be allowed to do so. Does she recognise the real gains and progress that we have made in Scotland? [ Interruption. ] I know Labour Members like to shout down SNP Members—they are sitting here doing their usual gurn fest—but our substantial achievements surely should be recognised by the Labour party.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate all Members who have secured funding in this pride in place settlement, but once again Perth and Kinross has been totally and utterly ignored. We did not receive one penny in levelling-up funding from the Tories, and we have received nothing from this Labour Government. Worse than that, they actually took away from Perth and Kinross the £5 million that we had finally secured from the Conservatives. The people of Perth and Kinross are sick and tired of being ignored in this merry-go-round of pork barrel politics. When are we going to get our share, and just what have the UK Government got against the people of Perth and Kinross?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  First, on behalf of the Scottish National party, I join the Home Secretary in expressing our solidarity with the Jewish community after the horror of the appalling events at the Heaton Park synagogue. Such antisemitic hate must never be allowed to prevail or divide us. In Scotland, the police have increased security in our centres of faith, and have asked the public to remain vigilant following the attack. However, does the Home Secretary not see that by cracking down on our legitimate right to protest, she is simply giving succour to the haters, allowing them to dictate our approach to protest, and to alter basic freedoms that we have always enjoyed? Surely that cannot be the Government’s intention.

• 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?

• 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.