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 · Belfast: Violent Disorder · Hansard source

  More

  In my 25 years as a Member of Parliament, I never thought I would see a situation where masked men would go from door to door, seeking to drive families from ethnic minorities out of their homes. What happened on Monday was truly barbaric, but nothing in the world could ever justify that type of behaviour. I and others in this House have been warning about the rise of the far right and those pernicious people who would influence this type of behaviour on our streets. Will the Minister now acknowledge that we have a new, emerging problem with elements of the far right, and will he commit to ensuring that we tackle it effectively?

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Order.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Atkinson, as you can see you have two and a half minutes.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Order. This has been a very good-natured debate and we have allowed everybody to be heard. Mr Allister expects the same courtesy.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Order.

• 8 Jun 2026 · Progression of Bills through Parliament · Hansard source

  More

  Order.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady want to intervene? Sorry; I thought she was making weird gestures at me, but obviously she is just looking at her phone. That is what is actually happening. As I have said to the Government at every opportunity —and I will say it again and again—they cannot beat Reform by emulating them. Reform can be beaten by challenging its agenda and dismantling its toxic ambitions. Reform cannot be beaten by marching on to its territory and fighting on its ground. All that does is legitimise its arguments and embolden its ambition. You would think, Mr Stringer, that after their absolute hammering at the by-election a couple of weeks ago by my colleagues in the Green party, the Government might just think, “Is this working for us? Is there a problem with the way we are positioning ourselves on the spectrum of UK politics?” They might have taken a cursory glance at what happened in Caerphilly, where my colleagues from Plaid Cymru hammered the Government and stood strong against Reform, and were rewarded by a stunning by-election victory. The Government’s strategy seems to be going on to Reform’s territory and trying to beat them. I say ever so gently to the Minister: regardless of how hard he tries—and he seems to be trying his utmost and damnedest—he will never out-Reform Reform, which is possibly to his credit. Reform are the absolute masters of sinister, poisonous right-wing ideology and, regardless of how hard the Government try, they will never beat Reform on that territory. The Government are chasing Reform down that road but not noticing something profound that is happening in British politics. In Scotland, we have a particularly sharp divide in our politics, based around the constitution, and a divide seems to be opening up in English politics. Let us look at who came first and second in the by-elections. On one side, it is the parties of the progressive ideals of unity, consensus and wanting a compassionate immigration system. On the other side stand the parties of the right—the authoritarians and those who believe immigration is a bad thing that has to be controlled and defeated. Labour is absolutely nowhere. It is fourth in the polls this morning. When is Labour going to have an opportunity to look at where it is? The dividing line is opening up, and Labour Members are all on the wrong side of it. Labour is seen to be part of a right-wing coalition; we hear that every time some right-wing Conservative or senior Member praises the Home Secretary to the rafters, and there is even praise from Reform. I am sure we will get more praise for the Home Secretary from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds). I hope he will indulge the House and tell us how wonderful he thinks these things are, because I know that privately he thinks what the Home Secretary is doing is brilliant. That is where Labour is now. We have a march and rally next Saturday, organised by the Together Alliance. We are all going to be there. We are going to stand up, proudly and defiantly, to the far right. We have a little group in Westminster—the parliamentary forum to take on the far right. Members should come and join us, because that is where the action is in this country now, and where it is increasingly going. Labour Members are going to have to get on the right side or they are going to be finished.

• 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 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.

• 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?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. That is the issue, and the Government seem cloth-eared about it. In Scotland, we will have to pass what is called a legislative consent motion to allow this to go through, given our responsibilities for devolved services. We are not going to do that. The Minister will have to decide whether he accepts the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament or whether he will do a Tory and impose it on us anyway. I challenge him to do that in the run-up to the Scottish election, because he will turn this into a nightmare for the Government and a constitutional nightmare for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). We do not want these things. We think they are thoroughly bad. We saw them off in the 2000s, and we will see them off again. The public hate them, and I believe the petition now has more than 3 million signatures, so we are getting there with the general campaign. I pity the Minister for having to take this through; he would have been much better off had he kept his place in the Scotland Office. We saw off ID cards in the 2000s. Twenty years on, whether it is plastic cards or digital apps, this is still a data-grabbing, liberty-eroding, multibillion-pound waste of time. We beat them in 2005; and the SNP, with our leadership of the campaign in this Parliament, will ensure that we see them off once again.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Mandatory Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  We are getting a little bit off-track, but I will answer that because the right hon. Gentleman needs an answer: no, I do not think that was a mistake. It was the correct thing to do. Mandatory digital ID would fundamentally change the trust-based relationship between citizen and state, replacing it with one of constant verification and oversight. Let us not forget about the danger of mission creep. Once this type of infrastructure exists, it rarely stays confined to its original purpose. The Government say that the police will not be able to demand to see a person’s digital ID, but does anyone seriously believe that will not change over time? This is about not just what this Government might do, but what every future Government might do. We are empowering not just this Labour Government, but every Government that will come after it. Imagine Prime Minister Farage, with all his authoritarian tendencies, with the data of the nation at his fingertips. It scares me half to death and it should scare the whole House half to death. Then there is the cost. The Government have been very coy about the cost. They are reluctant to give us even a ballpark figure, and they are absolutely right—those prepared to work out an estimate on their behalf have said that, initially, this could cost anything between £1.2 billion and £2 billion. That is a gross underestimate. Laughably, our friends in Labour Together told us that it would be £1.4 million. We need only look at the costs of the physical ID to get a sense of what it will eventually cost. The physical ID would cost £5.4 billion. Some people reckon it would get above £15 billion, possibly to £19 billion or £20 billion. Digital ID is much more technical and complicated to administer than the physical version. Do the sums work out? How much will this cost? All our constituents should be asking every Member of Parliament whether we should spend billions of pounds on a scheme that nobody wants and that there is no demand for when a cost of living crisis is raging in every single one of our constituencies. Are we seriously going to spend billions of pounds on an unpopular, crackbrained scheme that no one wants or needs? Then there is what is happening elsewhere. We have heard foreign examples to suggest that this is just business as normal for this Government. They are keen to promote the Estonia scheme. I have had a good look at Estonia. Estonia is 10 times more digitally engaged than the United Kingdom. It is an entirely different nation. But even with all their knowledge, experience and digital systems, there have been catastrophic data leaks, which has led to real problems and issues for the citizenry. Look across Europe: Europe, like Scotland, is developing its own type of digital wallet. That is the right thing to do. People like having these things in a digital wallet. The key difference is that it is not mandatory—we come back to that feature again. In Scotland, we are developing the ScotAccount, which has proven very popular. I encourage people to use it. There is nothing wrong with having things in a digital wallet. It becomes wrong only when it is made mandatory—when people are expected to carry one even though they do not want to.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?