Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

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

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

  More

  The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) is quite right: back in 2010, the Napster provision was first enacted through the Digital Economy Act. Such provision is possible, and I just do not understand the Minister’s reticence about this amendment. It seems an entirely reasonable amendment to bring forward—it does everything that everybody wants to achieve when it comes to this Bill. Even if the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, could he at least say that he accepts the principles of it and what it requires, and that he will do all he can to bring forward all the provisions it asks for?

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

  More

  I was not going to say anything in this round of ping pong, but a couple of things in the debate have tempted me to my feet. The first thing I want to say is about the House of Lords. I have to say that I congratulate their lordships on their tenacity on this issue; I think we both expected and presumed that they would have backed down a long time ago, but they have decided not to, and I think that is because of what I have heard today. They are backing the sector. It has been left to the Lords to ensure that the voices of our artists and those in our creative industries and sectors are adequately articulated and presented to Ministers, so I congratulate them on that. I say that as somebody who is no great respecter of the House of Lords—I have this cute little notion that someone serving in a legislature should be elected to that legislature. The Lords have done an exemplary job in all this, and they are entirely entitled to bring forward this matter again and again until the ministerial team find some sort of compromise, which, between the two of them, they will surely be able to do. This is the territory we are in now; this is the fourth round of ping pong. It is no good us just sending it back to the Lords again and again. The Government can insist and get their way, of course: they are the Government, and this is the primary House in our Parliament, so they can do that if they want. But why would they not sit down and work out a way forward that takes on board everything the Lords want to achieve and secure and that meets the noble ambitions and lofty rhetoric we have heard from those on the Government Front Bench today and the last few times this has been debated? I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment. It sounds like the Minister is inventing reasons as to why it could not be agreed to. The example from the Digital Economy Act is spot on: we were adaptable and did things as the situation required in order to meet the challenge of the time—a huge challenge, when digitisation was coming into our creative arts. This is a bigger challenge and test. This is more existential than the Digital Economy Act of 20 years ago, and that is why we must act now. People cannot wait. Our cultural heritage is being scraped and hoovered up by large tech companies, and soon there will be nothing left of it. Millions of creative artists are waiting for the Government to engage—to sort it out, compromise and do something with those with an interest in all this. The Government are convincing no one thus far; the creative industries do not believe that they have their best interests at heart or that we will have enough time to secure what is left of our cultural heritage. The Government should do something—do not just send the Bill away again, although they probably will, and have it come back to us. Sit down, compromise and get something sorted out and, for the sake of our creative industries, find a solution that works for everybody. Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 49F.

• 22 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Can we have a statement about political advertising and what is and is not acceptable? A disgusting, racist advert has been released by Reform in the Hamilton by-election in which a speech by the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, is selectively edited to question his identity and loyalty. We may disagree profoundly with Anas Sarwar on a range of issues, but he is a proud Scot, who always tries to put the interests of his country first. We in Scotland are united against that sort of gutter politics. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is everything that we in Scotland are not?

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I know the right hon. Gentleman does not change his mind, and it is something that we all love him for in this place. Maybe we should look forward to what is on its way in a couple of decades. I think he knows that a spectacular population decline will start to kick in around the mid-part of this century. Spain and Italy are already doing something about it. All we are doing in this place is stifling population growth through the two-child benefit cap—something that works contrary to what we require. All Labour is doing is climbing on the anti-immigrant bandwagon, and that is alienating its supporters. I am sure that everybody saw the Sky News report this morning on the intention of former Labour voters. Sky News found that only 6% of lost Labour voters have gone to Reform. Labour has mainly lost votes to the Liberal Democrats and the parties of the left. In fact, Labour has lost three times as many voters to the Liberal Democrats and the left as it has to Reform, and 70% of Labour voters are considering abandoning the Labour party to support the parties of the left.

• 21 May 2025 · Immigration · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot give way—I have no time. Ordinary Labour voters have good, liberal values, but just now they have a party that is not representing their views. That is why they are moving on. In Scotland, we take on Reform. We are one of the few parties across the United Kingdom that has steadied its own position, and we have even improved it slightly. There is a big gap between us and Reform. That is because we take on Reform’s arguments and we do not appease the party or go on to its agenda. I encourage Labour colleagues to think about that. We now have an immigration policy that is the exact opposite of what we need in Scotland, and it is contrary to our national interest. Scotland is in the early stages of the population and demography crisis, and it will only get worse because of what this Government are going to impose on us. We will soon have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population. For all three parties—Labour, the Conservatives and Reform—immigration is a burden and is out of control. For us in Scotland, it is essential to the health of our workforce and our economy. That is why we will never stop calling for a separate Scottish visa. We need the tools in our country to face up to our crisis. I will leave the Government to get on with their grotesque race to the bottom and to pander to Reform in a vain attempt to get some votes, but Scotland does not need their new “island of strangers” policy. It is contrary to what we want, so please leave us right out of it.

• 14 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I would always agree with the noble Lord Brennan. As somebody who played with him for many years in a parliamentary rock band, I think we all miss him in this House. He was spot-on when he said that: we have to act now. Even if the Government want to change copyright law—I still do not know whether that is their intention, and the creative sector strongly opposes that—it will be years before creators have the slightest hope of protecting their work against creative theft. This sector has seen its work taken, used and exploited by tech companies. They came into this process hoping that they would finally get some protection, but instead of being heard, their hopes have been set aside again. Lords amendment 49B does exactly what the sector has been calling for over many years. The fact that it has been tabled is a credit to the sustained campaign from our artists in the creative sector, who have organised themselves so efficiently and put such a compelling case. They have put so compelling and knowledgeable a case that our constituents have started to understand the complexities of copyright law, and they now realise its value in ensuring that the works of the artists they love, respect and like to listen to are recognised and that they will be compensated for their wonderful works. Despite what the Government say, merely enforcing the existing law will not be burdensome for AI firms, particularly as Lords amendment 49B allows the transparency requirements to be modified for small AI developers and for all UK-registered developers so that they are proportionate. This will prevent start-ups from being burdened with overly onerous regulation. In fact, all this proposal does is put UK start-ups on a level playing field with US tech giants that gain an unfair competitive advantage by ignoring copyright law. Transparency will make the legal risk of copyright infringement too great for AI firms to break the law. It will allow courts to hear cases quickly, establish precedent and kill any argument that there is uncertainty in UK law. If we can see what has been stolen, it is easier to stop its being stolen and to get redress when it continues to be stolen. It is now up to the Government to fix this. If they are serious about protecting our creative industries—they should be, and I accept that that is what they intend to do—then they cannot stop at working groups and economic impact assessments. That is the bare minimum; it is not, by any measure, enough. If this is the last opportunity we have to put the case, it is a black day for our creative sectors. They had hoped that this would be the day the Government appeared with something that satisfied at least some of their concerns. They deserve to have their work protected fairly. They were looking for anything from the Government to see that they were clearly on their side and were prepared to do something. I think we already know exactly what they will decide, but the Government now have a choice: remove Lords amendment 49B and turn their back on the creative industries, or find an actual way to protect our creative sector and make sure that they back it.

• 13 May 2025 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to pass on the sincere condolences of the Scottish National party to the family and friends of Roy Stone, and I really hope that they take comfort from today’s proceedings. We speak of Roy in such terms not just because we respected him, but because we liked him. He was a likeable guy who was great company and such fun to be with. I will never forget the kindness that Roy showed me as a new Member of this House, and as a recently installed Chief Whip who did not have a clue about House business or procedure. He patiently ran through how the House worked; getting a lesson from Roy Stone on parliamentary procedure is something that I will never forget. I was representing a group of five, and Roy had time for us all. The SNP finally got access to the usual channels when we became the third party in the House, and I was able to observe how effectively he did his work. I will never be in government, unlike others who are paying tribute today, but I saw how seamlessly Roy was able to serve Governments of different hues, and how the ship of state sailed on under his stewardship and command. Roy was the absolute epitome of public service and commitment to this House, which he loved, and we will all miss him dearly.

• 12 May 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to the new clauses and amendments in my name. I was going to congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on her maiden speech, but she seems to have joined her colleagues in the bar. I was going to tell her that she had achieved something quite notable: she has been able to force this Government to bring forward this immigration White Paper, as both the main parties try to outdo and triangulate the hon. Members from Reform, who are no longer in their places. May I just say to hon. Members on the Conservative and Labour Benches that they are more or less wasting my time: why would voters go for one of the diet versions when they could have the full-fat version in the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)? I have spoken at every stage of this Bill, including four interminable weeks and countless hours on the Public Bill Committee— [ Interruption. ] I wish I could say otherwise. Of course, for the Minister it was a positive experience, but for me it was nothing other than thoroughly frustrating, depressing and dispiriting. I have been appalled at the emerging casual and callous way that the most wretched people in the world are now portrayed and demonised, and I fear what this House now has in store for them. I despair at the lack of empathy and humanity that has been shown to some of the most desperate people in the world. I abhor the perception that essential human rights are considered a hinderance, to be dispensed with in the pursuit of even more cruelty and disregard. I think the House forgets that these are real people fleeing conflict, oppression and unimaginable horror. I rise to speak in support of my new clause 3, on safe routes, because I believe that is the only way we should deal with those people. What we have done just now is create a monopoly and exclusive rights for the gangs that operate the Channel crossings. There is no other way for asylum seekers to assert their asylum rights. When they have the opportunity to assert those rights, most of them have them granted, which makes a nonsense of the fact that asylum seekers are being termed “illegal immigrants.” Instead of smashing the gangs, the Government are actually giving them new opportunities and making their business model even more lucrative. I pay tribute to all the agencies and support organisations that helped me with these amendments and the amendments I tabled in Committee. Those groups are now in some sort of legal jeopardy because of some of the clauses in the Bill. Their opportunities to support the most desperate people in the world through advocacy and looking after their rights are now at risk because of some of the measures in the Bill. We are heading towards a particularly dark place in some of the considerations on these issues. I am impressed by some of the Labour speakers when they talk about immigration and say that we have to be very careful how we handle this debate as we go forward, but I am really feart just now. I listened to what the Prime Minister said this morning and was horrified by some of the language he conjured up, which we thought we had lost decades ago. This is the type of territory that we venture into with very great sensitively, and I am afraid that the Prime Minister lost that this afternoon. I hope that we have the opportunity to press these new clauses and amendments, secure the safe routes and ensure that we do everything we can for asylum seekers.

• 12 May 2025 · Immigration System · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s announcement, with all that appalling, dehumanising language from the Prime Minister, could not be more contrary to Scotland’s national interest. We have a population and demography crisis just now. We cannot get an adequate working-age population to look after our older cohort. Why is the Home Secretary introducing an immigration system that is contrary to everything that we need in Scotland? Why does she not give us the powers to grow our economy and public services, and why does she not give a jot about Scotland?

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Lady, and I will give her a personal example—I should have declared my interests, as set out in the register. Throughout at least the past five decades, artists have worked with the technology that is available. It is the first thing they turn to when going to the studio to make a new recording. The first thing they do in the film industry is to look for all sorts of innovation. It is absurd to suggest that somehow people who work in the creative sector will not embrace this new technology and use it for all its worth, so I fully accept what she said.

• 7 May 2025 · Data (Use and Access) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you ever so much, Madam Deputy Speaker—other matters we shall attend to. I speak in support of new clauses 2 to 6 and new clause 14, which I enthusiastically support. I believe that those new clauses represent our very last chance to guarantee at least a bit of security for our creative industries in the face of what can only be described as the almost existential threat posed by generative AI. This is critical. I listened to the Minister very carefully, but this lackadaisical approach and the progress he is intending do not properly reflect the scale of the threat and challenge that our creative industries are currently confronted with. I accept that we have come a long way in this debate, and I accept the positive tone the Minister tries to take when dealing with these issues. I believe that he is sincere about trying to find a solution—he wants to get to a place where both the AI companies and the creative industries are satisfied. I am not entirely sure that we will get to that place, but I wish him all the best in those efforts. We have certainly come a long way since the first statement we had in this House. I am sure that hon. Members will remember the belligerent way in which the Secretary of State presented that first statement— I am surprised that he is not here today. He was almost saying to the creative industries that they had to take it on the chin in order to satisfy this Government’s attempts to find some economic growth—which they have so far found elusive—in the shape of unfettered artificial intelligence, and that we should just get on with that agenda.

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

  More

  I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is saying. We are trying to offer solutions. We have identified a range of difficulties that we have as a nation. It is right and proper that they be examined, analysed and addressed. Then we get down to the business of fixing them, and that is what we are doing today. This Government are making our situation 10 times worse through their inept, callous and heinous attempt to socially engineer the benefit system to suppress our birth rate, at the very time when we need more children. We need larger families. All around Europe, countries face the same range of issues. What are they doing? They are not having a two-child benefit cap. They are incentivising young people to have children by giving tax breaks and positive benefits to make sure that the birth rate increases. What are the Labour Government doing in the UK? They are, shamefully, trying to suppress our birth rate. I challenge any of them to get to their feet and tell me how a two-child benefit cap helps to increase our birth rate in Scotland. Go on!

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

  More

  I think that we are going to have quite a few debates like this in the next few years, so I say this ever so candidly: that is a matter for the Scottish Parliament to resolve. The Secretary of State’s party is trying to become the party in government in Scotland next year, but his party does not have any imaginative solutions, so over the next year we will be testing his proposals and policies against what we are doing. If people in Scotland are attracted to the Secretary of State’s policies and proposals, they will vote Labour in, but I do not think that will happen, and I think, in his heart of hearts, he also believes that now. We only need to look at the last by-election result. So when we are elected to this House, let us deal with the things that matter to us, and nothing is more important than this issue. If we do not get this fixed, we will have serious issues and structural problems in our public services and our economy. I appeal to the House: let the Bill go through and then let us all work together to resolve the situation.

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

  More

  I am sorry—I thought I was going to get the figures. We do way beyond our national share when it comes to inward migration, so please let us have no more of this. Let us just agree that people come to Scotland and we want more to do so. Regardless of how successful we have been in attracting people, we are still in a situation of long-term population decline in Scotland. That is the population, but the demography of Scotland is a bigger horror story, and it is one thing that we really need to look at. Some 22% of Scotland’s population is over 65, which is one of the highest ratios in the whole of the western world—I think the figure for England is 17%. We have a birth rate of one child for every three women—again, one of the worst rates in the whole of the industrialised world. I do not need to lecture hon. Members about what the birth rate means. We need two children for every woman just to sustain the population at its current levels; a birth rate of one child for every three women cannot be sustainable. That is what makes the two-child benefit cap all the more absurd, heinous and callous. This Government are working contrary to what we need in Scotland to address some of these issues. Therefore, given our falling birth rate, we are entirely dependent on immigration to keep our population at current levels, and maybe to increase it modestly for the prospects of economic growth. One of the few ambitions and commitments that this Government are sticking to is to cut net migration—that is their absolute and utter mission. They will not even bring forward a youth mobility scheme in all its glory because of their concern about the impact on net migration. Scotland is burdened with an immigration system and a set of Government policies that make our situation so much worse. Why do you think that we consistently call for this power to be devolved? No Scottish Labour MP has stood up and opposed that commitment. If they are not going to do it, they should give the power to us and allow us to do so. All over the world, the populations of Western industrial countries are facing these difficulties. They have got the powers to address them—we have seen examples in Italy and Spain, which have particularly bad birth rates, almost on a par with what Scotland has. They have ministries devoted to trying to increase the birth rate and do something about the impending crisis that is coming their way. Even in China, population stagnation is beginning to take hold. The world population will stop growing in about 2055, and at that point there will be stagnation before rapid population fall. It is at the point where that curve starts to bend that we get stagnation, which is why nations are addressing the issues that they have. Have a look at Japan: historically resistant to immigration, Japan is going through a structural economic crisis because of its demography and population issues. Its population is due to fall by 20% in the next 10 years because of the falling birth rate. It is going to fall from third in the GDP rankings to 10th. That is what awaits the United Kingdom over the course of the next 20 or 30 years. This Government cannot look further than the nose on their face; all they are seeing just now is Reform, and all they are thinking about is, “How do we take them on; how do we beat them?” There is no strategic thinking or long-term vision about what we will do towards the end of the century when all of this starts to take hold. Nothing, no imagination, no inquiry, but this is where we are going. It might blow some Members’ minds, but towards the end of the century migrants might be at a premium and there will be a competition to try to get people into nations around the world. I know that is too much for them to start to contemplate just now, but that is where we are going. And yet for them the issue is about curbing migration. They see migration as a problem that has to be managed, with no concession or ground given to anything that might get in the way of the net migration figures. We are lumbered with that in Scotland. Where we want to move on and deal with our issues, we cannot do so but we should be able to do that. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry about the support that the measures in the Bill have in Scotland. That is no surprise because business organisations and think tanks have seen what is going on. They just need to look at some of our sectors to find that there is a crisis in practically every one and in our public services, so of course they support the measures. There is even political consensus in the Scottish Parliament that something needs to be done. The only thing is we need the UK Government to get on board, and the Bill before us today will help to achieve those goals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry conceded from the outset, the Bill is not perfect—it is a one-line Bill—but invitation is there to get it to Committee— [ Interruption. ] I say to Members on the Labour Benches, including the hon. Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley), colleagues from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, who are not here: we have identified the issue. If somebody thinks that we have got all of this wrong, I want to hear from them. I do not want to hear about what the Scottish Government are doing with ferries or whatever it is they want to talk about— [ Interruption. ] This is the thing, Madam Deputy Speaker—Government Members do not want to talk about the issues that are important to us in this House. They want to talk about stuff that is devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Is that because they think their Members of the Scottish Parliament are not up to the job, so Labour Members in this House have to constantly go on about those things? The Secretary of State can confirm, but I think Labour has about 50 MSPs up in Scotland. Why not let them get on with their jobs while we deal with the things that we need to fix down here?

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

  More

  I was going to leave that point until later in my speech, but the hon. Gentleman tempts me to get on to that territory now—he is obviously looking for some sort of solution. I will try to explain our plans and intentions to him as best I can, as well as where I think this matter should eventually go. When I chaired the Scottish Affairs Committee, we were lucky enough to go to Quebec to look at its state-wide immigration system, which is fantastic. Members should go to Montreal and have a look the construction there—it is a boom city. It is able to do that because the Quebecois state Parliament was able to gain control over immigration from the state Government. As a result, Quebec can appeal to Francophone Europe to think about settling there, thereby attracting the specific skills that are lacking. That has led to such incredible growth in Quebec, which is in charge of its immigration system. That works in Canada. Are we trying to suggest that what people call “the most powerful devolved Parliament in the world” could not come up with a similar or even more effective system than what we saw in Canada? That is what we can do if we have the imagination. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) asks how this would work. I think I heard somebody talk about border guards and passport controls between Scotland and England. In the past 10 years, Scotland has acquired significant new powers over taxation—we can have a debate about that at some other point—which has allowed us to set up Revenue Scotland, so all of us in Scotland have a different tax code from everybody else throughout the United Kingdom. That individual Scottish tax code allows us to know where people are living and working. If they have such a tax code, they are paying taxes in Scotland. If we had a Scottish visa, one of the conditions for people coming to Scotland from outwith the United Kingdom would be for them to have a Scottish tax code that would allow us to monitor where they are living and working. One of the conditions for their coming in would be to be resident and working in Scotland. If they broke the conditions for their entry to Scotland, they would no longer be entitled to a Scottish visa and would be made illegal. Who on earth would do that? Why would somebody not want the opportunity to live in Scotland. There are practical solutions that other nations use. Surely nobody is suggesting that Scotland could not introduce such a scheme. It has been done before. We have already talked about fresh talent. Labour has given Scotland an advantage in immigration before and could do it again. It is not beyond the wit of the Scottish nation to ensure that we have an immigration system and a specific tax code, but we need the means to do it. There is another issue that I wish to take on, which I addressed in response to an intervention, and that is the idea that Scotland does not get any migrants from the rest of the UK—that they do not want to come to Scotland. That is just utter bunkum and rubbish. I hope that, after this debate, that suggestion will never be made again, because it is just rubbish. I will give the House a few statistics. According to the National Records of Scotland, in the year leading up to mid-2022, net migration from the rest of the UK to Scotland increased to 12,500, up from 8,900 the previous year. The trend continued, with net internal migration rising to 13,900 in the year to June 2023—the last figures. [ Interruption. ] That is a 21-year high, and 39% higher than pre-pandemic levels.

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

  More

  I am almost grateful for the intervention, confused and clumsy as it was, because I have a solution for the hon. Gentleman. What we need when we face a crisis, as we do now, are solutions. What my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry has offered by starting this conversation is a way to deal with the issues we face in Scotland. Scotland is not unique; the same thing is happening throughout the whole western industrialised world. We face issues because birth rates across the world are falling calamitously. Every nation needs to do something about the conditions that they find themselves in. Today we are asking for a Scottish response to the distinct circumstances we are dealing with, because we have got it really bad. Our issues with the falling birth rate have been exacerbated, not by anything that the Scottish Government are doing, as Labour Members suggest, but because of what my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry said about Brexit. Brexit has killed our population sustainability and population growth.

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

  More

  Okay. Right, let us look at Scotland’s population then. Scotland’s population is probably in the region of 5.5 million. Some estimates are 5.43 million and some are 5.7 million. We have been in population decline since the latter part of the 20th century. This is an issue that particularly interests and excites me. I think the Scottish Affairs Committee has done three reports on it, and I think Secretary of State served on the Committee during one of the inquiries on Scotland’s migration issues. Those were helpful reports, and hopefully they add to the debate. I am glad that a few people have referenced them. We got down to the serious business of trying to address the issue. I congratulate the Blair Government, which was visionary when it came to immigration; it was imaginative. Tony Blair opened up eastern Europe through accession, which helped our issues in Scotland. For a while, that reversed our long-term population decline. The Tony Blair Government also gave us fresh talent. It gave people an opportunity to come to study at one of our world-class universities and stay and contribute to the Scottish economy for a period of their early lives. It was fantastic. It was backed by the UK Government and the Scottish Government, with overwhelming support from hon. Members in this House. The policy was then subsumed by a general UK policy, which meant that we lost our advantage.

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

  More

  I have a lot of time and respect for the hon. Lady, and she has contributed so much to the work of this House, but she has been simply absurd in some of her proclamations in the last few minutes. All we are asking for is the opportunity to address some of our workforce issues, because we have a real crisis in Scotland. We have a distinct and separate tax code in Scotland. There would be a requirement that a person coming here would live and work in Scotland, which could be easily assessed and monitored because of our individual tax code. It is straightforward and simple. Watchtowers and border guards? Come on! The hon. Lady is 10 times better than that.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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 (Eleventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to once again to serve under you as Chair, Dr Murrison. When I look at the Tory amendments in their totality, they are quite frankly an absolute and utter disgrace. It is as if the Tories have learnt absolutely nothing from the Rwanda debacle and the Illegal Migration Act 2023. Some of the amendments that we will be debating are simply heinous, lacking in any reasonable standard of compassion and empathy. What a country they would create: one devoid of human rights and international protections, where people are simply othered and deprived of any rights whatsoever. Some of the most desperate and wretched people in the world would be denied and booted out. I used to say that the Tories would never beat Reform in the race to the bottom, but looking at the collection of amendments that we are debating today, they are going to give it their best shot. It is just possible that they will out-Reform Reform colleagues in the House of Commons. The amendments are not only terrifying but ludicrously unworkable—blatant political grandstanding, designed to appeal to the basest of instincts. We have the grim task of having to debate them one by one; I just hope that the Committee will reject them totally out of hand. New clause 25 was raised in a blaze of publicity at the end of the self-denying ordinance from the Leader of the Opposition when she announced her new immigration policy, which I understand has been changed and finessed over the course of the past few weeks, but is still as grotesque underneath as it started. The Conservatives do not believe that British citizenship should be a privilege; they believe that British citizenship should be virtually unobtainable, and that the strongest possible tests must be applied before anybody is ever going to get the opportunity to call themselves a British citizen. That is totally and utterly self-defeating. The provision will apply to work-based visa holders, skilled workers and global talent, who can currently apply for ILR after five years. Extending that period to 10 years could deter highly-skilled workers and investors from coming to stay in the UK. It may lead to workforce instability, particularly in sectors reliant on international talent. It would also disadvantage certain migrants and people who have lived legally in the UK for 10 years but do not hold one of the listed visas. This is an unworkable, crazy proposal that can only be self-defeating and have a massive impact on our economy. It would create a massive disincentive to the very people we need to come into the UK to fill some of our skills gaps. I hope the provision is roundly rejected.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her response to my new clause 43, but a lot of what she claims is in it is not actually there—I hope she accepts that. Those of us who visit asylum seekers in our constituencies will recognise that the determination is probably the most contentious issue that asylum seekers bring to us; it is the thing that perplexes and concerns them the most. They are very sensitive to it being done wrong, and it gets done wrong in both directions, as the Minister said. The number of children found to have been misclassified as adults outweighs quite significantly the number of cases where an asylum seeker has falsely claimed to be a child. Everybody is right that there is no scientific or other method to determine age that is 100% effective—visual assessments certainly are not. Surely, however, the people who are best qualified to make these assessments are people who work with children—whose main business is to make these sorts of judgments about children. That is why we have asked for Merton-compliant age assessments, so that an holistic view is taken of the individual and they are assessed properly by social workers trained to work with children. Surely that is the most effective means to determine these things. I am not saying that we should not use other things, but where the issue is in dispute—perhaps I should have included that in my new clause; clearly, the people sitting in this Committee could not be classified as children—we must get it right. That is so important as we go forward. It is life-changing, dangerous and damaging to be misclassified. As I said in my initial contribution, this is not an immigration issue, but a safeguarding issue. We must get it right. That is why I will press my new clause to a vote as well. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  This afternoon seems to be a bit of a Lib Dem fest because of the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Woking. There is nothing wrong with that; in fact, I very much approve of this new clause. To the hon. Member for Weald of Kent—I do not like to rebuke her, because that is not the sort of Member of Parliament I am, as you will know, Dame Siobhain—I say that so many people come through the health and care route because there is real need in the whole system. We need people to come and make sure that someone has those jobs. I challenge her to visit the NHS establishments in her constituency and find out the real difficulties that many health professional managers have in securing the staff they require. This new clause is a practical suggestion to deal with a real issue in our immigration system. It is unfair that those who come to do some of the most demanding and low-paid jobs in the UK are forced to pay that charge.