Pete Wishart MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Sept 2026 · Sporting Events Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely—I think we all appreciate the efforts that are being made to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are promoted adequately. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will be watching very carefully to see that Scotland gets promoted in events in the future. I think it is fair to say that nothing enthuses and unites the whole of the UK more than sporting success and seeing people who are representing our nations become prized athletes winning medals. It was great to see that happening in the last few months in both the European championship and the Commonwealth games. We even got to the world cup this year for the first time in 28 years! The tartan army charmed all of Boston and Miami with its usual antics, which thrilled, excited and impressed so many of our American colleagues. Unfortunately, that did not translate to activities on the football field—I will leave it at that—but it was a huge unifying force. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is quite right that it united all of us, whatever our political persuasion and whatever side of constitutional debates we are on, in support of our national side. As the Secretary of State referenced, this year Scotland stepped in at the last moment to host the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I will not go over the reasons for that, but we should all be grateful that Glasgow did what Glasgow does, which is to step in at the last moment. I think we can safely say that Glasgow rescued the Commonwealth games. I think the model that was adopted in Glasgow for what was described as a more scaled-down version of the games will be the blueprint, and I have heard other nations that are interested in bidding in the future saying that they will look closely at that model. The Commonwealth games were an overwhelming success and perfectly showcased Glasgow, while allowing Scots and those from the rest of the UK to see at first hand a range of sports that caught the imagination, including sports that we might not normally watch, which is only available with the Commonwealth games. Where Glasgow stepped up to host the games, the BBC most definitely did not. This was the first Commonwealth games in 72 years that the BBC did not fully cover, and that was because it offered what could only be described as a derisory bid for the rights, which it lost to the subscription service TNT. Because that is a subscription service, people had to pay to watch the games, and many sporting fans lost the opportunity to follow the games. That was so bad. If we contrast that with the European athletics championships only a few weeks later in Birmingham, the BBC appropriately bid, secured the rights and even went as far as to change its week’s scheduling so that people could see the games. In Scotland, we feel that we lost out a little bit there. I hope the Secretary of State will raise that with the BBC, to find out why that was allowed to happen and ensure that it never happens again. Wherever the games are held, the BBC should be covering something as significant and popular as the Commonwealth games. Although there is no provision in the Bill about broadcasting rights, I support some of the things that have been said about free-to-air coverage of what we call the crown jewels of events. We in Scotland lost free-to-air coverage of the national men’s football team’s games for something like six years—we went without any opportunity to see those games for free, like everybody else across the United Kingdom, which meant that a lot of fans could not follow our national team. That has now been put right, and we were able to see the Scotland games and qualifiers on the BBC, but we have to ensure that everybody has the right to see the national men’s football team qualifying and appearing in major championships. I want to spend a few minutes focusing on the clauses that relate to ticket touting. For the many of us who care passionately about live music and the whole music fan experience, this Bill feels like a little bit of a disappointment. It is a lost opportunity to ensure that the scourge of ticket touting is tackled right across the sporting and entertainment environment. We are grateful that the Government are tackling ticket touting at sports events, but music fans have been let down by what they see as a lack of action on this issue. Although the Government are prepared to act on behalf of the sports sector, music fans will again have to wait before having their issues properly resolved. Clauses 5 and 6 are good clauses, and they set out regulations on ticket touting for sporting events. This fast-tracked, heavy-duty legislation goes further than what the live music sector is asking for, as it makes all unauthorised ticket resale a criminal offence for major sporting events, full stop. The Government have rightly recognised the urgency, found parliamentary time and the necessary legislation, and acted decisively to shield sports fans and official sports rights holders—and quite right too, but surely music fans deserve the same attention. The millions of people who form the backbone of our world-leading £8 billion music industry are to remain exposed to the touts, spivs and profiteers. For music, the Government have offered the promise of a draft ticket tout ban Bill. But let us be clear: until we see the draft Bill and work starts on it, it is pretty much just an aspiration, and it exposes the issue to a host of pre-legislative scrutiny, consultations, delays, and a long and winding road through this House. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response when I intervened on her, and I think I heard her say that action was going to be imminent, and that we would see something relating to music quickly. I really hope that is the case, because music fans are having to pay through the nose to see their favourite bands, and it is costing something like £145 million a year according to the sector. The UK music industry is asking not for a total ban on resale; it is asking for a resale price cap that prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original cost, with service fee limits to ensure that the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees or hidden charges placed on consumers, and with volume limits to make it unlawful for someone to buy more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market. We have heard the Secretary of State say this before, and the Government roughly support all those endeavours and issues, but now we need to get it done—please. What we have is great for sports—I think everybody welcomes this, and I am sure it will go a long way to ensuring that sports fans are protected—but we need the same type of action and legislation for music fans. I do not want to end on a sour note, although I think the Secretary of State would expect me to say these things to her. I am encouraged by what she has said; as we go forward, let us all work together and get this issue fixed for music too.

• 2 Sept 2026 · EU Membership Referendum: Impact on the UK · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend because he brings us right up to date in the debate about Brexit. I listened carefully to the Prime Minister yesterday and what he had to say about European Union membership. I want to come on to that because we are at an important juncture. We have new opportunities to go forward, and I hope that this new Labour UK Government make the right choice. I will come to that, so I ask my hon. Friend for his patience, which I know he will be able to supply me with. I want to get back to the economics. It is now estimated that GDP is anything between 2% and 8% lower than if we had remained in the European Union. The Office for Budget Responsibility suggests a 4% reduction in productivity, and Goldman Sachs estimates that the UK economy is around 6% smaller than it would otherwise have been. I want to be clear: that does not mean that Britain suddenly became 8% poorer on the morning of 24 June 2016. Of course, Britain continued to grow, and we have experienced some economic growth. The argument is that the UK has grown less than it otherwise would have done. Brexit was never going to be a spectacular economic crash. If anything, it is more insidious than that. Brexit is more akin to a slow puncture. The economy keeps growing, the car keeps moving forward, but the driving gets tougher as we negotiate in a harsher environment.

• 6 Jul 2026 · Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for giving us an update and introducing the regulations. He did so with real sincerity, guile and grace, and I think we are all grateful for the way in which he engages with us all across the House. I do not know how many of these statements and urgent questions I have attended over the course of the past 15 or 20 years. I seem to be spending an awful lot of time with the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), attending debates and meetings of the all-party parliamentary group that he so assiduously chairs. I have written letters to various Ministers, got responses, taken them to constituents, let them down again and perhaps even given them some sense of encouragement. I would like not to be doing that any more; I would like just for things to just work. I would like to think that everybody I have represented and got to know within the community is feeling positive and good about what is happening, and satisfied that things are moving on. I would like to think that the people who deserve these payments are securing them. I would like to think that they do not have to worry any more or be anxious about their domestic or personal situation—that they do not have to be concerned about those they care for, love or live with, because things are just being done. It would be great to be in that position. I always like to hear from the Minister, and it is great that he gives us constant updates, but would it not be something to get to that place of resolution, where people are satisfied with the progress and the payments being made? We had a very good debate a couple of weeks ago, which has been referenced by a couple of Members. I thought it was really good; lots of important and relevant points and issues came up. That is why I was a little bit surprised to find that the regulations were laid the very next day. Surely we should have taken that opportunity to pick up some of those things, because the themes were quite consistent across the House. Several concerns were consistently raised, and I think the Minister got a very clear impression of the priorities among those of us who work with the community—that was all loud and clear. There is something I do not get; perhaps the Minister can explain it to me. Maybe it was always part of the timetable that the regulations would be laid on that particular date, but surely we should have had time to reflect and go through the various points that came up from Members right across the House before we made this final progress and these regulations were laid. Important points came up, and we have heard some of them again today. I will not repeat them, because I have said them so many times to various Ministers at the Dispatch Box. The key thing that really needs to be progressed, looked at and resolved is the pace of the payments. We know that the infected are being looked after, and it looks like we are making real progress there. The Minister is right to refer to the structure and process used, because it has worked; I think we are all satisfied that things have moved on quite significantly and that payments are being made. But when it comes to the affected, I think we need to see a little bit more dynamism and energy. We need to ensure that the payments are made to these people, who are desperately waiting. I do not think the issues around interferon are properly addressed through the regulations. We are all happy and satisfied that we have the new 2B payments, but there is a huge case to be made for further levels of payments, particularly around 3B or 4B awards, which the community have been asking for quite consistently. The Government and their expert group seem to have ignored the huge amounts of real-world evidence of the debilitating, enduring impact of interferon treatment. In the debate a couple of weeks ago, I said it was akin to chemotherapy. We should start thinking about the damage that has been done by interferon on the same basis, and take it as seriously. We welcome the increase in the figure for families who have been subject to research and medical trials; I think the Minister said £60,000, compared with £25,000 previously, so that is a significant rise. However, there are still a few questions and issues around some of those payments and the inclusion of some people in the unethical research group. Again, it all comes back to that date of 1986—I think I heard the Minister say something about that particular date. That still seems to be a pretty rigorous cut-off point for people to be considered, particularly as the report itself references damage done beyond that date. Maybe the Minister could clarify that a little bit, and satisfy me that any cases belonging to that particular group that came after 1986 will be addressed. It is disappointing that there has been very little reference to the significant problems with estate claims, despite a number of meetings and much correspondence with the Cabinet Office. As we have heard from several hon. Members, it is a feature that came up in the previous debate. This is about the evidential hurdles that are impacting so many people—the fact that records do not exist, and it is really difficult to prove that certain documentation existed when it is no longer there because of historical issues, or because it has been lost, mislaid, or perhaps destroyed. We heard a little bit about the Government’s role in facilitating that—a number of records that had been kept by various Departments are no longer available to people who need to access them in order to progress their claims. Again, as a couple of Members have mentioned, we cannot forget the thousands of bereaved families who continue to wait for their compensation claims to begin, causing great anxiety and distress. The most important thing is the scaling up of the claims process to end the unbearable period of limbo that people are still having to endure. The number of the affected who have been through the process remains too low—now is the time for real progress. I think we are looking for a commitment that the Government will reflect on some of the issues we have highlighted, and perhaps think about coming back to the House having considered some of the things that have been raised consistently in debates and statements over the course of the past few weeks. Perhaps the Government could give us an update on how they intend to deal with those issues. It will not surprise the Minister that I am going to raise the issue of the duty of candour, which I think is the most important missing detail in all this—the thing that profoundly needs to be addressed. We know that the Hillsborough law Bill is coming up; I suggest ever so gently to the Government that that Bill has to be an absolute imperative. We need a duty of candour for civil servants who are involved in some of these scandals. Twenty years ago, civil servants would give stuff to Ministers for correspondence to me that they knew was lies, not just misleading or getting a few things wrong. I was raising issues on behalf of constituents who were experiencing real difficulties, and civil servants were supplying correspondence—facts and figures—to the Ministers replying to me that they knew was wrong. We need to try to understand why that happened and address it. The duty of candour aspect of any Hillsborough law is going to be highly important to ensure that nothing like this scandal ever happens again. I will end by saying that we are in such a better place than we were five years ago, or even three years ago; we are getting there. All of us who care about this debate, who have been in the Chamber putting these issues to the Minister, do not want anybody left behind; everyone, infected or affected, should be brought with us and should benefit from this resolution in the House. I will say one other thing to the Minister. The community have suffered so much throughout the decades. They have taken up this fight with such distinction and such courage, and they need to be thanked. We had the service, which was brilliant, but I hope that as we go forward, the Minister will look at the community as a resource—a source of lived experience who have a background in these issues that goes beyond anything that any expert group could have. They have lived with this, they have seen it, and it is they who are dealing with it. I am satisfied that we are moving forward and I hope we get some updates. I congratulate the Minister again on bringing the measure forward, but will the Government please look at some of the things that so many of us have been saying for such a long time, and make sure that they are properly addressed as we go forward?