Pete Wishart MP: speeches 2024

Speeches

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I am a bit familiar with the hon. Gentleman’s electoral history—he was out of Parliament for quite a long time. It is good to see him back in his place, obviously, but he was booted out, which was basically down to his lack of interest, concern or care about what was happening in the rural community. If I were NFU England, I would be sure to put that in front of the Members of Parliament who represent rural constituencies in England. I have a couple of bits of advice for some of the UK farmers and their representatives. First of all, Jeremy Clarkson is not their friend. He represents the part of the rural community that is so far away from the real struggle that farmers face that he may as well be in an urban Labour constituency. Secondly, farmers must be very careful of what the Conservative party is offering. Let us remember that the Conservative party oversaw the cost of living crisis, the ending of thousands of farms, and who—to come to the point made by hon. Members—brought in the absurd and economically illiterate Brexit. The Tory hard Brexit increased farming costs, introduced unnecessary barriers to markets, allowed lower-quality competitors in the marketplace and has taken billions of pounds out of the rural economy. How the Tories were able to sell this chaotic Brexit pup to so many rural communities will go down as one of the worse pieces of mis-selling in British farming. There is a different way to do it. In Scotland, we do things differently. We are making sure that there will be a constant farm payment to farmers in Scotland. We have also put food production at the very heart of our farming policy. Today, in the Scottish Budget, as well as introducing a winter fuel payment, we will abolish the two-child benefit cap. On top of that, £660 million will be going to farmers. All the money that was kept for Government emergencies in the past few Budgets will be returned in full. That is how the Government can support farmers. It would be good to see this Labour Government doing a bit of that in the future.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman think that the difficulty with the Labour party is that it just does not understand farmers, because they do not fit neatly into its clumsy definition of what a working person is? These are people who work 12 hours a day, outside in the toughest environment, and who work into their old age, but they do not get into the Labour club.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  One word that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned is Brexit—the great Tory disaster of the last Parliament. How much does she estimate that Brexit cost farmers and the rural community?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to support the many farmers in my constituency and the rural communities that farmers are the very heart of. I want to do something a little different in this debate and try to figure out what is behind some of the moves that the Labour party has put in place when it comes to farming. [Hon. Members: “What about Brexit?”] Believe me, I am coming to that, but I want to try to understand a little bit about the Government’s motives. What I think it comes down to is a clumsy attempt to try to define what working people are. It is clear that farmers do not fit that bill. Even though they work 12-hour days in backbreaking conditions, mainly outdoors, right into older age, they just do not seem to fit into that particular clique. Labour has always had an urban-centric view of our country. Everything it does in politics is viewed mainly through a metropolitan lens. Farmers have never really had a chance with this Labour Government. It should come as no surprise—I know why Labour Members shouted down the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman)—that someone as thoroughly unpleasant and John McTernan, Tony Blair’s former aide, would say something like farmers should receive the same as what Margaret Thatcher dished out to the miners. I think his view that we could do without our farming industry has just a little currency in the Labour party. Labour Members would do well to be honest about these things. For our comrades on the Government Benches, farmers are simply not “one of us”. The last time we had a whole cohort of Labour Members on the Government Benches, we would mercilessly tease them that there were “nae ferms in Scottish Labour.” Two things about that quite unjust slight: first, they did not respond—they did not seem to care, it was a matter of “Whatevs”; and secondly, it was patently untrue. There were lots of farms in Scottish Labour, and there are with the cohort down here. A great number of Scottish Labour MPs represent rural and farming constituencies. But the point remains the same: they just do not care about what happens to farmers. I think the general view is that Labour MPs do not rely on a rural farming vote—they could just about muddle through their elections without the support of the rural community. They see farming as just another business that they might find in one of their town or city centres. They understand nothing about how it is possible to be asset rich and resource poor, land values and the intimate nature of family farms, which are dependent on fixed assets to generate business and activity. The simple fact is that this Government do not understand the rural community, or how the generational continuity of farms works. And now, loads of new Labour MPs represent rural constituencies in England. Rural Labour Members of Parliament do not tend to last all that long—they may be in for one term, or possible two terms at most. That is generally because they are forced to accept and subsume the agenda put forward by their Government. My bit of advice to them is to start thinking about the farmers and their communities, start to think about their own electoral arithmetic and try to be on the side of farmers for a change.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Would the Tories not have a lot more credibility on this issue if they owned up to the disaster that was Brexit? It opened us up to cheap imports, increased costs for farmers and put up barriers and obstacles to trading. Would they not have much more credibility in attacking the Government on this if they admitted that that was an absolute disaster for farming communities?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Autumn Budget: Discussions with Scottish Government · Hansard source

  More

  One of the consequences of the Budget was to remove £5 million of regeneration funding for Perth city centre. We got practically nothing from the levelling-up fund, save for that paltry £5 million, which the Secretary of State is taking away. Just what is it that the UK Government have against the city of Perth?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q4. Today is the Scottish Budget, which contains provisions to reinstate the winter fuel payment for all Scottish pensioners—something that the Prime Minister famously took away from nearly all UK pensioners, supported by Scottish Labour Members of Parliament. But apparently Scottish Labour is now in favour of the winter fuel payment, so what is his advice to Labour MSPs? Is it to vote for the Budget, to ensure that Scottish pensioners get that single fuel payment, or is to stick with his view and vote that Budget down?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Deputy Prime Minister on the way she is introducing this debate. There is another group of people who I do not think have been properly considered yet: those who have lost their property, or could not remortgage it or sell it at the market rate, because they had cladding issues. My constituent Crawford Wilson invested his life savings in a property, unaware at the time that it had cladding problems. This meant that he could not secure a remortgage and could not sell it for anything like the market value. It was finally repossessed, and he lost hundreds of thousands of pounds as a result. What advice could the Deputy Prime Minister offer my constituent, and what is she going to do to try to ensure that that situation is put right?

• 2 Dec 2024 · Migration and Border Security · Hansard source

  More

  The absurd and chaotic Brexit—fully supported by those on the Government Front Bench—was supposed to finally satisfy this obsession, but ending free movement has only increased the numbers of people coming here. What is the point of their Brexit, and why has it so spectacularly failed to manage to get a hold on immigration to the UK?

• 25 Nov 2024 · Speaker’s Statement · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Scottish National party, I pass on our sincerest condolences to Pauline, to John’s family and to his many friends, colleagues and comrades right across the Labour movement. You have lost a colossus of a man, and an inspiration to working-class people right across the United Kingdom who were encouraged by his example to go into politics. I remember coming down here as a new MP in 2001 and observing the Labour Front Bench—titans, all of them, and all known to the UK public, but dominant among them was John Prescott, and it was John Prescott the public wanted to hear from. When he appeared on the TV screens, the public paid attention and listened to what he had to say. He resonated with the British public, who held him in a curious affection. If what he had could have been bottled, I am sure we would all take a little sup of it today. I will never forget where I was, as a candidate in 2001, when that famous incident came in that the hon. Member for Newport East (Jessica Morden) referred to—who could? I think we all know where we were. I was with a bunch of sixth-formers at a hustings at Brechin high school, and one of the senior pupils said to me, “If it’s like that every day in your political life, I want a bit of that.” There’s inspiration for you, Mr Speaker. John was a huge music fan and a great supporter of our music act, MP4. We could never quite master the jazz that he seemed to favour—although maybe as a tribute to him we will get round to doing one of those numbers—but it was something he completely loved. Everyone has talked about John’s commitment to climate change, but there was also his commitment to devolution, which a few colleagues have mentioned. John Prescott was the engine who drove that path towards a Scottish Parliament and the regional assemblies which will be happening as a matter of course with this new Labour Government. John was part of a generation that we are sadly beginning to lose, but he will stand out as one of the true great parliamentarians in this House of the past few decades and we will all miss him dearly.

• 20 Nov 2024 · Asylum Seekers: Hotel Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Here we go again with this new Labour Government simply copying and aping the failed and disastrous policies of the Conservative Government on hotel accommodation, while engaging in this grotesque competition to see who can sound the hardest on asylum seekers. Why not be bold and imaginative? Many of these asylum seekers are highly educated, with skills that could be deployed in communities up and down the United Kingdom. The ridiculous answer that the Minister gave to the Liberal Democrats about the UK being a pull to asylum seekers is simply nonsense, and she knows that with the tens of thousands coming to our shores right now. Why not get them usefully employed instead of leaving them to rot in hotels across the UK?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  It is always difficult to follow somebody who has said almost exactly what I had intended to say in my speech. What I will try to do for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, is rephrase it in a way that will hopefully be helpful and useful to the House. I am grateful to follow the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford), who raised a number of really important issues about which those on the Government Front Bench should listen carefully. I noticed the Paymaster General’s reaction to the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst; he has got to relax a little. We are trying to help and to be the voice of the community, who are telling us these things. They want to be engaged and properly consulted with. They want to be part of the process. That is what they are telling the all-party parliamentary group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and that is what we are hearing from all the representative groups right across the United Kingdom. Perhaps the Paymaster General should just take on board some of the things that we are trying to put forward about the feelings and opinions of a lot of the community and what they are saying to us directly as a consequence of what is happening. I congratulate the Government on honouring their commitment to have a debate. It is a pity that we did not get the full day, but one thing I have noticed is that it is getting a bit quieter in the Chamber when we have these debates and statements. I hope that there will not be fatigue when it comes to discussing important issues relating to the infected blood scandal, as we as a House will need a detailed approach to the ongoing compensation schemes. I really hope that we will not get to a stage where the Government see this as “job done” and another box to be ticked, thinking, “There we go: infected blood is dealt with and we can now move on.” It is incumbent on all of us who were involved in the campaign to ensure that we continue to press the Government, ensuring that we talk up on behalf of our constituents and those impacted and affected. I really hope that we start to see some newer Labour Members, in particular, taking a bigger interest—we used to have really involved, detailed debates where people turned up and played their part—as I am sure that many of them represent people who are impacted and affected. It would be good to see a few of them turn up.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I do, and I am happy that my speech has provided the hon. Gentleman with another opportunity to make one of his interventions, as he does in practically every debate that he attends. He makes a good point, which the House has now heard. I want to reinforce the point about IBCA’s arm’s length process. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is right that it is abundantly clear, in both the interim and the full report, that there is a general expectation that IBCA will be truly at arm’s length, divorced and separate from the Government. We cannot get into the head of Sir Brian Langstaff when he designed the scheme, but I think that he expected there to be a proper arm’s length body that would be responsible to Parliament, not Government. What we have is the other way around, and that will probably be okay, but for extra security, those of us who are interested would like to make sure that it is properly independent, according to Sir Brian Langstaff’s original intention. As long as there is a sense that this is a Government-influenced body, there will be continuing suspicions—from a community that has been let down so badly for decades by decision makers and Government—that this is the same old approach that we have seen in the past. I ask the Minister to find a way to ensure that we get that proper judge-led, arm’s length body that is responsible to us as the representatives of the people of the United Kingdom, and not just exclusively to Government. I have no issue with all the tributes that people have made to David Foley and all the other people involved, because they have been fantastic, but we are already beginning to see Cabinet Office-based appointments coming through for IBCA. Again, we are not really seeing consultation with those at the sharp end of all this. We need some more of that. Sir Brian Langstaff said that two expert panels—one representing the legal parts of the issues, and the other the health parts—would work almost simultaneously and in concert with each other, to feed back to the chair of the board. It would be good to see that starting to emerge. He also said—not as clearly, but it was intended—that an expert panel would comprise those representing the community, both the infected and the affected. They would have a similar role to feed into the chair of IBCA. I hope that some of that will happen. There is widespread support for what this Government have done, and £11.8 billion is a significant sum that everyone is confident will go most of the way towards meeting the compensation expectations, but there are issues. Members have touched on some of them. I will rattle through them—I do not want to detain the House and I have raised them before—but I just want to make sure that we do touch on them. The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst is absolutely right that the £15,000 for those caught up in unethical research is far too low. This is coming back to all of us again, so I really hope we are able to revisit that. Then there are those who were treated with interferon as a matter of course. They have not been properly and fully included in the compensation scheme, so again I hope the Government are able to look at that. There is concern that hepatitis C payment bandings do not match and reflect the suffering caused. That is what I have been hearing from constituents involved in the campaign, so I hope the Government will be able to look at that. There is the issue about bereaved parents and children, who will receive very low compensation payments if they are not the beneficiary of the estate of bereaved family members. I think that could be addressed. No compensation has been paid to siblings for their loss and suffering if they were over 18. Compensation for lack of earnings should consider future career progression that was prevented from occurring, rather than simply existing careers that were cut short. Lastly on my list, which is not long but is substantial, is the fact that the need for a date of infection is causing a great deal of anxiety and confusion among the community. I believe that most of those issues could be properly addressed with the full involvement of community representatives if they have full and open access to Government Ministers and are able to play their part in designing any future schemes. The community should be involved to provide valuable information and advice on the most pressing issues that need to be addressed. One issue that I want to turn to in the bulk of my remarks is the part of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report that has probably received the least attention thus far: the “why” of all this. Why did this happen? Why were we misled for such a long time? We have had useful discussions about compensation and it is great to see that progress, but unless we explore and examine the reasons why it happened, we will not learn all that much as we go forward. The duty of candour Bill, which I will come on to, is a useful, positive and helpful development, but unless we have a proper examination of what went so badly wrong, then I am not entirely sure we will learn the full lessons of what happened over the past couple of decades. The inquiry uncovered shocking revelations about the Government’s handling of the issue, including failures to provide full information to those affected by contaminated blood and the delay in acknowledging the extent of the problem. Sir Brian’s inquiry found that both Ministers and civil servants adopted lines to take, or strategies to avoid providing full and candid responses to the crisis. That lack of openness contributed to the suffering of those impacted, leaving many victims and their families feeling unheard and ignored for decades. Those of us in the House in the noughties who were raising these concerns and issues on behalf of constituents who presented in our surgeries remember being dismissed by “nothing-to-see-here” letters from successive Health Ministers. I would not say we were fobbed off exactly, but we were certainly told that there was nothing we should really be concerned about. With all the serious issues that were raised, there was a real sense that none of it was being taken seriously. Sir Brian Langstaff recommended that Ministers and senior civil servants should be legally required to provide candour and completeness in their responses to public concerns. That brings us to the duty of candour Bill promised by the Government. I think all of us involved in this campaign were delighted to see it featured in the King’s Speech. We look forward to the Government introducing it. Most of the Bill is predicated on the response to Hillsborough. Key lessons have been taken from the infected blood scandal, and from other scandals such as the Horizon Post Office scandal. All of us who have been involved in these campaigns will look forward to our opportunity to debate and design the Bill. A statutory duty of candour for all public servants, including civil servants and Ministers, would hold public officials accountable for their actions and require them to be transparent in their dealings with the public. Such a law would compel civil servants and Ministers to act with integrity and fully disclose all relevant information, even when it might be uncomfortable or damaging to the Government’s reputation. In the course of the Langstaff inquiry, Andy Burnham pointed out that during the tainted blood scandal and even earlier, in various materials, the Government had frequently employed the phrase “no wrongful practices were employed”. In our debates on this issue, I often refer to Andy Burnham’s evidence to the inquiry, because it was particularly compelling and very helpful. I probably received more letters from him when he was Health Secretary than I did from any other Health Secretary. He talked about the letters that he used to send to Members of Parliament, and expressed his concern about the inaccurate lines provided by departmental officials. He believed that those lines perpetuated false narratives that failed to address the needs of those whose lives had been so devastatingly affected. He emphasised that the Government’s response to the infected blood issue was driven primarily by a fear of financial exposure, and he believed that explained the comprehensive failure to address the concerns of the victims over five decades. I have called for a further investigation or inquiry into why this was allowed to happen in a major Department of State, given that it clearly led to many of the difficulties that we are now addressing through various compensation schemes. Much of the debate has touched on the Langstaff inquiry, but a separate look at what went wrong would be useful and cathartic for the Government, and would help them to shape their duty of candour Bill. I am not here to criticise them, although it sometimes sounds as though I am; I think that they have made a good start with all this, and we are all grateful for the £11.8 billion for the compensation schemes. I became involved with this issue when a couple of my constituents were caught up in it. I remember those early days when we did not know what was going on, and the letters from the Department of Health made the situation all the more confusing. Over the decades, I have come to know members of the community. Some have come down to the House of Commons, told their story, and asked us to question Ministers. I pay tribute to Haemophilia Scotland and the Scottish Infected Blood Forum, which have made excellent representations on their behalf. The fact that we are discussing the issue now and have been able to see a clear way forward is largely due to the case that they put, and the fact that they were able to confront Members of Parliament, the Government and Ministers, and we should give them due credit for what they have done to bring us here today.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  This is a really important point—both myself and the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) have now raised it with the Minister. He has rightly identified the experiences of so many people caught up in this crisis, and the fact that they do not trust the Government or Government institutions. Would it not be more of a comfort to them to know that IBCA is like the National Audit Office: accountable to Parliament, rather than to Government?

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  There is no one in the House more experienced than the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to what he did in government and how he brought this issue forward. He is right; we must be a bit careful, but all of us involved are just trying to take the debate forward. He is possibly right that there may be satisfaction that things have moved on and we are at a different stage in the campaign, but it is still important that we continue to ask questions of Government. That is what we are all trying to do in this debate.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is right to labour the point. All that we are hearing from the representative groups—those who make sure that they represent all those in the infected or affected communities—is that they want consultation with Government. They just want to be listened to and properly consulted as all these regulations are designed going forward. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not understand the Minister’s sensitivity around all this. He has to be aware—I am pretty certain that he is—that there is this sensitivity when it comes to the community.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Infected Blood Inquiry · Hansard source

  More

  I will, so long as the hon. Member does not poke me in the back, as he did the other evening.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I say to the hon. Gentleman, ever so gently, that he should leave bypassing devolution to his friends from Scottish Labour, because they are just a little bit better at it than him. It is their job to constantly speak about the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government. To be fair to them, they have done a fantastic job—they barely even mention the UK Government. Every single contribution they make is about the Scottish Government, so maybe just leave it to them, shall we?

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know where the naive assumption or belief on the Labour Benches that there will be further Lords reform comes from. There will not be any more. I was here during the ’90s when Labour attempted to bring in Lords reform and gave up immediately, with no intention of ever bringing that back. This is it—this is all we are going to get—and unless we make this a good Bill, this is all we will get in this Parliament.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I will never again chastise him for quoting Proust in the House of Commons. I am sorry that I did that to him last time around. That covers the donors. The other amendment that I managed to get included—again, this was a surprise to me—is one related to cronies. It would deny the Prime Minister the power to appoint people to the House of Lords. The Prime Minister has a prerogative that is almost unknown to any other western industrial leader—that he is exclusively responsible for appointing so many people to one part of our legislature. I think that something like 30% to 40% of the total membership of the House of Lords has now been appointed by a Prime Minister—by one man. That would make a tinpot dictator in a banana republic blush. He would want those powers in his hands immediately, but we have them in the United Kingdom. We allow a Prime Minister to determine—on his own—so many people in our legislature. That must come to an end. Of course, the temptation for the Prime Minister is to appoint his friends, to reward those who have been denied a place, to compensate people for losing their positions, to encourage people to take a role, but mainly it is to make sure that the donors are rewarded.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What I can say categorically to the hon. Gentleman is that there is nobody who has given one single penny to the Scottish National party— [ Interruption. ] Again, I appeal to people watching, if they want to give us money, please do so, but one thing we can never do—we never have and never will—is, in return, offer a place in our legislature or the ability to govern in this country. We do not do that, we cannot do that and we will never, ever do that. Let me point to the scale of the difficulty of the problem when it comes to the donors. Some 68 out of 284 nominations from political parties between 2013 and 2023 were for political donors who had handed over £58 million to one of the three main parties. Over the course of that decade, some 12 of them gave £1 million. Now that might sound familiar to some Labour Members—£1 million is what people used to give to the Labour party under Tony Blair in the early 2000s to get a place in the House of Lords. Come on! Where is inflation when it comes to this? We would expect it to cost £1.5 million to get a place in the House of Lords now, but the going rate is seemingly still about £1 million. Cash for honours was a disaster for Labour. It was absolutely awful. We saw the spectacle of a sitting Prime Minister being interviewed by the police about the donations that were being given to the Labour party. Those donations were interpreted as inducements to secure a place in the House of Lords. The Prime Minister was interviewed under caution and two of his personal staff were arrested. After that experience, we would be right to expect some sort of clarity in their thinking to take place. They could have decided never to get into that type of territory again—that they would do everything possible to ensure that money was taken out of politics, so that there would never be a whiff of suspicion that such a thing would happen again. But not a bit of it. Donors still go into the House of Lords, money still goes into the political party, and the public want it stopped.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We do not put people in the House of Lords. If people want to give us a million pounds, they can—please, if anyone is watching on TV, we could do with a million pounds. Sorry to disappoint anybody thinking about doing that, because we cannot give them a place in the House of Lords. I will give way one last time to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, who I have given way to once already.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, congratulate the Paymaster General and his ministerial team on getting the Bill through Parliament at such pace and so early in the parliamentary calendar, as he has said on several occasions. I really hope that this will not be it. As the Conservatives have said, this really is a timid pipsqueak of a Bill. The Paymaster General quoted Herbert Asquith’s words about the House of Lords, but could he not have quoted Keir Hardie, who pledged over 100 years ago to abolish it? Could he not have quoted Gordon Brown, who said only a few months ago that Labour would bring forward a new democratically elected second Chamber to represent the nations and regions of the whole of the United Kingdom? Instead, what we have is the low-hanging fruit of the hereditary peers. Is it not remarkable that it has taken until 2024 to remove the earls, the barons, the dukes—all the assorted aristocrats—and we are to give Labour great credit for doing so? This should have happened several centuries ago, not in 2024. I hope that Labour Back Benchers are not going to be disappointed, because we have heard several contributions, on Second Reading and today in Committee, suggesting that further reform is going to be coming; that these are the first stages of a whole package of reforms that will come before this House. I have to say that we have heard it all before from successive Governments, particularly Labour ones. We were promised a succession of reforms to the House of Lords, only for nothing to be delivered, so what we need to hear from Government Front Benchers is when those further reforms are going to come. We need a clear road map for their ambitions when it comes to the House of Lords, and that has to start with ensuring that that circus down the corridor is properly reformed and that we get to a position where it will be a democratically elected House. Well done to the Government on getting this Bill through. I really hope that Labour Back Benchers have not been sold a pup and that they will get the further reform that has been promised to them, but what we really need to hear from the Government now is about solid progress on proper reform of the House of Lords. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

• 12 Nov 2024 · House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I gently break it to the hon. Gentleman that no SNP Member will ever end up in an undemocratic outrage like that place down the corridor. I do not know how many Scottish Labour Members will be in Parliament for 20 or 30 years, but about 15 of the last generation of Scottish Labour Members are now in the House of Lords. This conveyor belt that rewards a distinguished career in the House of Commons with a place in the House of Lords is one of the things I want to address with my amendments. I had hoped to table an amendment to try to realise Labour’s historical ambition to abolish the House of Lords. Thanks to the good work of the Clerks, I knew that I was highly unlikely to secure such an amendment, and that is probably right, so I thought I would be creative and try to abolish its membership. I therefore drafted a series of amendments to try to get rid of all the distinct groups and classes of Members of the House of Lords. Again, I thought I would be singularly unsuccessful in that mission and endeavour, but I have three amendments on the amendment paper. Those amendments are crackers, believe me, but I look forward to speaking about them. They would abolish the prime ministerial donors, appointees and cronies who fill the other place, and they would abolish the idea that former Members of Parliament can assume they will get a place in the House of Lords. I am really pleased with myself.