Tag: Pete Wishart

  • Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Deputy Prime Minister

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pete Wishart on 2014-03-10.

    To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, whether he plans to publish guidance to inform charities and other affected organisations about the implementation of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014.

    Greg Clark

    Guidance is being produced by the Electoral Commission regarding the operation of the rules for non-party campaigners. The Commission are working with the UK’s three charity regulators and other organisations to ensure that the guidance is clear and helpful.

  • Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pete Wishart on 2014-06-18.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how much HM Passport Office has paid in compensation for delays in customers receiving passports in each year since 2004.

    James Brokenshire

    Her Majesty’s Passport Office began recording data on complaints and compensation paid by various categories in 2005 so data is not held relating to 2004. Compensation paid to
    passport applicants relating to complaints concerning application processing
    delays amounted to:

    2005

    £13,064

    2006

    £18,684

    2007

    £1,888

    2008

    £2,090

    2009

    £1,504

    2010

    £11,978

    2011

    £933

    2012

    £2,999

    2013

    £1,445

  • Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pete Wishart on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what discussion she has had with Ministers in the Scottish Government on transitional arrangements to cover the potential gap between the UK Government opting out of EU justice measures and negotiating its re-entry into specific measures.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government is clear that there is no need for there to be an operational gap after 1 December, and is negotiating on that basis. Other Member States support the UK position and are keen for this process to be concluded as swiftly as possible to provide certainty for all involved.

    The Government has engaged with the Devolved Administrations throughout this process at Ministerial and official level. The Immigration and Security Minister (James Brokenshire) visited Edinburgh last year, where he met the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill, representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland and the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC. I plan to visit Edinburgh to discuss this matter further later this year.

  • Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pete Wishart on 2014-03-26.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what assessment she has made of the potential effect on Scotland’s justice system of the UK Government opting out of EU justice measures and then negotiating its re-entry into specific measures.

    Karen Bradley

    The Government is clear that there is no need for there to be an operational gap after 1 December, and is negotiating on that basis. Other Member States support the UK position and are keen for this process to be concluded as swiftly as possible to provide certainty for all involved.

    The Government has engaged with the Devolved Administrations throughout this process at Ministerial and official level. The Immigration and Security Minister (James Brokenshire) visited Edinburgh last year, where he met the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Justice Kenny MacAskill, representatives from the Association of Chief Police Officers Scotland and the Lord Advocate Frank Mulholland QC. I plan to visit Edinburgh to discuss this matter further later this year.

  • Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pete Wishart on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many pregnant women in Scotland were granted section 4 support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 for reasons including that they were deemed unfit to travel in each of the last five years.

    James Brokenshire

    The information requested is not routinely collected and could only be provided
    by examining individual case records, which would result in disproportionate
    cost.

  • Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pete Wishart on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many pregnant women in Scotland are in receipt of section 4 support under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; how many such women were moved to different accommodation during pregnancy; how many weeks pregnant each such woman was when she was moved; what the reason for each such move was; and if a risk assessment of each such move was undertaken which included input from a treating clinician.

    James Brokenshire

    The information requested is not routinely collected and could only be provided
    by examining individual case records, which would result in disproportionate
    cost.

  • Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    Pete Wishart – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Home Office

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Pete Wishart on 2014-04-30.

    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the Answer to the hon. Member for Brent Central of 31 March 2014, Official Report, column 411W on asylum, what the (a) gender and (b) age of each applicant represented in the table in Scotland was; and whether each such applicant had (i) family and (ii) dependants in Scotland.

    James Brokenshire

    Data specific to part a) of your request can be found in the following table.

    Region/Country

    Band

    Female

    Male

    All

    Scotland

    Less than 2 years

    64

    133

    197

    Scotland

    More than 2 years

    30

    35

    65

    Scotland

    More than 4 years

    22

    51

    73

    Scotland

    More than 6 years

    2

    12

    14

    Scotland

    All

    121

    231

    349

    We are unable to provide data for part b) of your request for reasons of data
    protection.

  • Pete Wishart – 2022 Speech on the National Food Strategy and Food Security

    Pete Wishart – 2022 Speech on the National Food Strategy and Food Security

    The speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 27 October 2022.

    I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) on raising this important issue. This has been a largely consensual debate. I will try not to spoil that tone, perhaps unsurprisingly, Madam Deputy Speaker —not by much, anyway.

    It is almost unbelievable that here we are in 2022 discussing food security, but such is the range of issues we face that we now have to confront the fact this is becoming an increasingly pressing problem. There is no doubt that the war in Ukraine has had its effect, just as recovery from covid has forced us all to look at this agenda. Governments throughout the world are now looking at their strategies to deal with what is clearly an emerging crisis.

    However, it is not just here in the developed world; we also have to look at what is happening in the developing world. The International Development Committee reminded us of that, because we have not just the war in Ukraine and the recovery from the covid pandemic, but the climate crisis. Some of the biblical scenes that we have seen, particularly from the Horn of Africa, would chill any Member of this House to the bone.

    In the UK, though, we have a particular and distinct problem, and it has not been mentioned at all today, which is really surprising. It is the thing that has caused most of the issues that we have in this country—Brexit. Brexit has made sure that we in the UK have a range of issues and problems that are not shared by any other comparable country in the world. It has led to a set of circumstances, which are not seen elsewhere, that have negatively and adversely impacted this country. It is just so surprising that, in all the contributions that we have had today, Brexit is the one word that has not been mentioned.

    As well as Brexit, there are the economic policies that have been implemented by this Government, which have made things so much worse. Inflation in this country is running at 10.1%, which is way above anything that we see in Europe and the rest of the developed world. We have negative GDP, when GDP everywhere else is growing. Food prices are way above the 10.1% headline inflation rate. They have jumped by 14.6%, led by the soaring cost of staples such as meat, bread, milk and eggs.

    We now have a term for what is going on in households across the United Kingdom. It is called “low food security”, which is where households reduce the quality and desirability of their diets just to make ends meet. Worse than that, we also have the term “very low food security”, which is where household members are reducing their food intake because they lack money or other resources for food. I know that it gets said an awful lot in this House, but it is probably an understatement to say that this winter many households will face the uncomfortable choice of whether to eat or to heat. This, in one of the most prosperous countries in the world, should shame us all.

    However, it is Brexit that remains the biggest homegrown issue that has singled out the UK for particular misery, and has hampered the UK’s food production, acquisition and security. Brexit has meant that we have had to deprioritise our domestic food production, because we now have to secure these free trade deals, supporting cheaper, imported food. We have now got to the stage where the UK’s food self-sufficiency is below 60%, compared with 80% two decades ago.

    In 2020 the UK imported 46% of the food that it consumed, 28% of which came from Europe. This means that the UK imports more than it exports, particularly when it comes to fruit and vegetables. That is something that will only increase unless it is addressed. In days such as these, particularly given the experience of the Ukraine war, we should be building resilience in domestic food production, but instead we are threatening it with these unbalanced trade deals.

    We need only look at the deals that were struck with Australia and New Zealand to see how the market has become vulnerable to lower standards and open to cheap imports. The NFS addresses some of these issues. What it says, which I hope the Government will take on board, is that Governments should agree only to cut tariffs on products that meet our standards here in the UK.

    Cheap imports are such an issue now that a farmer in my constituency has said to the BBC today that he is giving away a crop of blueberries, which would normally be worth £3 million, to the charity sector and to food banks. He reckons that that crop, which would usually get £3 million, has lost £1 million in value. It is not economically worth it for him now to take that crop to market. Donating that crop shows incredible generosity, but how have we got to this situation? This is a farm that has been in business in a very productive area of Strathmore in my constituency for more than 100 years. It is having to give away a crop because there is no value in harvesting it.

    All over the UK, farmers and food producers are concerned about the pressures of rising input costs on their businesses. The National Farmers Union says that while growers are

    “doing everything they can to reduce their overheads…double or even triple digit inflation”

    continues to cripple the sector.

    This is agflation, and it is so bad that fruit and vegetable growers face inflation rates of up to 24%. Those rapidly rising costs could lead to a drop of 10% in production and more produce being left unharvested. I know the NFU has written to the Government to call for urgent action to help UK farmers to produce enough food to keep supermarkets stocked and prices affordable.

    I like the strategy; I think it is a very good thing, and I hope the Government implement it and take its recommendations seriously. Recommendation 8 calls for a guarantee that agricultural payments will stay in place until 2029. That must now happen to create a semblance of certainty. Recommendation 11 also says that £1 billion should be invested

    “in innovation to create a better food system.”

    So far, the Government have not committed to that, and all we hear about is closing budgets.

    Thankfully, agricultural support in Scotland is entirely devolved, and we are crafting a new agriculture Bill as we speak, consulting with the sector on the way forward. Unlike the UK’s approach to farm subsidies, the Scottish Government are maintaining a singular fund that will maintain pre-Brexit levels of support for farmers. The Scottish Government are doing everything they can within their limited powers and their budget envelope to ensure food security, and are consulting on the Bill to ensure that happens. At the heart of the Bill will be support for active farming, delivering high-quality, sustainable, affordable food while meeting climate change and biodiversity goals.

    But the Scottish Government are doing so much more; I want to touch on free school meals, which the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) raised, because we have the most generous universal free school meal entitlement of any UK nation. In Scotland, all children from primary 1 to primary 5 are entitled to free school meals during term time, as well as all children from households in receipt of universal credit, saving them an average £400 per year. That combines with the Scottish child payment, which has just been doubled to £20 a week and will be increased to £25 in November, which will also help Scottish families.

    We are doing what we can to ensure that we help our constituents and the people of Scotland through this time, but we need the recommendations in this strategy—this very good piece of work—implemented as quickly as possible, and we must do more to ensure that we are food secure and doing what we can to help and serve our constituents.

  • Pete Wishart – 2021 Speech on UK Musicians and EU Visas

    Pete Wishart – 2021 Speech on UK Musicians and EU Visas

    The speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2021.

    That is an immensely disappointing response from the Minister. Touring Europe means everything to our artists and musicians: the thrill of that first tour, crammed into the Transit van with all your gear; four to a room in a cheap hotel in Paris, Rotterdam or Hamburg; using what is left of the fee for a post-gig beer; the dream of coming back on a lavish tour bus, staying at five-star hotels—gone, all gone. Musicians and artists are mere collateral in this Government’s obsession with ending freedom of movement.

    Does the Minister acknowledge that visas and carnets will render such tours beyond the financial reach of future generations of new musicians? Does she appreciate that is not just our new musicians but the whole creative sector that will have increased costs and red tape? What will she say to the crews, the technicians, the set designers, the transport? We were promised by her predecessor that arrangements would not change. What has happened to that commitment? The EU said it was prepared to offer a 90-day deal. Why was that turned down? The Government said they were holding out for a better deal, but we have ended up with nothing. How could that happen? Given that the Minister’s approach is totally contradicted by the EU, will she provide complete transparency in all these negotiations?

    Our constituents really care about this; 263,000 have now signed the petition organised by our artists, calling for this to get sorted. We do not want any more of the EU-blaming—we have had quite enough of that in the past few years; we just want the Government to fix this. The Secretary of State has said that the door is still open, so will she walk through and fix it out? Will she restart talks with the EU immediately, to get our artists the arrangements that they need? Will she let the music tour freely once again?

  • Pete Wishart – 2020 Speech on Parliament Appointing the Prime Minister

    Pete Wishart – 2020 Speech on Parliament Appointing the Prime Minister

    Below is the text of the speech made by Pete Wishart, the SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, in the House of Commons on 1 July 2020.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the House of Commons to nominate the Prime Minister and approve appointments to the Cabinet; to establish the office of Acting Prime Minister; and for connected purposes.

    This is the third time I have attempted to bring this Bill before the House. The first time it had to be to be withdrawn because of a general election and the second time because of the covid lockdown. I was trying today to ensure that no other disaster befell me, so that I could be here in my place to deliver this Bill.

    One of the most curious things about the whole concept of parliamentary sovereignty is the fact that this House is not the least bit sovereign in the nomination of a Prime Minister. Shrouded in semi-mysticism and quasi-convention, this House plays absolutely no part in the process of deciding or determining the nomination of a Prime Minister, save serving solely as a mere spectator. My Bill puts that right by ensuring that the nomination of a Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet is a matter for the House and that we, as representatives of the people of this country, have a role to play in handing over the keys to the most powerful offices in this land.

    First, what this Bill does not do: it does not in the least alter the role of Her Majesty the Queen in the proceedings. The appointment of a Prime Minister will still be exclusively the job of Her Majesty the Queen as part of her prerogative powers. The Bill strengthens the constitutional convention of keeping the monarch out of politics, by ensuring that she appoints a Prime Minister having had that nominee agreed by this House.

    Through this Bill, I seek in effect to bring this House into the 21st century and replicate the conditions that we find in most other, properly functioning representative democracies right around the world, and even in properly functioning representative democracies in the rest of the United Kingdom. In the Scottish Parliament, the First Minister and her Cabinet must be approved by the Scottish Parliament and MSPs. The same is true in the Welsh and Northern Irish Assemblies; even the London Assembly works on that basis.

    The process allows confirmation from Parliament and even allows alternatives to emerge to see whether he or she might have the confidence of the House. The Bill would end the current situation, where a Prime Minister of this country can be decided by a few thousand members of the Conservative party. It would end the practice of the House’s having a Prime Minister foisted upon it without so much as a by-your-leave, where the Conservative Association of, say, Tunbridge Wells has more of a say than a directly elected Member of Parliament in determining who the Prime Minister is. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I hear the “Hear, hears” from Conservative Members, who obviously enjoy that particular privilege.

    Let us take a cursory look at how we had the good fortune to get our current Prime Minister. He was appointed by Her Majesty as a result of winning the Conservative leadership contest triggered by the resignation of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who was first appointed Prime Minister on 31 July 2016 as a result of the resignation of David Cameron as Prime Minister in July 2016. Since 2015, the UK has had two Prime Ministers appointed outside of a general election, determined exclusively by the membership of the Conservative of the United Kingdom. Looking at the current incumbent, we can only surmise the efficacy and good sense inherent in the current arrangements. This House must never again have an unelected Prime Minister forced upon it. A Prime Minister must be able to demonstrate that she or he has the confidence of this House at the inception of his or her premiership. My Bill would ensure that happens.

    My Bill would also help to deal with some of the issues that might unexpectedly arise in the course of a parliamentary term—for example, a Prime Minister losing a referendum on the European Union and having to resign. The current Prime Minister actually wiped away his own majority by banishing from the ranks of the Conservative party those who disagreed with his hard Brexit. His Government were left in a minority, yet he was still able to control the Order Paper of the House of Commons, though lacking the ability to pass any meaningful legislation.

    Then what did the Prime Minister do? He illegally prorogued Parliament to prevent the Brexit purgatory being effectively scrutinised and unnecessarily drew the Queen into illegal political proceedings—something that my Bill would address and rectify. Quite frankly, there is no way the current Prime Minister would have been approved by the House, as he would not have been able to demonstrate that confidence in the last Session of Parliament, and had this procedure been available to us last year, we could only speculate as to whether the United Kingdom would be in a better place now.

    The provisions in the Bill would be triggered by any of the following: any general election under the terms of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011; the Queen accepting the Prime Minister’s resignation; the office of Prime Minister becoming vacant for reasons other than resignation—namely death; and the Prime Minister ceasing to be a Member of the House of Commons as a result of a recall or crime, which of course we could never imagine happening with the current incumbent.

    Let us look specifically at one of these examples, because it is quite timely and relevant. All of us are rightly relieved to see the Prime Minister back in such rude health, press-upping his way to his disastrous Brexit. Looking at this epitome of a butcher’s dog, I find it hard to believe that it was touch and go for him only a few short weeks ago. Thank goodness he pulled through. With the Prime Minister’s incapacitation, however, we got the equivalent of government by headless chicken. Without the Prime Minister’s customary decisiveness and head for detail, we had no idea who was running the country.

    It seemed that the Foreign Secretary was in charge, by dint of his being the First Secretary, but he executed these responsibilities with all the guile of Emu without the assistance of Rod Hull. His only qualification for that role seemed to be that Dominic Cummings could not think of anybody else. He might not have been doing the job had we had a Deputy Prime Minister, but of course we no longer have one—that unpaid, powerless position whose holder sometimes deputises for the Prime Minister seems to have gone the same way as Nick Clegg. My Bill would create the office of acting Prime Minister to ensure that someone was accountable for the operation of government until the stricken Prime Minister recovered or another was found.

    My Bill would do much more than that, however, by seeking to ensure that the whole apparatus of government be a matter for this House and that the activities of wider government and all its advisory functions and capacity come under the responsibility of Parliament. Right now, there seems to be an initiative to reinvent the civil service in the guise of a hard Brexit organisation. A politicisation of the civil servants is being undertaken the likes of which we have never encountered in this country before. A state apparatus is being assembled in the guise of Dominic Cummings, who now effectively runs Whitehall, and we in this House have no right of scrutiny or ability to properly consider all this activity. The extraordinary sight of a Government adviser making a press statement to the country from the Downing Street rose garden could be the metaphor for how the country is now being governed.

    My Bill would codify certain aspects of the ministerial code to ensure that the whole of Government was accountable to this House. Ministers would have a duty to Parliament and be held accountable for the policies, decisions and actions of their Departments and agencies. It would uphold the political impartiality of the civil service and ensure that civil servants are not required to act in any way that would conflict with the civil service code as set out the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.

    My little Bill is simple in scope, but it is ambitious in what it wants to achieve. Our unwritten constitution, designed by convention, needs updating and refreshing, and that should start with the appointment of a Prime Minister and his or her Cabinet. We must never again have a Prime Minister nominated without the consent of this House. We must start to exert control and authority. This is a sensible and practical Bill to bring this House into the 21st century, and I commend it to the House.