Pete Wishart
MP for Perth and Kinross-shire · Scottish National Party · United Kingdom
“If these are indeed the last Scottish questions for the Secretary of State, we on these Benches will miss him almost as much as his Scottish Labour colleagues will do. If it is his swansong, when is he going to bring something—anything—to the table to help break this constitutional logjam? It could be an idea, a suggestion or a proposal.”
“Looking at the situation just now, I would say that, at best, it is 50:50 whether it succeeds or not. That is the context for the introduction of the Bill.”
“People who come to this country seeking refuge from conflict and persecution are not asking for special treatment—they just want to feel safe.”
“We are at a critical juncture in the whole debate about immigration. Look at what is going on across the UK—things are not good. Such is the noise that a general culture of anti-immigrant sentiment now sweeps this country, leading to whole communities feeling unsafe, demonised and scapegoated.”
“The news about Ann Widdecombe is truly shocking, and it is compounded by the way in which she met her death. The thoughts of the Scottish National party are with her friends and family today.”
“There were truly shocking and appalling scenes in Glasgow last week, fuelled by misinformation about the accommodation of asylum seekers. People were harassed in their own homes and roads were blocked.”
The complete record
Every one of 602 lines we hold for Pete Wishart, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“I cannot see why there could not be a section 30 order for the outstanding provisions beyond the medical resources. The Minister could do that. This is a failsafe. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with what the Chair of the Scottish Affairs Committee requested, which is some sort of draft order, so that we could see specifically what would be included. That would at least give some comfort to the MSPs who are considering this Bill.”
“I was at the Westminster Hall petition debate on indefinite leave to remain. Some 60 Labour MPs turned up and unanimously rubbished and disparaged the Home Secretary’s proposals. I got the impression that they were highly unlikely to support them, so can she guarantee that any changes to ILR will be brought to this House for debate and a vote?”
“The only statement that my constituents want today is a resignation statement. The only reform that they want is the reform that takes this Prime Minister out of No. 10 Downing Street, and it does not matter how many reviews, inquiries or fireguards the Government put in the way. The Prime Minister has lost the confidence and trust of the British people. We need a Government who will end this chaos. This Government promised to end the chaos when they came to power, but instead, it has gone through the stratosphere. The Prime Minister knows, everybody in this House knows, and everybody in this country knows that he is toast, so why do the Government not just get on with it and get rid of him?”
“The shadow Minister is absolutely right in his summary of all Jeffrey Epstein’s misdoings. We heard some shocking revelations during Prime Minister’s questions, such as the fact that the Prime Minister appointed Mandelson as ambassador despite knowing about his relationship with Epstein. Does the shadow Minister agree that the Prime Minister’s position is becoming increasingly untenable?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman share my opinion that Labour Members just do not seem to get it? There is rising anger right across the country, and it is directed at Jeffrey Epstein and all the things that have been going on, but this is now primarily becoming focused on the Prime Minister. His position is becoming increasingly untenable but they are not seeing what is happening in the commentariat and the press. This is happening in real time.”
“That is why indefinite leave to remain matters: it is the difference between planning for the future and simply enduring the present.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. Of all the grotesque and grim things that have been conducted by the Labour and Conservative parties in the race to the bottom with Reform, this is by the far the grimmest and most grotesque. In my constituency, I have met countless families who will be on the wrong side of this—families who do not deserve any of it, and have done everything asked of them. They work, they study, their children speak with a Scottish accent, and Scotland is the only home that many of them have ever known. They are cherished members of our community, yet many of them still wake up every morning unsure whether the life they are building for themselves and their family will be taken away.”
“Migrant families are already in survival mode, working long hours in low-wage jobs, saving for Home Office fees and living in insecure housing. Some risk destitution simply to keep up with the cost of maintaining lawful status. These pressures leave them with little time or energy to contribute to the volunteer initiatives that will be required of them. They have grown up here, and they have no home but this. It is so encouraging to see so many Labour Members here today. I say to them: “Get down to the PLP this evening and put your case forward. Let’s make sure that they know the voice of the Labour Members of this House—and please, for goodness’ sake, get another one of those famous U-turns.””
“This is a profound betrayal of those who trusted the system and have made the UK their home. I have a large Sri Lankan community in my constituency. They are partly—almost exclusively—responsible for keeping our social care service together. I met them a couple of weeks ago, and they told me they are going home, just because of the threat of this. They have had enough. They do not want to be treated like this any more. They are refusing to go along with this, and I have to say I do not blame them, but I worry: where we will get the staff to replace them in a Scotland that is in the early stages of depopulation and has some of the most challenging demographics in the whole of western Europe? They are irreplaceable.”
“Absolutely. When people are given security, it takes away that limbo. I do not know whether many people around this room can imagine that type of uncertain status, but that is what people have to live with every single day of their lives. Because of the proposed changes, people will remain for longer in the immigration system, where they face repeated applications, fees, health charges and often legal costs. Illness, injury or redundancy can throw everything into question, and it might even be penalised. What is most unforgiveable, though, is that the Government have left open the possibility that the changes could apply retrospectively to people who have already started their journey towards citizenship in the UK, and who are building their lives under the current rules.”
“Will the Minister confirm, very clearly, from the Dispatch Box that any changes to ILR will be voted on by the whole House, giving all his colleagues in the Chamber tonight the opportunity to express their genuine hostility to these proposals?”
“Over the weekend, the Home Secretary was trailing this proposal as a British FBI. While it might indeed be their FBI, British it most definitely is not, as it applies only to England and Wales. In Scotland, we are immensely proud of our culture and ethos of policing by consent and the fact that we have the lowest crime rates in the whole of the UK. The last thing we want is this creeping Americanisation. Can she say today—clearly and concisely—that this proposal will not apply to Scotland and no attempt will be made to foist it on us?”
“We support this Bill and its efforts to tackle cyber-security, but it does not address the mass unauthorised scraping of trusted news content by generative AI systems. That content, as the Minister knows, is often taken without consent or compensation. As the Bill progresses, will he be prepared to look at some measures—maybe something like a bot register where people have to declare their intent when it comes to this type of activity? Will the Government look at this seriously so that news can be protected in this new environment?”
“Those protesting at hotels are usually there because they have been served misinformation and far-right political rhetoric by those with sinister political agendas. One way we found to tackle that is to give proper information—tell the stories of what drove people to this country and the real conditions in their homelands. Will the Minister consider doing a similar type of initiative to dampen down some of the misinformation and terrible political rhetoric that we get at these asylum hotels?”
“It would be hard to find an occasion on which a British Prime Minister has looked as irrelevant and spineless on an era-defining international issue as this one does on this occasion. We are witnessing an existential threat to the international rules-based order, and the Prime Minister cannot rouse himself to give it even the meekest of defences. France, Spain, Brazil, Mexico and the UN Secretary-General have all been clear that the Trump Administration have violated international law. When will the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary find their voices and join that chorus of condemnation?”
“UK Music’s excellent “This is Music” report found that it has become increasingly difficult for new musical artists to be heard and for careers to be built. Recompense through streaming services is minuscule and artist remuneration a real issue. On the live side, Brexit has made touring the EU almost impossible, and grassroots venues continue to close. Does the Secretary of State recognise that without meaningful action, we risk creating a music industry where only the privileged and rich can afford to build a career?”
“4. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the potential impact of the UK’s asylum and returns policies on Scotland.”
“This Government’s new heinous asylum and immigration policy marks a dark moment for many who have chosen Scotland to be their home, even leaving children born in Scotland at risk of deportation. I do not know if the Minister has noticed that we are facing a population and demography crisis that the policy will only make 10 times worse, and if we do not address it, it will have a huge impact on our economy and social services. Why does Scottish Labour support an immigration policy that is contrary to the Scottish interest?”
“When the Bill was introduced, I thought that it was the ultimate horror and an attempt to outdo Reform, but it was a mere aperitif compared with the main course of the horrors of this week. On these specific measures, does the Minister recognise the possible impact on support agencies and services that assist refugees and asylum seekers? Did he not listen to the many representations from those groups about the difficulties that the measures will cause them?”
“Like me and several other hon. Members present, the hon. Gentleman spent hours in Committee considering these measures, only for the Home Secretary to come along this week and trump them with even harsher measures. Does he agree that it almost feels like we are all wasting our time considering measures that will be superseded by the measures announced by the Home Secretary?”
“The Government are currently spending some £2.1 billion on hotels, but the system is not working. It does not have to be that way. The Public and Commercial Services union and Together With Refugees have shown that a humane asylum system, which expedites asylum hearings and supports employment, could reduce asylum costs by 40%. Will the Home Secretary at least look at the evidence and concede that she does not always have to try to outdo the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage)?”
“In its manifesto, Labour promised to defend migrants’ rights and build an immigration system based on compassion and dignity. Instead, we have a policy that is welcomed by Reform UK and has even found favour with Tommy Robinson. Throwing refugees into destitution, denying any meaningful route to citizenship and forcible evictions—where exactly is the compassion and dignity in that?”
“Debates about partiality are something that we in Scotland are more than familiar with—particularly those in the 50% on the side of Scottish independence—but these sustained attacks on the BBC by forces that seek to undermine it and mould it into their instrument must be resisted. Surely that could be assisted by the sacking of Robbie Gibb. Will the Secretary of State assure me that with any changes in leadership, BBC Scotland’s editorial independence will be maintained and it will continue to serve us according to our national debate and our political culture?”
“Since 1980, the European Court of Human Rights has found against the UK in just 13 cases, only four of them concerning family life. But those politicians do not just want to leave the ECHR; they want to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 as well. They would seek to abolish its 16 core protections, leaving the UK as about the only country with no chapter on human rights. I say this to Labour Members: instead of fully defending the ECHR, the Government accept the premise that there is something wrong with it—that it needs to be amended and made compliant with Government interests. They talk about article 8 as being redefined—”
“It enshrines our freedoms of speech, to assemble, to worship, to protest and to live our private lives free from interference, and it is a living instrument that evolves as our society evolves. It is everything that the populists despise. Most of the time, we are not aware of the ECHR—most of our constituents probably do not know what is actually in the document—but it is always there, guaranteeing our freedoms and our rights. It does not seek attention; it simply ensures that the Government—any Government—act in a way that respects our rights. It is our silent guardian. Leaving the ECHR will not stop the boats or allow the Government to deport masses of our fellow citizens, but it will tear holes in our domestic law.”
“Those politicians want to remove our basic rights in order to leave the disadvantaged unprotected and their authoritarian tendencies unchallenged. It is in situations like this, when our human rights are most under attack, that we must redouble our efforts to ensure that they are preserved. Let us remind ourselves of the company that the hon. Member for Clacton wants to keep: Russia and Belarus—perhaps that should not surprise us either. He spends half his time as an apologist for the Kremlin, and he has the slight inconvenience of his party’s treasurer in Wales having been found guilty of taking bribes from Russian interests. Let us remind ourselves what this is all about. The ECHR was created from the ashes of the second world war. It was designed to ensure that the atrocities of that dark time could never be repeated.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) on securing this debate. When politicians such as the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), Conservative Members or, indeed, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) want us to leave the European convention on human rights, it tells us something quite reassuring, which is that the ECHR is doing precisely the job it was designed to do to protect all of us from the whims of tinpot populists like the hon. Member for Clacton. When parties such as Reform, and indeed the Conservative party, rail against the ECHR, it tells us everything we need to know about why it is so desperately required.”
“Q5. On Monday, the Defence Secretary said at the Dispatch Box that the Scottish Government were a “threat” to national security—a charge repeated this morning by the Scottish Secretary. What he in effect was saying is that a democratically elected Government elected by 1.3 million Scots poses a threat to this country. I do not know whether that is something the Deputy Prime Minister will repeat at the Dispatch Box today, but can he tell me why democratic Scotland is a threat to national security and China is not?”
“As long as I get any opportunity, I will continue to ask why Perth, and Perth and Kinross, is not getting one penny from the current allocation. Why has Perth and Kinross never had one single penny from any Government allocation? Why did this Labour Government take away the £5 million that we finally got from the Conservatives? Finally, when is Perth, and Perth and Kinross, going to get its fair share?”
“Just to explain why Labour is not in power and we are, I will list a few things we have done for the Scottish people and see what the hon. Member thinks: free tuition, free personal care, 1,100—”
“Does the hon. Member recognise the over 100 SNP achievements? I could list them if she wants, but I am not going to be allowed to do so. Does she recognise the real gains and progress that we have made in Scotland? [ Interruption. ] I know Labour Members like to shout down SNP Members—they are sitting here doing their usual gurn fest—but our substantial achievements surely should be recognised by the Labour party.”
“We are the UK Government; of course you can trust us.” Well, we have heard it all before, and we know that this campaign is only going to be ramped up because the concerns remain the same: the threats to our privacy and civil liberties, the risk of mass surveillance, the dangers of Government overreach, and the too real vulnerabilities that come with storing vast quantities of personal data. We have only to look at the newspaper headlines this morning to see the true effects of that particular fear, with the breakdown in Amazon workplaces. Imagine if it were the personal data of everybody across the United Kingdom.”
“The tone of the debate seems eerily familiar. Once again we have a Government earnestly assuring us that digital ID is a benign, benevolent scheme designed purely to make life easier for the general public. They talk about the Tesco clubcard and never having to find your utility bills ever again, as though it is nothing more than a boarding pass. It is a sort of, “Do not worry your silly little heads about this mass data collection or our new-found ability to monitor your every move.”
“Tony Blair famously tried to introduce ID cards back in the 2000s before being forced to abandon them by a fantastic campaign by civil liberty campaigners, Members of this House, and the millions of ordinary UK citizens who simply refused to have ID cards foisted upon them. But they are back. Like a spectre from the political grave, ID cards are with us once again. It is just possible that Tony Blair might reach his ultimate aim and aspiration of getting ID cards back, only this time in the form of his proxy, the current Prime Minister. I had the misfortune of being around back in the 2000s, along with the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is sitting behind me. We were part of the campaign that defeated Tony Blair at that point, and we look forward to defeating him again.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of mandatory digital ID. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship once again, Mr Turner. I did not know I was so popular today. I am delighted to see so many colleagues joining us in this short debate. I warmly welcome the Minister to his new role. We were shocked and appalled by his unjustified defenestration at the Scotland Office. We were energetic supporters of the “get Ian a job—any job” campaign, so we are delighted to see him here in his rightful place today. It has to be asked, though: who has he upset in the last few weeks to be landed with this particular poisoned chalice? But here we go again. It has taken 20 years, but ID cards are back, this time in a shiny new digital format, turbocharged by all the new features of modern technology.”
“I heard the Minister’s car-crash interview on Radio Scotland. He told us simultaneously that the Government plans were both compulsory and voluntary, and went on to say that apparently digital ID would be “mandatory for some purposes”—a sort of partial compulsion, a digital half-pregnancy. Maybe this is a Schrödinger’s Britcard.”
“I am not going to waste time responding to all that nonsense. It is a voluntary scheme. Does the hon. Member know the difference between voluntary and mandatory? All he needs to do is shake his head or nod. The detail is at hand. This new scheme has been objected to because it is mandatory—one of the few mandatory ID systems anywhere in the world. The Scot card is great. It is up to the individual user what gets put into it and what gets shared. This new scheme could barely have got off to a worse start. Support for digital ID has collapsed since the public have been able to see the Government’s proposals. The petition calling for the proposals to be scrapped has become one of the fastest growing ever. It is now at almost 3 million signatories, and I am pretty certain that by the time I sit down it will be well over 3 million.”
“Given its recent controversies, it is probably a good idea for the Minister and his Government team to stay as far away from Labour Together as they possibly can. Let us have a proper look under the bonnet of the great British Britcard. The Government say that it will be free of charge this time around, and available to all citizens and legal residents. So far, so good, but we still do not know its reach. Who will be expected to take one? There are already rumours that 13-year-olds might have to have a Britcard, although that has been disputed by the Government, and we already know that our veterans will be the first of the many digital guinea pigs.”
“Absolutely. As I said, support for it has been plummeting right across the United Kingdom, and I am not surprised. Let us just dispel the notion that this is voluntary. This is a mandatory scheme. It is compulsory. It is to be compulsory for work, and if it is compulsory for work, it will be mandatory full stop. The only people who will not need one of these Britcards are those who plan never to work, rent a home, have access to public services or take part in normal life. As we know, all this emerged from our friends in Labour Together. It was they who first proposed it, and it has been adopted by the Labour party. For some reason, they thought they would call it the Britcard—almost immediately alienating most of Scotland and probably about half of Northern Ireland at the same time.”
“Let us be absolutely clear: illegal working does not stop because people are forced to carry digital ID cards; it stops when people are allowed to work legally, contribute to society and live without fear. Big Brother Watch has called mandatory digital ID a “civil liberties nightmare”, and it is absolutely right. Amnesty International warns that such a scheme risks becoming “a honeypot for hackers” and a tool for state surveillance—again, absolutely right. The UK has never been a nation where it is normal for someone to have to prove who they are when they are not suspected of doing anything wrong. I do not share the concept of being British, but there is something particularly un-British about having to surrender huge amounts of personal data just to access basic services.”
“I most definitely agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is absurd and unfair that our veterans are the guinea pigs who will test this out for the Government. We are told that digital ID is essential to tackling illegal working and illegal migration. When we look at the evidence on mandatory ID across the world, that just does not stack up. Under the Government’s plan, anyone seeking work must prove their right to work through this digital ID, giving the Home Office sweeping new powers over individuals’ daily lives, from employment to housing and basic public services. There is no clear evidence whatsoever, from anywhere mandatory ID is in place, that it reduces illegal working or irregular migration.”
“But even with all their knowledge, experience and digital systems, there have been catastrophic data leaks, which has led to real problems and issues for the citizenry. Look across Europe: Europe, like Scotland, is developing its own type of digital wallet. That is the right thing to do. People like having these things in a digital wallet. The key difference is that it is not mandatory—we come back to that feature again. In Scotland, we are developing the ScotAccount, which has proven very popular. I encourage people to use it. There is nothing wrong with having things in a digital wallet. It becomes wrong only when it is made mandatory—when people are expected to carry one even though they do not want to.”
“Digital ID is much more technical and complicated to administer than the physical version. Do the sums work out? How much will this cost? All our constituents should be asking every Member of Parliament whether we should spend billions of pounds on a scheme that nobody wants and that there is no demand for when a cost of living crisis is raging in every single one of our constituencies. Are we seriously going to spend billions of pounds on an unpopular, crackbrained scheme that no one wants or needs? Then there is what is happening elsewhere. We have heard foreign examples to suggest that this is just business as normal for this Government. They are keen to promote the Estonia scheme. I have had a good look at Estonia. Estonia is 10 times more digitally engaged than the United Kingdom. It is an entirely different nation.”
“Imagine Prime Minister Farage, with all his authoritarian tendencies, with the data of the nation at his fingertips. It scares me half to death and it should scare the whole House half to death. Then there is the cost. The Government have been very coy about the cost. They are reluctant to give us even a ballpark figure, and they are absolutely right—those prepared to work out an estimate on their behalf have said that, initially, this could cost anything between £1.2 billion and £2 billion. That is a gross underestimate. Laughably, our friends in Labour Together told us that it would be £1.4 million. We need only look at the costs of the physical ID to get a sense of what it will eventually cost. The physical ID would cost £5.4 billion. Some people reckon it would get above £15 billion, possibly to £19 billion or £20 billion.”
“We are getting a little bit off-track, but I will answer that because the right hon. Gentleman needs an answer: no, I do not think that was a mistake. It was the correct thing to do. Mandatory digital ID would fundamentally change the trust-based relationship between citizen and state, replacing it with one of constant verification and oversight. Let us not forget about the danger of mission creep. Once this type of infrastructure exists, it rarely stays confined to its original purpose. The Government say that the police will not be able to demand to see a person’s digital ID, but does anyone seriously believe that will not change over time? This is about not just what this Government might do, but what every future Government might do. We are empowering not just this Labour Government, but every Government that will come after it.”
“The public hate them, and I believe the petition now has more than 3 million signatures, so we are getting there with the general campaign. I pity the Minister for having to take this through; he would have been much better off had he kept his place in the Scotland Office. We saw off ID cards in the 2000s. Twenty years on, whether it is plastic cards or digital apps, this is still a data-grabbing, liberty-eroding, multibillion-pound waste of time. We beat them in 2005; and the SNP, with our leadership of the campaign in this Parliament, will ensure that we see them off once again.”
“I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. That is the issue, and the Government seem cloth-eared about it. In Scotland, we will have to pass what is called a legislative consent motion to allow this to go through, given our responsibilities for devolved services. We are not going to do that. The Minister will have to decide whether he accepts the democratic will of the Scottish Parliament or whether he will do a Tory and impose it on us anyway. I challenge him to do that in the run-up to the Scottish election, because he will turn this into a nightmare for the Government and a constitutional nightmare for the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). We do not want these things. We think they are thoroughly bad. We saw them off in the 2000s, and we will see them off again.”
“The Government continue their haphazard approach to artificial intelligence and copyright. I wish they would get that resolved. One thing that has concerned and upset the sector was the comments of a newly appointed special adviser to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, who said, “whether or not you philosophically believe the big AI firms should compensate content creators, they in practice will never legally have to”. I am really hoping that the Secretary of State distances herself from those comments and that that is not the intention of her Government.”
“I congratulate all Members who have secured funding in this pride in place settlement, but once again Perth and Kinross has been totally and utterly ignored. We did not receive one penny in levelling-up funding from the Tories, and we have received nothing from this Labour Government. Worse than that, they actually took away from Perth and Kinross the £5 million that we had finally secured from the Conservatives. The people of Perth and Kinross are sick and tired of being ignored in this merry-go-round of pork barrel politics. When are we going to get our share, and just what have the UK Government got against the people of Perth and Kinross?”
“First, on behalf of the Scottish National party, I join the Home Secretary in expressing our solidarity with the Jewish community after the horror of the appalling events at the Heaton Park synagogue. Such antisemitic hate must never be allowed to prevail or divide us. In Scotland, the police have increased security in our centres of faith, and have asked the public to remain vigilant following the attack. However, does the Home Secretary not see that by cracking down on our legitimate right to protest, she is simply giving succour to the haters, allowing them to dictate our approach to protest, and to alter basic freedoms that we have always enjoyed? Surely that cannot be the Government’s intention.”