Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Meg Hillier

2nd reading
Friday 25th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

Absolutely. I was going to come to that, but it is good to look at that now. There are reasons for that, although I am not entirely clear about them; the Committee did not get to the heart of that in its analysis. We live in a United Kingdom and have a massive mega-city, London, so there is always the allure for young Scots to come down to London. I did it myself, and I am pretty certain that the Secretary of State spent a good part of his young life in London. Most Scots at some point find themselves living in London. But it is worse than that for Scotland, because we have a centuries-old historical culture and tradition of emigration. Immigration has not really been that big an issue for us. We obviously benefit from it, but the key feature in the history of Scotland and this debate is emigration. As everybody knows, there are Scots communities all around the world, from Canada and New Zealand to the United States, and they have always acted as a draw for our young people. Not so much now, but previously, young Scots settled abroad, so we got into this cultural trend of people leaving Scotland. We have to address that.

One other thing that the Scottish Affairs Committee looked at but did not come to any great conclusion about was deindustrialisation and its impact on encouraging people to emigrate. We obviously have deindustrialisation in Scotland, and we need only look at some of our major cities, and at the difficulties and features of life in those cities, to see why people would leave. We are wrestling with problems that successive UK Governments have bequeathed Scotland, whether through Brexit policy or the two-child benefit cap, mixed with the historical attitude to emigration and deindustrialisation. Those are the things that my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry and his modest Bill invite us to address.

My hon. Friend has not got the solution in the Bill; he said that, and that it is an open Bill. I am quite surprised that the Secretary of State does not understand how Committee works for private Members’ Bills. My hon. Friend is giving an invitation to the House. I am laying out the difficulties and issues that we have identified—I will get on to demography in Scotland in a minute; hon. Members should wait till they hear about that—and my hon. Friend is saying, “Help us.” Let us work together. We have a real problem in Scotland. There are some fantastic contributions to be made, with real in-depth analysis by people who understand how to look at critical questions and come up with solutions. Help us deal with this, so that we can address the range of issues that we have. Believe me, if we do not start to address them, we will be in really serious trouble.

[Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. We see from other countries that there are ways of dealing with the issue without having full devolution, for many of the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Mr Quigley) laid out. As was highlighted earlier, the Home Secretary made the Scottish Government an offer to work with the Migration Advisory Committee on solutions. Full devolution would be expensive and time consuming, and it would not deliver.

[Pete Wishart]

This is helpful, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry was hoping for such positive contributions. I am very much aware of the work that the Migration Advisory Committee does, and I commend it for that, but its list of occupations required in Scotland is not nearly enough—it does not even touch the sides of our difficulties. If the hon. Lady has some thoughts on how that could be beefed up and made more effective and useful, we are all ears—come and serve on the Committee and help us. We need positive solutions to identified problems. That is the territory we want to get into.

We have long-term population decline in Scotland. When I started to engage in this debate in the early 2000s, there was a real fear that, for the first time since the 19th century, Scotland’s population would drop below the iconic 5 million mark. That was only reversed because of the imagination of the previous Labour Government and their generosity when it came to immigration policy—something that the current Government would never even think about. The vision of Tony Blair about how Europe would work and how the single market would develop helped Scotland to address some of the issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Meg Hillier]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, there is another leader in this world who has talked about building a wall.

[Pete Wishart]

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

[Dame Meg Hillier]

If the cap fits, maybe the hon. Gentleman should consider his position. I am not suggesting for a minute that we would see border guards and towers, but once there is a land border there is a risk. We have seen in other parts of the world and among allies of ours more recently quite intemperate discussion about borders, walls and security. We would not want to go down that route.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Pete Wishart and Meg Hillier

Thursday 19th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart]

All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is: let us not go back to the 19th century. Let us hope that our 21st-century resources and infrastructure are able to cope with the increased demand that Members of Parliament and other people across our community will make on them. It is beyond my remit as a member of the House of Commons Commission to be able to comment on the failings of some of the infrastructure and its ability to withstand some of the demands that will be placed upon it.

All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that in the House of Commons, staff in digital services will do everything possible to ensure that we continue to be connected with our constituents. I would suggest to all Members that if they have any concerns about being able to work remotely or concerns about the ability of the network to withstand things, please get in touch with the 24-hour services available from digital services. I am sure everyone knows the number: 2001.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

The challenges of the last few days and weeks have thrown up why we need to modernise this place and why we need to get on with restoration and renewal. I understand that the Commission is meeting on Monday to discuss next steps. Is it not time that we gave the sponsor body the powers to get on with dealing with the Northern Estate, make sure it is in the hands of proper professionals who can get on with the work and make sure that we are resilient for this sort of situation in the future and for many years to come?

[Pete Wishart]

I commend the hon. Lady’s creativity in being able to shoehorn restoration and renewal into question about digital facilities. She is absolutely right: the Commission will meet on Monday to consider further measures when it comes to restoration and renewal. The hon. Lady is very closely connected to and interested in this work, and those measures will be communicated when we have concluded our meeting on Monday. It is something, even in the current conditions and with the crisis that is facing us, that the Commission takes very seriously, and we will continue to inform the House of ongoing statements and work in relation to restoration and renewal.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Meg Hillier

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Of all the things this House can do to endear itself to the good people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, spending billions of pounds on renovating the place where we, the Members of Parliament, do our work probably, just about, would not make the top 10. In these days of austerity and with us still going through all the horrors and psychodramas of this crazy Tory Brexit it almost seems like it is designed to intentionally wind up the good people of this country. So I sincerely wish this House all the very best in trying to sell this to a sceptical and, frankly, had-enough nation.

[Meg Hillier]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Pete Wishart]

I have barely started, but I will give way given that the hon. Lady is Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

[Meg Hillier]

The hon. Gentleman is critical of spending money on the UK Parliament so it amuses me that there are colleagues of all of ours up the road, as he would say, in a wonderful, splendid modern Parliament building that cost the taxpayer quite a lot of money.

[Pete Wishart]

I will say two things to the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] She is already hearing a chorus on one of them: it cost less than Portcullis House. And if she wants to know about the difficulties in designing a Parliament and creating a Parliament she only needs to look at the experience of the Scottish Parliament. That was one of the first pieces of work that the Scottish Parliament went into, and I can tell the hon. Lady that it was not particularly easy; there was real discontent about it. That is what this House and Members will experience; that is what they have got to look forward to, because they will have to try to sell this to a sceptical nation, and I wish them all the very best.

On that, let me declare an interest—or maybe a disinterest. Me and my colleagues do not intend to be here at the end of the process.

[Meg Hillier]

Labour gains.

[Pete Wishart]

I was going to tell a few jokes in my speech, but I think we have heard the funniest one already: the idea of the Labour party gaining any seats from the Scottish National party is the best joke we will hear.

Let me declare my disinterest: me and my SNP colleagues are not going to be here. We are probably not even going to be here at the commencement of the project given its tortuous progress. So we will let other Members get on with their vital restoration and renewal work while we get down to the business of restoring and renewing our beautiful country in the shape of the priorities of the Scottish people.

I like the fact that those in charge of this call it restoration and renewal—R and R. Who doesn’t like a bit of R and R? Everybody likes that. If they called it the restoring of a Parliament for the Members of Parliament of this country I am sure they would have a few more difficulties in trying to explain that to the people of this country. And good luck to them in defending the £4 billion to £6 billion that they will have to spend on restoring and renewing this place.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Pete Wishart and Meg Hillier

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Meg Hillier]

That is not what we are suggesting, as the hon. Gentleman would see if he read the new clause. As I said, we are suggesting that the information be migrated to the passport database.

We recognise that this is a rare area of unity for both Government parties, which is perhaps why it is being rushed through. The Government clearly want to get rid of the national identity register. However, it would not be difficult to migrate data to the passport database, especially given that everybody who currently holds a card has recently held, or currently holds, a passport. Of the 11,000 people affected, many may choose not to take up migration of the card. If there were to be the option of a credit on their passport database, some may not choose to take that up either. However, it would give them the option. I believe that it can be done relatively cheaply, and that it is fair.

This is being done with the ideologically driven haste of the Minister. We have debated this previously and I know that he is passionate about getting rid of ID cards, but basic fairness is involved. Frankly, those who bought in good faith from the trusted Identity and Passport Service have been diddled by this Government. If the Minister gets up and talks about what his manifesto said, we will be driven to despair. We discussed this in Committee. When somebody buys a passport or an identity card, or has any other transaction with Government, they will not necessarily take into account something that has been said in a political manifesto. Government has some degree of continuity and when an individual has bought something in good faith, there needs to be some recompense for them.

We recognise, reluctantly, that both parties in this Government had a mandate to get rid of identity cards; as I said, it is one area of unanimity within the coalition. Therefore, whatever our position on that general issue, we will not press the matter to a vote. However, the issue of compensation is very important, and we will seek to divide the House on the new clause unless the Minister can give us some reassurances.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

I rise to oppose vigorously the new clause.

We have to be absolutely and abundantly clear about the fact that identity cards are exclusively and solely a new Labour creation. Every single other party in this House made it absolutely clear that we would have nothing whatsoever to do with them and that if we had even the remotest opportunity to get rid of these useless and intrusive lumps of plastic, we would do so immediately. We actively encouraged people not to take out ID cards. For those who did so, under new Labour encouragement, that was their free and fair choice: tough luck to them. We are now enacting exactly what we told them. The new coalition Government are absolutely right to try to get rid of ID cards. They said they would do it in 100 days. I am disappointed that it will take a little bit longer than that, but thank goodness we are getting rid of this hated, obtrusive and ridiculous scheme.

We refer to these as ID cards, but let us give them their proper name. They are not ID cards, but NLID cards—new Labour identity cards. They are a monumental folly that symbolises new Labour’s attempt to create the anti-civil libertarian state, and thank goodness they did not get away with it. Instead of droning on about compensating the poor mugs they encouraged to take out ID cards, why do not Labour Members get on board and join us in celebrating the removal of these things? Nobody wants them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pete Wishart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have that quote from the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), who said:

“As someone who is liberal on social issues and civil liberties, I accept that in government we were too draconian on aspects of our civil liberties…We have to have to be able to say we won’t go back to ID cards.”

Come on, the rest of you—catch up! He might be your leader, because according to the opinion polls he is ahead. You are way behind current thinking on this. Labour had a good record on civil liberties until new Labour came along—please get back in touch with your civil libertarian roots.

[Meg Hillier]

I am interested to hear the Scottish National party’s position. In fact, people could not easily apply for ID cards in Scotland, and that is why very few did so. They were not formally launched there at the point at which the Government changed, but they would have been coming and I am sure that there are many people in Scotland who would have liked one.

Leaving that aside, it would be interesting to know what the SNP’s position is on fingerprints in passports, which is something that Members from many parties in this House, both Government and Opposition, have indicated is very important, and something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North has not ruled out.

[Pete Wishart]

If you will allow me, Mr Deputy Speaker, because we are straying somewhat from the terms of the debate, I would say to the hon. Lady that I am very pleased that the coalition Government are picking up the Scottish example as regards databases. They have seen the good sense of the SNP Government in their approach to these issues, and I congratulate them on following and copying their model.

Given that it was Labour Members alone and exclusively who encouraged people to take out ID cards, why are they asking the taxpayer to help with compensation? It should be the Labour party that compensates the poor souls who took them out. It has all these trade union funds—what is it going to do with them? If you want compensation to be paid to these people, pay it yourself.

I have one bit of comfort for all those who have taken out ID cards in the course of the past year: they are becoming a collector’s item. This is really intriguing and interesting. Forget about compensation—all they need to do is get one of the great Labour champions of the anti-civil libertarian state to sign their card. If anyone watching this has an ID card, they should get Mr Clarke, Mr Reid or Jacqui Smith to sign it, and that will increase its collectability. They might get more than the £30 that they want the Government to pay them back. Here is a good idea: they should get the absolute champion of ID cards, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), to sign it; they would probably turn a profit given the collectability that that would have in the future. The collectability of ID cards makes them almost like little bits of the Berlin wall, appropriately, and that is how they are likely to remain.

I make a plea to the Labour party: get on board with this. Get in touch with your civil libertarian roots, find a new agenda, listen to what is happening in your leadership contest, and forget about droning on about compensation and trying to get this scheme to go on. It is done, finished—move on. I am with the Government on this one. We should reject this new clause, make sure that nobody gets compensation, and end the scheme tomorrow if we can.