Call for General Election
John Lamont Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 727309 relating to a general election.
It is truly a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Edward. Democracy is fundamental to any free and functioning country. Every hon. Member in this House is here for one reason: our constituents put their trust in us through the ballot box. We stood on manifestos, political parties made promises, and voters judged those promises and placed their faith in those they believed would honour them. That is why this petition matters.
More than 1 million people have signed this petition calling for a general election, including 1,124 people in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. It is important to be clear: under our constitutional arrangements, a petition itself cannot trigger a general election. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That authority rests with the Prime Minister, unless he is overridden by a vote of no confidence. Even so, I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on the scale of this petition. Parliament considers many petitions, but this one is set apart by its size and by the speed with which public support has been mobilised. Each week, as I speak to constituents across the Scottish Borders, most fair-minded people accept that Governments must adapt to world events and unexpected challenges, whether a pandemic or a war. What they will not accept is a party promising one thing before an election and then doing the complete opposite once in power.
Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that what Labour promised before the election, to people from farmers to publicans, has been completely betrayed? Almost 2,000 of my constituents in South Shropshire have signed this petition because they believe that the Government have failed and betrayed the British people.
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am going to return to the word “betrayal” later, but there is a real sense that what was promised before the election has simply not been delivered.
During the 2024 general election campaign, Labour promised one thing above all else: change. We have certainly seen change, but it is not for the better. On the morning of Friday 5 July 2024, the new Prime Minister stood on the steps of No. 10 and promised a “Government of service”. He promised to put the country before his party.
John Lamont
He promised not to raise taxes—Labour Members are not “Hear, hear!” now, are they?
The Prime Minister promised accountability and transparency. The question that many of us are now asking is: service to whom? To his hard-left Back Benchers? To his trade union paymasters? This Labour Government have now been in power for 18 months, and Britain is suffering as a result. We have a Prime Minister surrounded by advisers who appear to lack both clarity of purpose and a coherent plan for the country.
Let us remind ourselves of some of the broken promises that have fuelled the public anger. Winter fuel payments were cut within weeks of Labour taking office, leaving pensioners feeling the cold last winter. Labour promised in its manifesto not to increase national insurance, yet the jobs tax raised employer national insurance contributions and, combined with the un-Employment Rights Act, has increased the cost of hiring a worker by around £1,000. In total, we have seen £64 billion—£64 billion—in tax rises across the Chancellor’s first two Budgets. Let us hope, for all our sakes, that the Chancellor does not get a chance to deliver another Budget.
Before the election, the Prime Minister told the National Farmers’ Union that
“losing a farm is not like losing any other business—it can’t come back.”
He was right. Yet his Government introduced the family farm tax, a policy that threatens the future of family farms across the country. Although we welcome the partial U-turn announced just before Christmas, that tax should be scrapped entirely. I pay tribute to farmers for their tireless campaigning over the past year, including many in my constituency, such as Peter Douglas from Hawick and Robert Neill from Jedburgh.
Pubs and hospitality businesses are also facing a bleak future under this Labour Government. Rising business rates, higher costs and the jobs tax are battering businesses that are vital to our economy. Pubs such as · the Allanton Inn in Berwickshire or the Black Bull in Lauder are at the heart of our local communities. Hospitality venues are closing, laying off staff and cutting hours as a direct consequence of this Government’s decisions. While the number of pubs remained broadly stable up until 2024, following the Chancellor’s jobs tax announcements, closures accelerated in the first half of 2025 at a rate of two venues per day. By mid-2025, there were 374 fewer pubs than at the start of the year.
Illegal immigration is another clear example of failure. The Prime Minister promised to “smash the gags”. Instead, small boat crossings rose by 13% in Labour’s first full year in office. Last year, more than 41,000 people entered the United Kingdom illegally, with 32,000 now housed in asylum hotels at the taxpayer’s expense. That outcome is hardly surprising when one of the Government’s first acts was to scrap the deterrent to discourage illegal migrants from heading to the UK. We know that deterrents work. The previous Conservative Government reduced Albanian small boat crossings by over 90% through a returns agreement. We now have a Home Secretary who talks tough, but a Government too weak to make the difficult decisions needed to fix the problem.
Labour also promised to take back our streets and recruit more police officers. Instead, there are now 1,316 fewer police in England and Wales than when they took office. Then there is digital identification— something that people did not vote for, did not want and do not need. Innovation has its place, but we should not mandate ID for law-abiding citizens or exclude those who choose not to participate from taking their full rights.
Stuart Anderson
I have made clear my views on the authoritarian approach of digital ID. Many constituents in South Shropshire would be excluded because of remote connectivity. Does my hon. Friend see that as a major issue?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not only is it something that was not discussed before the election, it is something that there is no public support for. But in rural communities, such as those in the constituencies that both my hon. Friend and I represent, there is a real issue with connectivity and how it will work in practice. People may be deprived of the ability to access vital public services as a consequence, if we believe the things that some Labour MPs are saying that they hope this ID system will achieve.
This Government have been blown off course, with multiple U-turns on income tax, WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—compensation, welfare reform and the long overdue inquiry into grooming gangs—the list grows longer by the day. This Government are riddled with chaos and scandal, with Ministers resigning over fraud, corruption allegations, tax issues and ethical failures, right up to a Prime Minister who claims excessive freebies. Britain deserves better.
From my emails, surgeries and doorstep conversations, I know that colleagues will recognise the same mood across the country: disappointment, anger and a profound sense of betrayal—the word “betrayal” comes up time and again. Labour Members should reflect carefully on why so many people feel that way. The Government’s response to this petition was to dismiss it, and to dismiss the voices of the more than 1 million people who signed it. Those concerned should not be brushed aside simply because parliamentary mechanisms do not allow this House to act for them directly. This Government are giving the impression that they believe themselves to be above public opinion. The Opposition will not allow that.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, seven of the top 10 constituencies in terms of numbers of people who have signed the petition are in Essex, and they include my own constituency. That is how unpopular Labour is in Essex. Does he think that might have anything to do with why Labour councillors want to cancel the local elections in Essex in May? Or is that just an amazing coincidence?
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This time last year, we had a petition on a similar subject, which millions of people signed, and I think Essex was also at the top of the league table for numbers of signatures. I am a member of the Petitions Committee, which is why I am presenting the petition on behalf of the Committee—a few other members of the Committee are here today. We deal with petitions every single week, but very rarely do we see petitions that attract this level of support and public participation, such is the sense of anger and betrayal felt by people out there in the country.
As I was saying, the Conservatives will continue to challenge and force reversals of damaging policies, just as we did on the winter fuel payment, the family farm tax and the grooming gangs inquiry. Labour promised to be different, but instead it has presided over a catalogue of broken promises, scandals and policy announcements that no one supports.
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
In preparing for this e-petition debate, I clicked on the House of Commons Library service, which invites Members to look at a Government tracker produced by the registered charity and independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact. Did the hon. Member click on that and look at its findings in relation to the 86 pledges from the Labour party manifesto?
John Lamont
I have not looked at that particular facility. I am here to represent the 1 million people who signed the petition calling for an election and all the people I speak to each week in my constituency who are fed up with the U-turns, betrayals and chaos that this Government—the party that the hon. Gentleman represents—are presiding over. I make no apology for standing up for those people and putting the case that they have asked me to make on their behalf. The Labour Government may still have the votes, as the hon. Gentleman has demonstrated, but they have lost the country. Britain deserves far better than this Prime Minister and this failing Labour Government.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I am sure that my hon. Friend will remember the Prime Minister saying that
“not a penny more on your council tax”
would be implemented by this Labour Government, yet constituents in the Worth valley, across Keighley and Ilkley, have experienced a rise of 14.99% in the past two years under Labour-run Bradford council. Does my hon. Friend feel that that meets the Prime Minister’s promise?
John Lamont
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. One of my recollections from the last general election was the then Conservative leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), saying in the leaders debate, “Mark my words: if you think Labour is going to win this election, start saving now, because they are going to put up your taxes.” And guess what? He was absolutely right. Tax after tax has gone up, despite the promises that the Labour leader made—I will happily take interventions from Labour Members.
After all the Prime Minister’s promises not to put up taxes, look at us now: £64 billion-worth of tax rises, thanks to the Labour Chancellor, just in the past 18 months. What an absolute embarrassment. No wonder people are fed up with politics. No wonder people do not want to take part in voting any more. They feel utterly betrayed, and you lot are responsible.
Several hon. Members rose—
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward.
I thank the Petitions Committee for this debate, and I thank those who engaged and signed the petition. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury), I always look at the petitions that come into this place, because they are a way for the public to raise their voice and set an agenda here. Like him, I can understand why people signed this petition. I will address that today because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), I am concerned about the rise of public mistrust in our politics and politicians—be that at a local or national level—and their ability to achieve positive change. Let me be clear, though: another general election is not the answer. People want long-term development and delivery, not political games.
We are now 18 months into this parliament, and we inherited a mess. I like to think about it in a pictorial way, seeing it as a desolate and broken kitchen. Plates were piled high, some lay smashed on the floor and some were empty. Some cupboard doors were falling off, and some of the cupboards were empty. The justice cupboard was overflowing with victims waiting for their day in court. The education cupboard was empty, having been neglected because trying to fix anything was felt to be a lose-lose-lose situation. The growth cupboard had been abandoned, while the NHS cupboard had just fallen apart and was lying on the floor. The bottle inside the defence cupboard was open and the liquid was spilling down on to the floor, as people and contracts were left. Worst of all, the child poverty cupboard was empty, as were many kids’ stomachs.
We have been in office for 18 months since inheriting that mess. Fourteen years of Conservative failure hollowed out our public services. The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition lit the fuse, and the damage was done in the years afterwards. Cities such as Portsmouth paid the price. Communities, families and individuals absorbed the shock, while those who were responsible simply walked away.
Those who were involved do not get to pretend that that was not their doing. Opposition Members should reflect on their role and not just brush it aside. Then there is Reform, which is a party of grievance, not Government, propped up by failing Conservatives who keep joining it—they could not win honestly, so they changed their logo instead. They are not fighting for Portsmouth or Britain; they are fighting for relevance. Many of my constituents can see through that.
I am not a commentator; I represent and serve my city. Before I came into this House, I spent 24 years as a teacher in Portsmouth—one of the most trusted professions in the country. I worked with children, families and school staff every day, and I saw how bad decisions in Westminster landed in real lives. Indeed, that is the reason why I came into politics. In my opinion, the previous Government trashed primary education and gave up on our young people.
That experience, as well as seeing my own friends and family suffer, shapes everything I do in this place. Progress must be practical, fair and deliverable, or it is meaningless. I represent Portsmouth. I live and have lived its challenges. Since being elected, I have spoken over 170 times in this place, for my place. My team and I have closed more than 9,000 constituency cases. I have visited schools, businesses, charities and community groups week in and week out, from Brownies to breweries, and from bubble tea cafés to boxing clubs. That is what service looks like.
Sometimes, there are tough conversations and real difficulties, but because we are focused on delivering change, change is happening, although positive change takes time. However, the two-child limit on universal credit is being removed, helping 2,460 children in my area, 60% of whose families are working. Breakfast clubs are feeding children for free before school, youth hubs are opening, children are being protected from online harms, school uniform costs are falling and wages are rising. Renters’ and workers’ rights are improving as we scrap exploitative zero-hours contracts and section 21 no-fault evictions. NHS waiting times are coming down, while GP capacity is expanding and dental access is being addressed. For the first time ever, violence against women and girls is being addressed, and men’s health—
John Lamont
The hon. Lady is giving a list of her Government’s achievements in Portsmouth North. In her constituency, youth unemployment is up. Will she add that to the list as well?
Amanda Martin
We will add it to the list. We need to ensure that children and young people who are not in education, employment or training are not neglected by the Government—and they will not be.
Men’s health is finally being taken seriously. There is money for potholes, parks and policing. Pride in place funding is reaching deprived and previously ignored communities, like where my mum and dad were born, in Paulsgrove and beyond. Many of those policies, the Opposition voted against; if they had been in Government, we would not have had them.
Portsmouth is also a royal naval city. I am proud that my son serves, and that this Government are delivering the biggest armed forces pay rise in decades. Service families’ homes are improving, families can keep pets now and veterans have proper joined-up support through Op Valour. It is delivery, and not slogans, for our armed forces.
Brexit hurt Pompey businesses, and the damage was real. We now need to rebuild trade and trust, as we are doing. The India trade agreement alone will bring £300 million a year into the south-east, and investment in defence and apprenticeships is helping to make life more stable for young people who are out of employment.
For many in our city, it is a far cry from the days when shipbuilding was snatched from us under the previous Government and replaced with three useless Portsmouth Ministers. Portsmouth is receiving £13.1 million for safer streets, cleaner streets, improved bus services, better cycling and vital flood defences for our island city, to name just a few things.
I am especially proud of my own tool theft campaign, in which I led a movement of local tradespeople and national bodies. Despite recent noise from the Opposition Benches, before I was elected, politicians ignored this crime and, in fact, this sector. But tool theft destroys lives, and we know that the trade sector builds homes. We worked with the sector and changed the law. That is what happens when people in Government listen and act.
Do we have more to do? Absolutely we do, always, but in the last 18 months, I, and we as a Government, have listened, learned and delivered. Change works when it is built with communities, not imposed on them. That is why calls for an immediate general election ring hollow. Accountability matters, and chaos does not. My constituents know that life is hard, but they also know who is showing up and who is shouting from the sidelines. The country does not need more noise; it needs people who serve where they live, take responsibility, and get on with the job.
I thank the residents of Portsmouth North who signed this petition, and I assure them that my door is always open. I understand the frustration and the anger, but I encourage them to come along to the coffee mornings, join me for one of my “pint with your MP” events, or attend one of my many public events. I am here to listen and help, and to deliver for Portsmouth North, because it has not been delivered for in the last two decades. Today and tomorrow—and as long as I am here in this place—it is important to me to do that. Everybody I love lives in my city.
Petitions are an important part of our democracy, but this debate will not build a single home, fix a single struggling public service or help a single family in my city. My focus is on delivery, not disruption. I serve Portsmouth and will keep doing this job. We have far more in common than what divides us.
Jim Dickson
Not very many. Actually, Dartford is in receipt of significant additional infrastructure spending, which is putting people into work. An example of how young people are going to be in work in Dartford in the future—
Jim Dickson
I am still responding to the last intervention. Dartford is lucky that North Kent college is the recipient of one of 10 national centre of excellence awards for construction. Dartford will be the south-east centre, and that will allow young people to get into jobs as infrastructure spending takes place in the constituency.
John Lamont
The intention of my intervention was to be helpful. The unemployment rate among young people in Dartford has gone up 11% in the past year as a direct consequence of decisions that the hon. Gentleman’s Government are making. What does he say to young people who are having job opportunities taken away from them?
Jim Dickson
I say: look at the additional spending going into Dartford to create jobs, and look at the Connect to Work project, set up by the Department for Work and Pensions, which is helping young people who are a long way from the labour market into good, well-paid jobs.
We clearly have much more to do to ensure that we have the police we need in Dartford, but I am confident that people in Dartford feel safer and will continue to feel safer, as long as we do not have a general election that sees those changes lost.
Finally—this is something that I am personally proud of—hon. Members may know that I was contacted by the family of Simone White, who tragically died of methanol poisoning in Laos late last year. It has been an honour to work with Simone’s family and the families of other victims of methanol poisoning on greater awareness of the risks. This is why it is important that we have a Government who listen. I am pleased that, as a result of the families’ campaigning work, the curriculum is being changed to add the risk of poisoning from methanol abroad to teaching about the hazards people can encounter when travelling, and that the Foreign Office has worked with the families to update its advice. Those changes are a testament to the courage and campaigning of the victims’ families, as well as to a Government who listen.
Since the election, we have made progress on crucial issues, with more to come in the years ahead. I look forward to working with Dartford residents, our vibrant community groups, our faith groups and our businesses to keep driving positive changes in our area. That is what I say to people in Dartford who signed the petition.
Dr Arthur
This is a serious point. I would hope that teachers are not teaching children that. Although I disagree with the hon. Member’s politics, I do not rank it alongside that of the far-right politicians he has mentioned from history. Of course, if this was part of a school assignment, I am sure he would be the first to talk about freedom of speech; children have that right as well. However, I hope that those things are not being taught in schools; in fact, I am sure they are not.
In the schools that I went to, one thing that came up was LGBT rights. Some students were absolutely disgusted by some of the comments from Reform, which were echoed earlier in the debate in relation to access to healthcare for people who are part of the trans community. Students are absolutely disgusted by what is happening because they care; they have friends who face this issue, and they care about it passionately. I urge the hon. Member to represent everyone when he makes his comments.
In the classrooms, I was challenged on what I thought the Government’s greatest achievement was. I am an emotional person, and the thing that got me most emotional was voting for better employment rights for women and making it harder for employers to sack women just because they were pregnant, had had a miscarriage or were returning from having a baby. I think that is something we would all support; I know some Members might have voted against it, but I am sure we all think these are good things.
Likewise, I said I was proud of the work the Government were doing to lift hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty. I said that knowing that some of the children in that very classroom would benefit from that policy and that other children in the classroom would maybe know who those children were. I am really proud of what the Government are doing in that space.
John Lamont
As the hon. Member will know, there is wide speculation in the Scottish press about a plot among Scottish Labour MPs to bring down the Prime Minister. Labour MPs are quoted as describing the Prime Minister as “terrible”, “incompetent”, “mind-blowingly stupid”, and saying they are going to get “slaughtered” in the Scottish Parliament elections. Is the hon. Member part of that plot?
Dr Arthur
Absolutely not. Those are not comments I am familiar with at all. I would advise the hon. Member not to focus on newspapers’ speculation and to focus on supporting his constituents.
I talked to the young people in school about how the Government take our international treaties on both the climate and human rights seriously, and they value that. I also talked about the plans to extend the voting age for general elections in Scotland to 16. Young voters can already vote at 16 in other elections in Scotland.
Anna Turley
I appreciate the hon. Member’s attempt to reiterate the speech that he made, but I would have thought that he would be grateful that there are 3,250 children in Keighley who will benefit from the lifting of the two-child limit. Those are children who we are investing in and who are going to contribute to the future. We are breaking cycles of dependency. I would have thought that the hon. Member would welcome that. I am sure that people in his constituency whose mortgages have come down would also be very grateful for that.
In November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer delivered a Budget that is bearing down on the cost of living and lifting millions of children out of poverty. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk, children will benefit from the abolition of the two-child benefit cap thanks to action taken by this Labour Government.
John Lamont
The Minister is in danger of falling into the same trap that the Government did in their formal response to the petition, in that she is telling people that they should be grateful—“We’re doing all these things. You should be grateful.” People in my constituency do not feel grateful; they feel betrayed by a catalogue of broken promises.
Anna Turley
The hon. Member got up and talked about the glass being half-empty. If we are restoring trust in politics, it is important that we remind people about all the things that are happening. Of course, we know that it takes time for people to feel that in their pockets. We are confident that with every pay cheque this year, they will feel that more and more. However, the reality is that we should stand up and remind people about the changes that Governments make and that these changes have not happened by chance, but because of the choices made by this Labour Government, and I am proud to defend them.
In talking about the reasons for calling this debate, Opposition Members have talked about manifesto promises and so on. I want to run through some of the manifesto promises and commitments that this Government have made, to knock down their argument. This year we will take £150 off energy bills, the living wage is up £900 per year, we have extended the £3 bus fare, interest rates have been cut six times, we have frozen prescription fees to keep costs under £10 and we have taken 500,000 children out of poverty—that is an extra 3,000 in my constituency of Redcar. We are also protecting the triple lock for pensioners, which is worth over £1,900 over the course of this Parliament.
As the hon. Member has said, people in his constituency are still feeling the squeeze from the cost of living, but that is exactly why we have provided 30 hours of free childcare to help mums who are struggling to get into work and to get the support they need with childcare. That is £8,000 per year for parents. We have set up 750 primary school breakfast clubs to help those kids to get a healthy start in life. I have been to see them, and children not only get a healthy meal to start the day but dance classes and exercise to get their blood pumping and to get them ready for the day and ready to learn. They are breaking the cycle of poverty, which we have seen hold back too many children in our constituencies.
John Lamont
I reassure colleagues that I will not detain them for too much longer. I have to start by thanking the over 1 million people across the UK who signed this important petition, as well as all right hon. and hon. Members who participated in the debate. Let us be in no doubt; those 1 million people feel very strongly about this issue and the failure of the Government. I particularly thank my Conservative colleagues—my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake)—for their excellent speeches that spoke to the nub of our constituents’ concerns.
As for the Labour MPs who bothered to turn up to defend their Government’s record, I do not know what sweeties they were being offered to come along tonight. I will give the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) his dues; he got the tone just right, recognising that people out there have big concerns about what is going on with not just this Government but politics generally. While I think he spoke to those concerns, I do not know what he would say to the extra 15% of young people in his constituency who are currently without work because of his Government’s policies. As he will know, youth unemployment is up across the whole United Kingdom, and 15% in his seat.
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) got the tone completely wrong and misjudged the moment. I look forward to him bumping into one of his constituents who might have signed the petition this coming weekend, as we will all be out and about in our constituencies.
Many Labour Members spoke about how this is a listening Government, which is why they have done so many U-turns. However, I am afraid that does not really wash; it forgets the worry, uncertainty and fear that come while these policies are being implemented. The family farm tax is one such example, and the winter fuel payment is another. Many pubs and other businesses are terrified and unsure about how they are going to pay the higher rates and taxes. Yes, the U-turn may come eventually, but if there are months and months, or weeks and weeks, when people face the prospect of that change, that causes a lot of anxiety. Sadly, many farmers—I suspect this is why the Prime Minister ultimately had to intervene—are no longer here to see the benefit of the U-turn.
The reality is that taxes have gone up, despite the Prime Minister saying that they would not before the election. The benefits bill is going up more, and hard-working people are having to pay for it, again despite what the Prime Minister said before the election. There is a real sense of betrayal out there. I think that Labour Members, in the deepest part of their souls, also understand that, despite what they have said today. I am very grateful to everybody who has participated, and I hope that the 1 million people who signed the petition—as well as the 3 million or 4 million who have signed other petitions on this issue—feel that they have had their voices heard today.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 727309 relating to a general election.
Digital ID
John Lamont Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for magnificently introducing this petition on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I also thank the more than 4,000 local residents in the Scottish Borders who have signed the petition.
This issue cuts to the very heart of the relationship between our constituents and the state. I am completely against digital ID. It is expensive, intrusive and will be completely ineffective. It was not in the Labour Party’s 2024 election manifesto, so this is not something that anyone has voted for. Putting that to one side, this Labour Government do not seem to understand why digital ID is needed or what it is for. The Prime Minister initially claimed that it was an essential part of cracking down on illegal migration. Illegal migrants are making long, dangerous crossings over the channel; I hardly think the requirement for a digital identification card is going to deter them. Realising that this argument was not persuading anyone, the Government now claim that it is about simplifying access to Government services. Government services do need to be simplified, but we do not need digital ID to achieve that.
Whatever the actual reasons behind the policy, we are inevitably going to see mission creep. I was particularly concerned to hear the Minister for Children and Families, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), say that the Government are
“starting with this issue of right to work check first, but there are loads of other applications for digital ID”.
What will be next? Will digital ID be needed to access NHS services, to get a school place for someone’s son or daughter, or even potentially to go to the pub?
The policy puts the personal data of all our constituents at risk. It would be a honeypot for cyber criminals and foreign state actors at a time when we are under increasing threat. I implore the Government to, for once, listen to the people and to the genuine and principled concerns of Members across the House. There is no deep need for digital ID. People do not want it and the Government have no mandate to introduce it. It fundamentally changes the relationship between the state and its citizens. We must say no to digital ID. It must be scrapped.
Josh Simons
I will not. I have loads more to cover.
Millions of people right now are digitally excluded. That is not a status quo that we are prepared to accept. We will need help to meet this challenge. Civil society, businesses, trade unions and community groups across the UK will be our partners. That is why we are consulting on how to do this. If we get this right, we will empower the most vulnerable—people experiencing homelessness, the elderly and people with special needs, but also veterans and people without access to the internet. This programme will empower them, because we will invest resources to reach and to include them. They will not be left behind any more.
Our second principle is “secure”.
Josh Simons
He will not.
We are working with the UK’s leading national security experts, including the National Cyber Security Centre, to build a system with cutting-edge protections against cyber-attacks and identity fraud. Let me be specific: we are not creating a centralised master database.
John Lamont
On a point of order, Ms Furniss. Could you clarify how long the Minister has left to speak? By my understanding, he has until 7.29 pm so as to give the proposer of the motion a minute to respond.
Gill Furniss (in the Chair)
We are running quite well at the moment. We will be finishing completely at 7.30 pm, but the Member who moved the motion wants a minute to wind up, which he has a right to do. So the Minister has a bit longer should he need it.
Trade Negotiations
John Lamont Excerpts(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
We have not compromised our animal welfare standards in any aspect of what we have agreed on behalf of the United Kingdom today.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for dragging the Minister to the House tonight to explain the terms of the deal. After hammering farms with the family farm tax, it now looks like Labour is selling our farmers down the river, allowing cheap, low-quality imports from the United States. President Trump’s Secretary of Agriculture has said:
“This deal puts our great American Agricultural Producers FIRST!”
Is she wrong?
Mr Alexander
It is hardly a surprise that a member of the Trump Administration should talk about America first. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the north star by which we have negotiated is the UK’s national interest. Today’s agreement reflects the quiet but determined diplomacy of a serious Prime Minister to deliver a deal. The hon. Gentleman’s party does not have a great track record on serious Prime Ministers, or on beef quotas. To put today’s announcement in context, the hon. Gentleman’s Government agreed to a UK-Australia FTA with a beef tariff rate quota of 35,000 tonnes per year. That might be a point that he wants to make to farmers in the Borders.
Trade Negotiations
John Lamont Excerpts(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alexander
For both the digital sector and the healthcare sector, the deal offers significant opportunities in a huge and expanding market in India. It will deliver a degree of certainty as well as significant tariff reductions across a range of sectors, and it also affords us the opportunity to think long-term. We want to support the advanced manufacturers with which my hon. Friend is very familiar in the north-east of England to be able to make strategic investments in exporting to the Indian market. They will be investing in exporting not just to a large but to a growing market, and one that holds significant commercial opportunities for the decades ahead.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Just a few weeks ago, the Business and Trade Secretary said that he would
“stand up for British workers”,
so it is quite astonishing that the Minister has come to the House today to announce tax breaks for immigration. This will undercut workers in Scotland and across the UK, and it comes just weeks after Labour introduced its own tax on UK workers. It leaves us all wondering: do this Labour Government ever back British workers?
Mr Alexander
Let me name some Scottish workers who are absolutely delighted by today’s announcement. Let me quote directly what Chivas has said:
“The announcement of a free trade agreement in principle between the UK and India is a welcome boost for Chivas Brothers during an uncertain global economic environment. India is the world’s biggest whisky market by volume and greater access will be a game changer for the export of our Scotch whisky brands, such as Chivas Regal and Ballantine’s.”
Whether it is Chivas Regal, Ballantine’s or other Scottish brands, which are the product of a huge number of workers in Scotland, there is much to celebrate today.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Dame Nia Griffith)
Just this morning I had the pleasure of visiting the Carmarthenshire Day exhibition in the Jubilee Room, which I strongly recommend as a real display of Welsh farming and food produce. The Government are steadfastly committed to the farming sector. We protected the farm budget at its current level and allocated £337 million to the Welsh Government at the autumn Budget. The Welsh Government, in their budget, have used that to maintain the basic payment scheme, providing much-needed support for farmers across Wales—a budget that, as the hon. Lady knows, Tory and Plaid Cymru Senedd Members tried to block.
Dame Nia Griffith
Just picking up on the point about national insurance contributions, as the hon. Lady will know, many farmers employ one or two people, so they will come under the category of some of the smallest businesses. We have made sure that we protect them by doubling the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that over half of small and microbusinesses will pay less or no national insurance contributions at all. Her Senedd colleagues voted against the budget for Welsh farmers in the Senedd only a few weeks ago.
John Lamont
The Minister seems to have no grasp whatsoever of the constant struggle facing our family farms in Wales and across the United Kingdom, because of the lack of support in both Labour’s spring statement and Labour’s family farm tax. Farming families are not multimillionaires—they are striving to make a profit, with many earning less than the minimum wage. Will the Minister finally accept that farms are crucial to the UK’s food security, and that the Government should support them and scrap the vindictive family farm tax?
Dame Nia Griffith
We applaud the work that farmers do—they are vital to our food security. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are many ways in which we have supported farmers, including the £337 million given to them in the Budget this year and passed on by Welsh Government Ministers to our farmers in Wales. He brings up inheritance tax. I remind him that we are maintaining significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others and compared to the position before 1992. Where inheritance tax is due, those liable for a charge can pay any liability on relevant assets over 10 annual instalments, interest free.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will certainly pay tribute to Alan and to the work of all campaigners over decades. I am restless for progress, and I will support the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. On fast-tracking for specific claimants, last week IBCA set out details of how it is prioritising claims from infected people nearing the end of their life.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
What direct discussions has the Minister had with people in Scotland who have been impacted by the infected blood scandal about the slow pace of compensation payments?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
In the course of the work I have done, I have not only spoken to groups in Scotland, but engaged with the Scottish Government’s Health Minister on this matter. On the pace of the payments, IBCA has taken a test-and-learn approach, which allows it to deal with a sample of the cases and then subsequently to scale up. IBCA is operationally independent, but I stand ready to provide all the support I can to speed up the payments.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Lamont Excerpts(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
The Scottish Government and SNP Members seem to think that defending the defence industry is done on Twitter. This Government inherited not just a fiscal crisis but an industrial one, because we have had well over 10 years without a clear industrial strategy. I was pleased recently to meet the chair of the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, and I welcomed my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary to Scotland last month to meet business leaders at the forefront of Scotland’s industrial future. This Government have already delivered, among other things, £200 million for Grangemouth, £2.6 million for the V&A in Dundee, and job security for 300 skilled workers at Harland & Wolff’s shipyards in Methil and Arnish. Just this morning, we announced £55 million for the Cromarty Green freeport to expand its capability for floating offshore wind. That is the commitment to growth that this Government make to the country.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The SNP Government continue to be opposed to nuclear energy, despite the huge economic benefits it would bring to Scotland. We can see that in the jobs and investment that the Torness power station generates. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that investing in nuclear would help bring down bills for our consumers, help the environment and create many more jobs?
Ian Murray
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Our nuclear policy in Scotland should allow us to have nuclear power to bring down bills and give us energy security. Of course, he is also right that the SNP is against nuclear power in Scotland, but very happy to take the baseload from England.
Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill
John Lamont ExcerptsTuesday 4th March 2025
(10 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2024-26 View all Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Act 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to open the debate on this Bill, which I hope will have the House’s support. It is a simple, straightforward and clear piece of legislation that seeks to do one simple thing: it will remove a legal barrier that prevents Catholics from holding the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This historic legal restriction applies only to Catholics; it does not apply to people of other faiths or indeed of no religious faith.
For those hon. Members who are not familiar with the role of Lord High Commissioner—if there are any—perhaps it is beneficial for me to set out some context. The Lord High Commissioner is the sovereign’s personal representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. They are appointed as an observer to attend proceedings on behalf of His Majesty the King. The General Assembly is the governing body of the Church of Scotland that meets each May in Edinburgh to hear reports, make laws and set the agenda for the Church for the coming year. The ceremonial duties of the Lord High Commissioner include addressing the Assembly at its opening and closing sessions as well as attending the daily business on the sovereign’s behalf. In addition, the Lord High Commissioner undertakes official visits in Scotland as well as hosting engagements at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.
Historical legislation currently prevents the appointment of Catholics to the role: specifically, the Claim of Right Act 1689 set out restrictions against Catholics being appointed to public offices in Scotland, including the role of Lord High Commissioner. Most of that was changed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which removed many aspects of religious discrimination towards Catholics. However, it did not explicitly remove the restriction against Catholics holding the office of Lord High Commissioner. That means that a legislative restriction exists to this day against someone of the Catholic faith being appointed to this office. Until now, the issue did not arise because no Catholic was ever appointed to the role, but that position changed in December with the announcement of the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini. The Bill will allow Lady Elish to take up the role.
There is similarity to the approach adopted in the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974, which removed restrictions on Catholics taking up the role of Lord Chancellor. The Bill is short—as hon. Members can see—and narrowly focused. It will deliver a small but important modernisation to allow Catholics to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I should declare an interest as a member of the Church of Scotland and an elder of the Kirk. I very much support the Bill, but the Minister will be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that it would have preferred consultation before the Bill was introduced. Does he have any reflections on that? I think that its particular concern was about wider religious discrimination on the statute book that could have also been dealt with as part of this process.
Pat McFadden
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill. I will come on to the timetable that, by necessity, we have had to adopt.
Legislation of this kind is not always preceded by a consultation. Some hon. Members may remember our late friend David Cairns, whose position in this House was facilitated by legislation removing barriers on ordained priests being elected to the House. As I understand it, that particular piece of legislation did not have a consultation before it either.
I turn to Lady Elish Angiolini, whose appointment as the Lord High Commissioner for this year will be facilitated by the passage of the Bill, if it proceeds. Lady Elish has a distinguished background in law, justice and academia. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to the administration of justice in 2011. In 2022, she was appointed by Her late Majesty the Queen to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and in that role she participated in the coronation in 2023. Lady Elish has also been principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford since 2012 and was made a pro-vice chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017.
The announcement Lady Elish’s appointment as Lord High Commissioner has been widely welcomed in Scotland. The appointment would make her the first Catholic to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner and would be a significant symbol of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland. It builds on the spirit of the St Margaret declaration, signed at Dunfermline abbey in 2022. That was a historic declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, and the legislation before the House builds on the spirit of that.
The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) referred to the circumstances and the timetable. I say to the House that the Bill is on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be finalised ahead of the General Assembly in May. We hope to have all the parliamentary stages completed by the end of next month when, subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment can begin. That process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant, and the speedy passage of the Bill is to allow the formalities necessary to enable Lady Elish to act as Lord High Commissioner and address the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions in May.
Were the appointment not able to proceed, that would be a setback to recent progress and an outcome that I do not believe anyone wants. I therefore hope that the Bill can proceed today with the support of all parties in the House. While the Bill relates to the reserved matter of the Crown, I have spoken to the First Minister of Scotland and to representatives of both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland about the Bill and the desire to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish. I thank them all for their constructive and collaborative approach. I have also had the pleasure of discussing the matter with Lady Elish directly, and I have no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner.
Moving on to the Bill itself, there are two clauses. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and its commencement, including that the Bill will commence on Royal Assent. It is a small step to remove a religious barrier. Without it, neither Lady Elish nor any other Catholic could take up the appointment by the sovereign. The Bill changes that and ensures that the announced appointment can go ahead. It is short and simple, but still in its own way an important Bill. I hope it will receive a broad welcome, and I commend it to the House.
High Street Businesses
John Lamont Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Matt Vickers
The hon. Member is right. For many small businesses, the specific relief for leisure, hospitality and retail has already been slashed from 75% to 40%, the end consequence being a more than doubling of what they are paying. It is just not affordable for businesses that are struggling to carry on employing people and doing business, especially with the other challenges that come their way. It is simply not affordable. It is the wrong thing to do, and it has a cost for our communities and those employers.
As I said, funds such as the community ownership fund were not just about a lick of paint but turning around vacant and lifeless high streets, and they created community spaces that were valued, restoring pride in our towns. What is more, community-owned assets are estimated to contribute £220 million to the economy each year.
My constituency of Stockton West saw real progress under the last Government in taking our town centres forward. In Thornaby, the £23.9 million town deal we secured from the last Government has allowed us to achieve many things, including the creation of a new vocational training centre, security and energy interventions in some of the most challenging housing, upgrades to cycling infrastructure and much more. It is allowing us to build a new swimming pool in the town centre, which will drive footfall to businesses.
For years, Thornaby’s skyline was dominated by the eyesore that was the disused Golden Eagle hotel, but now, thanks to money from the last Government and following a long debate with the council, it is finally coming down. Those moves are game changing for Thornaby. They will drive further footfall to local businesses and restore pride in our town centre.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a great champion he is for Stockton West and why he has a reputation in this place for being one of the hardest-working MPs in Teesside. Does he agree that high streets are a lifeline for our local communities? In the Scottish Borders, I am fortunate to have a whole number of small and vibrant high streets, but their businesses are being hammered, not only by the Labour Government’s tax hikes through national insurance but the SNP Government’s tax hikes through business rates.
Matt Vickers
I could not agree more. Looking at the value of high streets, it is not just about businesses and jobs. They are places where people come together, and they can tackle isolation. There is also the feeling of pride in our town centres. Businesses only have so much money to give in tax, and it is going that bit too far now, to the point where we will lose businesses forever.
I will carry on my list of wonderful things that are going on in Stockton. In Yarm, levelling-up money from the last Government has meant that we are seeing nearby Preston Park improved and upgraded with new exhibition spaces. There are upgraded toilets, a café and more parking. We are sorting the disused aviary and creating a tribute to our railway heritage. This will drive visitor numbers to our area and complement the changes taking place in the high street, where we have seen the town’s skanky public toilets replaced. Streetscape interventions are planned to make the town centre more accessible, and we have gained a much-needed car park. The levelling-up money from the last Government has also helped the town council in Yarm to deliver on its ambition to renew our town hall, creating a visitor centre fit for the amazing high street that Yarm has.
In Stockton, £16 million of future high streets funding has allowed for the complete reconfiguration of our high street, also making way for our new £25 million diagnostic hospital. Securing the money for the diagnostic hospital remains my proudest contribution during my time as an MP, because I know the huge difference it will make to the people of Stockton. We ran a petition and gathered thousands of signatures to demonstrate public support. I was involved with the NHS trust and local authority officers drawing up the bid at its inception, and, when the bid was initially rejected due to a prolonged delivery timetable, I met the Secretary of State to hear his reasoning, and then, that same day, met directors from all the stakeholders to come back with a renewed timetable and a plan to unlock this investment.
In the very near future, the doors will open on that centre, which will provide 104,000 lifesaving tests, checks and scans to local people every year and, importantly, it will be yet another reason for would-be punters to come to our town centre and support local businesses.
Those interventions, funded by the last Government, are game-changing for my community and other communities across the country, repurposing our town centres to drive footfall and keep them as the vibrant hearts of our communities. But now the taps of governmental investment look to have been turned off: efforts to innovate and reconfigure town centres will be paused; our high street businesses are being battered by the Budget; and the consequences are there for all to see. Too many businesses are closing; too many jobs are being lost; and boarded-up high streets and town centres will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres.
I ask the Minister whether the Government really appreciate the challenges posed to high street businesses by the national insurance increase, and, similarly, the impact of slashing the business-rates relief for small leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. Will communities across the country ever again be able to benefit from the game-changing interventions brought about by the community ownership fund, the levelling-up funds, town deals, and other such funds, which allowed for those interventions to protect the future of our high streets?
As a former Woolworths worker, I could go on all day about the loss of iconic retailers, and about the impact of the Budget on post offices, on local pubs, and on opportunities for young people. And I will not even mention my Labour council’s ridiculous plans to introduce car parking charges in Yarm and Stockton high streets—I have probably said enough on that. I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I am a fan of the great British high street, and believe that securing its future should be a priority for any Government.
Gregor Poynton
Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I also think that his point about antisocial behaviour is a strong one; these town centres and high streets need to be places where people feel safe and want to spend time with their families.
As I was saying, the rejuvenation of our high streets and town centres is possible, but the problem in Scotland is that the Scottish Government have failed to share that vision, energy and determination. Sadly, there has been little in the way of action from the SNP but—as always with the SNP—over its 18 years in power there has been no shortage of reports. Since 2013, we have had the national town centre review, the town centre action plan, the town centre action plan year 1 progress report, the town centre action plan year 2 progress report, the town centre action plan review, the “A New Future for Scotland’s Town Centres” report, a joint response to that report with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the town centre action plan 2, which is a response to that response. Little wonder then that David Lonsdale, the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, spoke recently on the need for coherent policymaking. The fact is that Scotland’s town centres are yet another casualty of the SNP’s mismanagement and chaotic government.
John Lamont
In a rare moment of consensus, I agree with the hon. Member’s criticism of the SNP Government. Does he agree with me that one of the changes that could be made in Scotland is to the planning system? If we allow our high streets to be more flexible in how they respond to challenges, that is a way to get new life into something that has been traditionally at the heart of the community.
Gregor Poynton
I completely agree. We need to be much more creative about how we use the units. Some of these businesses, frankly, are not coming back to our high streets so we should be honest about that and look at other options such as childcare, co-working spaces and housing in town centres to help rejuvenate those places and get them into action. That creative policymaking in planning is absolutely required.
The Scottish Government can take a number of steps. First, we need a level playing field between the small businesses based on our high streets and the global online retailers. Secondly, as has been discussed, more thought needs to go into the housing stock being built in our towns. With many buildings left empty, it is right to relax planning rules to make it easier to convert shop fronts into flats, while still ensuring quality housing for their residents. Thirdly, the way people work now has changed, and our town centres must reflect that, so we need to prioritise superfast broadband in our town centres. Local planning should also take childcare into account, ensuring the businesses can thrive in the places to be. Fourthly, councils should be encouraged to use the powers available to them to make ownership data on high street properties public, so that the community has the opportunity to step in and take over some units. Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said, town centres will never thrive unless people feel safe in them, so a focus on safety is key.
All those ideas can perhaps contribute to making our towns better places to live; none would constitute a revolution, but they would be revolutionary for millions of people because, for too long, main streets in towns and villages such as Fauldhouse, Broxburn, West Calder, Uphall and others in my constituency have been neglected by the SNP Government. This can change: we can refresh and rejuvenate our high streets, but it will require fresh and rejuvenated leadership.
John Lamont
My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On behalf of Scottish Members, can I also recommend a deep-fried Mars bar supper and a haggis supper, which are other delicacies that fish and chip shops might be able to provide?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend reminds me of a visit to Scotland, many years ago, when I tried a deep-fried Mars bar; I think it was in Blairgowrie. I must admit that I have never had deep-fried haggis—I am not sure about that one—but I have certainly tried the Mars bar.
Despite their hard work and determination, many businesses are struggling. I am in regular contact with local businesses, and they tell me quite candidly about the financial pressures they face. One issue that comes up time and again is the crushing burden of employer national insurance contributions. Quite simply, they are a tax on jobs. They actively punish the very businesses we should be supporting. Businesses are being squeezed into cutting staff hours and freezing recruitment. In some cases, as we have heard, they are shutting their doors altogether. Household names that we have heard today—WHSmith, New Look and HSBC—are among those affected. When they are gone, they are gone forever.
Let us be clear: this is not just an economic issue; it is a community issue. When a high street business closes, that affects us all. It means fewer jobs, less investment in our local economy and empty shop fronts, which drain the vibrancy of our centres. The Government cannot claim to support small businesses while quietly taxing them out of existence.
In Brownhills, one of the most pressing concerns is the derelict Ravenscourt shopping precinct. Once a thriving hub, it has now become an eyesore and for far too long has attracted antisocial behaviour. Local business owners and residents are rightly frustrated by the slow progress. I am, too. My local council and our councillors are working incredibly hard to deliver on this, with plans for redevelopment including the prospect of a new supermarket, but delays, the need for a complex compulsory purchase order, and drawn-out negotiations over remaining units are stalling much-needed investment.
Such stagnation is not unique to Brownhills. Across the country, high streets are being held back by vacant buildings that discourage footfall and undermine local economies, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions only adds to the difficulties. If this Government are serious about revitalising our high streets, there are two things they could do to make a big difference to all our high streets: look again at both employer national insurance contributions and business rates.
General Election
John Lamont Excerpts(1 year ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing the debate so well on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a member.
Most new Governments come into power with positive plans to get things done quickly; they are often defined by early successes in their first 100 days in office and they move fast to deliver on election promises. However, this Labour Government are not normal. There has been no positivity; everything has been doom and gloom. In their first few hundred days in office, they have lurched from one disaster to another, and they have broken just about every promise that they made before the election.
Let us look at some of the promises that they have shattered to pieces. Labour promised not to increase national insurance—broken. Labour promised not to raise taxes on farmers—broken. Labour promised not to scrap the winter fuel payment—broken. Labour promised to compensate WASPI women—broken. Labour promised to protect single-sex spaces—broken. Labour promised no cliff edge in the North sea oil and gas sector—broken. Labour promised to cut energy bills—broken. Labour promised a £150 million war chest for the Scotland Office —broken.
Wherever anyone stands on any of those individual policy issues, there is no doubt that this Labour Government have not kept their word; they have broken promises to voters that they made not once or twice, but hundreds of times. In Scotland, their broken promises are letting the SNP off the hook. The nationalists are benefiting because this disastrous Labour Government are not delivering and not sticking to anything that was promised pre-election.
UK Labour is driving Scottish Labour into a ditch and nobody in Scottish Labour has the backbone to stand up to them. Scottish Labour MPs voted through these broken promises; Anas Sarwar’s Members are content not to keep their commitments. It is no wonder that so many people in the borders and across Scotland are losing trust in Labour. More and more people are moving away from Scottish Labour because they see that it does not stand for anything except broken promises. It has betrayed workers, businesses, pensioners, farmers and our oil and gas industry. Labour has broken its word on tax, on women’s rights, on social security and on energy bills. Anas Sarwar must be terrified of who this Labour Government are going to hit next.
Now, only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up to the SNP and taking on the nationalists. Under our new leader, Russell Findlay, we are reaching out to all those people who Labour have left behind: everyone who feels disillusioned by Labour’s empty, broken promises of change; everyone who feels disconnected from what happens at Holyrood under the SNP and what happens here under Labour; and everyone who wants politicians to show some common sense for a change. Labour will not represent those people but the Conservatives will.