Progression of Bills through Parliament

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart.

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson), my colleague on the Petitions Committee, for introducing the debate on behalf of the Committee and the petitioner. I thank the more than 100,000 people who signed the e-petition. Whatever view Members take on the arguments advanced in the petition, the number of signatures demonstrates the strength of feeling on this issue and the importance of Parliament’s engaging seriously with those concerns. I also thank all Members who have contributed to the debate. We have heard thoughtful and strongly held views from across the House, reflecting both the significance of the legislation that prompted the petition and the wider constitutional questions now before us.

It is important to recognise that the petition arose from concerns about the progress of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, a private member’s Bill. However, today’s debate ultimately is not about the merits of assisted dying; it is about parliamentary process. Specifically, it is about whether Parliament should change the way that it approaches legislation where a private Member’s Bill has secured support from MPs. The petition argues, in essence, that where a private Member’s Bill has support from MPs and the public, the Government should do everything within their power to ensure that it has sufficient time to complete all its parliamentary stages.

It is sometimes overlooked that that is not simply a request for more parliamentary time. It is effectively a request for a new constitutional principle: that where the concepts underlying a private Member’s Bill have secured sufficient public support and a Commons majority, the Government should take active steps to ensure the Bill’s passage despite significant unresolved issues. That would represent a significant departure from our existing constitutional arrangements, under which scrutiny, amendment and even failure remain possible outcomes of the legislative process. I do not believe that public support, however significant—particularly as measured by polls, rather than at the ballot box—can be a substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny. Parliament’s role is not simply to facilitate legislation but to examine it, challenge it and improve it before it becomes law.

The petition also raises questions about the role of the House of Lords. It is important that we approach those questions accurately. Some have suggested that the Lords somehow acted improperly by failing to return the Bill Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to the Commons. That assertion is not supported by the constitutional authorities.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

I have not participated in the debate because I was not able to be here at the beginning, but I heard many of the speeches. In a number of them, it was suggested that the Bill received unusual levels of consideration. That is simply not so. Many of us have been in this House for a very long time and have seen legislation that has had pre-legislative scrutiny in both Houses, and independent reports commissioned on it, long before Second Reading. This Bill had none of that.

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s insight from his many years of experience in this place. We are not a unicameral system. As the hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) stated in her powerful speech, Parliament consists of three separate parts: the House of Commons, the House of Lords and the Crown. The House of Lords is independent and shares the task of making and shaping laws. The House of Lords Constitution Committee made it clear that it was constitutionally appropriate for the Lords to scrutinise, amend or reject the Bill, and the Hansard Society similarly confirmed that the Lords

“has the authority to reject, delay, or otherwise block”

legislation of its kind.

[Dr Chowns]

Does the hon. Member not recognise the fundamental problem that the House of Lords has not had the chance to approve or reject this piece of legislation because it has never come to a vote? The House of Lords has therefore not fulfilled its constitutional responsibility to fully scrutinise the legislation. Would it not be appropriate for this House to send the Bill back to the House of Lords until it does fulfil its constitutional responsibility to complete scrutiny with a vote?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

I am grateful for that point but, as other hon. Members have made clear in this debate, the House of Lords did not vote because that is part of its process of scrutinising. The Lords was performing the role that it is constitutionally required to perform.

The Bill in question was not a Government Bill and not a manifesto commitment. A deliberate choice was made by the Prime Minister to take an approach that did not put the policy, or even the promise of a free vote, before the electorate. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), the Salisbury-Addison convention reflects the principle that the House of Lords should not frustrate legislation that gives effect to commitments on which the electorate have conferred a democratic mandate. As Viscount Cranborne spelled out at the time,

“it would be constitutionally wrong, when the country has so recently expressed its view, for this House to oppose proposals which have been definitely put before the electorate.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 August 1945; Vol. 137, c. 47.]

[Kit Malthouse]

I am slightly intrigued by my hon. Friend’s approach. In the election, I stood on a personal pledge that I would support assisted dying, having voted for it before, in 2015. In my hon. Friend’s view, what importance should we attach to an absolute majority of the House of Commons? The assisted dying Bill passed with an absolute majority of all eligible Members, not counting Speakers and others, who could vote. What he is essentially saying is that that is just an ordinary part of the process, rather than what it should be in a democracy, which is decisive.

[John Lamont]

The House of Commons expressed its view. The Bill then went to the House of Lords for further consideration. I know from conversations with a number of MP colleagues that they supported the principle of the Bill to allow it to progress, so that the House of Lords could look at it further and in the hope that improvements would be made. I reflect on what happened in the Scottish Parliament, where a similar Bill achieved the support of MSPs at the first stage. After it received further scrutiny and further amendments, it went back to the Scottish Parliament, and it was rejected—[Interruption.]

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

Order.

[John Lamont]

That was because amendments could not be secured to satisfy people's concerns.

This was a private Member’s Bill. In such circumstances, there was no constitutional obligation on the Lords—as I stated earlier in relation to the Salisbury convention—to ensure that it completed its passage through Parliament. Indeed, it is worth remembering that the vast majority of private Member’s Bills do not become law. That is not a constitutional failure; it is a long-standing feature of our parliamentary system.

Similarly, scrutiny should not be confused with obstruction. One reason why many peers believed that further scrutiny was necessary was that significant issues remained unresolved after the Bill left the House of Commons. More than 500 amendments had been tabled during Public Bill Committee, but only a small proportion not supported by the sponsor were accepted. On Report, 88 amendments were deemed in order, but only seven were selected for debate and decision by the House as a whole. That was the wrong approach to take.

The breadth of concerns, underpinned by expert testimony, should have prompted deep reflection on what more needed to be amended. The Cabinet Office’s guide to making legislation is very clear: if a private Member’s Bill is to make it on to the statute books,

“As far as possible, amendments should be made at Committee Stage in the first House.”

It is therefore hardly surprising that many peers concluded that further scrutiny was required. Indeed, several Members indicated during proceedings in the Commons that they expected the Lords to undertake detailed scrutiny and improve the legislation where necessary. The Lords therefore performed precisely the role that many MPs expected it to perform.

It is also important to recognise that the nature of the concerns that were raised. This was not simply a handful of peers attempting to delay legislation; more than 140 peers expressed opposition to, or serious concerns about, the Bill. Those concerns came from individuals with substantial expertise, including former leaders of the medical profession, senior NHS figures, specialists in psychiatry and palliative care, legal experts and representatives of vulnerable groups. Whether one agreed with their conclusions or not, those concerns deserved careful consideration. That is exactly what parliamentary scrutiny is intended to achieve.

Some supporters of the petition have pointed to opinion polling as evidence that Parliament should ensure legislation progresses. Public opinion is, of course, important, and Members of this House are elected to represent the people who send us here, but our constitutional system has never operated on the basis that polling alone determines whether legislation becomes law. Parliament is a representative democracy, not a system of government by opinion survey. Members of both Houses are expected to exercise judgment, consider evidence, scrutinise proposals and weigh consequences. If legislation were to acquire a special constitutional status simply because it polled well, we would fundamentally alter the balance between public opinion and parliamentary scrutiny. That would be a profound constitutional change, and it should not be undertaken lightly.

[Dr Chowns]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[John Lamont]

I am short on time, so I will not take any more interventions.

I thank again those who signed the petition and all those who have contributed to today’s debate. Although there will undoubtedly remain differences of opinion on the specific legislation that gave rise to this petition, I hope there can be broad agreement on one fundamental point: democratic legitimacy and parliamentary scrutiny are not competing principles—they are complementary principles. Public support and votes in Parliament matter, but scrutiny matters too. The lesson we should draw from this debate is not that scrutiny prevented democracy from working, but that scrutiny is democracy working.

The House of Lords acted within its constitutional role. The concerns of experts were heard, amendments were tested and evidence was examined. Whether one supported or opposed the legislation itself, that is exactly how Parliament is supposed to function. Parliament best serves the public not when it rushes legislation through, but when it takes seriously its duty to examine, improve and—where necessary—challenge legislation before it becomes law. That is how we protect the integrity of our legislative process, preserve public confidence in Parliament, and ultimately make better laws for the people who we are elected to serve.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am sure the whole House will join me in extending our heartfelt condolences to Sally, Kian and all Kenny’s friends and family. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that health and safety in the workplace is not an inconvenience. Good health and safety practices save lives, and I will ensure that the relevant Minister writes to him to set out what further action the Government intend to take.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Nurses are at the heart of our wonderful NHS. I am delighted that two nurses from NHS Borders recently gained national recognition from the Royal College of Nursing Scotland: intensive therapy unit clinical nurse educator Karen Bacon was highly commended in the “learning in practice” award category, and Michelle Brownlee, a healthcare support worker in the ITU, was a runner-up in the nursing support worker of the year award. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Karen and Michelle, and pass on all our thanks to our hard-working nursing staff in the NHS?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I will indeed join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Karen and Michelle on their exceptional achievements. He is absolutely right to celebrate the work of all our wonderful NHS nurses, and I am sure the whole House will join me in giving thanks for all the hard work that they do.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 27 April will include:

Monday 27 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by consideration of a Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, followed by consideration of a carry-over motion relating to the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Crime and Policing Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Tuesday 28 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message on the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages.

Wednesday 29 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages.

Thursday 30 April—If necessary, consideration of Lords messages.

The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.

[John Lamont]

May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) on the birth of his daughter, baby Lyla? I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him and his family well.

Last weekend, I met the friends and family of Jamie Tweedie as they walked the St Cuthbert’s Way from Melrose to Holy Island, raising over £25,000 for the Scottish Brain Tumour Research Centre of Excellence. Jamie was a local farmer in the Borders who tragically lost his life to a brain tumour just under a year ago. I know their efforts will help advance treatments for that devastating disease.

We are all watching the development of peace talks between the US and Iran. For the good of our economy and in the interests of bringing energy bills down for households and businesses, we all hope to see a swift end to the conflict.

Turning to domestic politics, after weeks of chaos, this may be the lowest point yet for this Government—a Prime Minister putting his own interests above the national interest. He has already had four chiefs of staff, five directors of communications, three Cabinet Secretaries and four principal private secretaries. Does the Leader of the House agree that perhaps the problem lies with the Prime Minister himself? On Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard extraordinary evidence from Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He described a dismissive attitude in Downing Street towards vetting, and “constant pressure” to appoint Peter Mandelson to the most senior diplomatic role. He also told MPs that he was asked to give the Prime Minister’s then director of communications a senior diplomatic post—without informing the Foreign Secretary, it would seem. The Foreign Office is not a redeployment pool for failed political advisers.

Can the Leader of the House tell us whether it was appropriate for No. 10 to apply such pressure over Mandelson’s vetting, or does he accept that due process was not followed? Does he believe the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House? Does the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister continues to make statements that are hard to reconcile with reality? Can the Leader of the House explain why Olly Robbins was sacked? Was it right and fair to sack him?

The Prime Minister has never looked weaker. The Prime Minister is so weak that he has brought forward the moment of Prorogation to avoid another bruising Prime Minister’s questions. He has already lost the confidence of the entire country. When will Labour MPs finally stand up for their constituents and join us in removing this dreadful Prime Minister?

While the Prime Minister is consumed by internal chaos, the issues that matter to our constituents are being ignored. Energy bills are soaring, particularly for those in rural communities who rely on heating oil, people are struggling to find work, and decisions on funding our national defence are being delayed, despite global threats. At the same time, Government Back Benchers and Cabinet members brief against each other, plotting over the Prime Minister’s future. As this parliamentary Session draws to a close, I doubt it will be remembered fondly by those on the Government Benches.

In two weeks’ time, voters will go to the polls in important elections across England and in parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, Labour’s campaign has descended into confusion, illustrated by the remarkable sight of the Prime Minister visiting the nuclear base at Faslane, while avoiding any contact with his own party leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. It seemed that the Prime Minister needed the protection of the nuclear deterrent from his own Scottish Labour colleagues. This Government have found it easier to locate secret Russian submarines in the north Atlantic than to find the Scottish Labour leader in the south side of Glasgow.

Across Scotland, voters are clear: they are tired of an SNP Government distracted from delivery and focused on independence. But people are not powerless. The peach-coloured regional ballot paper gives voters the opportunity to prevent another SNP majority, as they did in 2016 and 2021. The results of another SNP majority in Scotland would be similar to those of the current Labour majority in this House: more broken promises, more chaos and more division. Does the Leader of the House agree that whether at Westminster or at Holyrood, Governments deserve to be judged harshly if they do not stick to their promises and they inflict chaos on our country?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming the birth of Lyla, and I wish her and her parents all the very best indeed.

I wish everybody a happy St George’s day today. During this week, we have celebrated the centenary of the birth of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and it has been announced that a trust will be established in honour of the life of the late Queen. The trust will focus on restoring shared spaces in communities, reflecting the late Queen’s commitment to public service, inspired by the belief that everyone is our neighbour—a lesson that we should all seek to live by.

Last week, the Government made clear their commitment to tackling antisemitic attacks. Following the incident this week, I restate our position that attacks on British Jews are an attack on all of us. We will do whatever it takes to stop those who seek to intimidate our Jewish communities.

We are approaching the end of the Session, which, at its conclusion, will have seen the delivery of more than 50 Government Bills. We will continue to build on that in the next Session.

A statement was made to the House to provide an update on Capita and civil service pensions. I know that Members across the House will have welcomed that update. I assure hon. Members that the issues that they raise with me in this forum are heard by the Government and, where we can, the Government act.

Before I turn to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), may I wish everyone taking part in the London marathon this Sunday, including all the Members of the House who are participating, the very best of luck?

I join the hon. Gentleman in saying how saddened we are to learn about the death of Jamie Tweedie, which came far too soon. His friends and family are ensuring that we remember him and that he is not forgotten, and his untimely death leaves a legacy of which they should be proud.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the peace talks. I join him in hoping that they are successful. We want the ceasefire to continue. We want to ensure that the strait of Hormuz is open; otherwise, as he points out, it will prolong the expected economic damage, not just to our economy but to others. I want to put it on the record that what has unfolded in that part of the world demonstrates that the Prime Minister’s judgment on not joining the war in the first place was absolutely correct. He has spent his time making diplomatic efforts, working with others, to ensure that the strait of Hormuz is open at the earliest opportunity.

Let me turn to the hon. Gentleman’s remarks on domestic politics. He is perfectly entitled to make his case, but let me remind the House that the Prime Minister came here at the earliest opportunity on Monday and faced questions on Peter Mandelson for two and a half hours. That was followed by an emergency debate for three hours on Tuesday in which Members had an opportunity to make their case and ask their questions. Yesterday, the Prime Minister faced Prime Minister’s questions for about 45 minutes, in which he was questioned extensively on the issue. The Foreign Affairs Committee is doing its job in holding decision makers to account. There have been numerous opportunities—including at Cabinet Office questions, which has just finished—for other questions to be put. I and the Government cannot be held responsible for the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has been so hopeless during these events that she cannot hold the Government to account effectively. [Interruption.]

Let me just mention the question of Prorogation, because the hon. Gentleman has clearly been reading too many newspapers. I have just read out to the House that the business next week—[Interruption.]

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 23 March will include:

Monday 13 April—Debate on a motion on SEND provision and reform. The subject of this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 14 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill.

Wednesday 15 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Pension Schemes Bill, followed by consideration of Lords message to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Thursday 16 April—General debate on the Modernisation Committee’s first report of the 2024-26 session on “Access to the House of Commons and its procedures” and the House Administration’s response.

Friday 17 April—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 20 April includes:

Monday 20 April—If necessary, consideration of a Lords message to the Victims and Courts Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of a Lords message to the Crime and Policing Bill.

Tuesday 21 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.

I can also announce to the House that the state opening of Parliament will take place on Wednesday 13 May 2026.

As is usual, the current Session of Parliament will be prorogued ahead of the King’s Speech and this time will be used to enable logistical and security preparations for the state opening of Parliament.

The date of Prorogation will be confirmed in due course.

[John Lamont]

I begin by echoing your remarks, Mr Speaker, about our former colleague, David Winnick. I pay my respects to him.

We must all condemn the antisemitic arson attack against the Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on Monday morning. It was a sickening attack on the Jewish community. Antisemitism has no place in our country, and we must stand together against this hatred and intimidation.

Today is Purple Day—the international day of epilepsy awareness. It is an important opportunity to raise understanding of a condition that affects many people across the United Kingdom. I ask the Leader of the House to join me in recognising the work of charities, campaigners and clinicians who support people with that condition.

May we also take a moment to remember Saleh Mohammadi, aged 19, who was a talented wrestler, and all those executed by the Iranian Government? Their courage must not be forgotten. Every Member of this House should stand in solidarity with the people of Iran in their pursuit of freedom, justice and dignity.

We all want to see the conflict in the middle east brought to an end as quickly as possible, but with rising oil prices, the Government must clarify what they are doing to control inflation and pressures on household budgets. Before the general election, the Labour party promised to cut energy bills by £300. I ask the Leader of the House whether that promise still stands, and when he expects the Chancellor to come forward with her next inevitable U-turn on fuel duty.

With less than 50 days to go until much of the country goes to the polls, the former Deputy Prime Minister and former deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), has given a damning assessment of the Government and the Prime Minister. She said that Labour is “running out of time”, that it is not delivering change fast enough and that it represents

“the establishment, not working people.”

She also described some of the Labour Government’s policies as “un-British”. Does the Leader of the House agree with that assessment, or is the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne wrong?

There are also, of course, critical Scottish Parliament elections. The smart way to stop the SNP majority is to vote Scottish Conservative on the peach ballot paper. The SNP is distracted by independence and divisive issues while people face rising prices, weak growth and job insecurity. John Swinney now proposes another push for independence, admitting nobody knows his tactics. Meanwhile, the Labour Government are failing to deliver change. They have abandoned the oil and gas industry in Scotland and broken promises to pensioners and farmers. The Chancellor is driving up bills while increasing debt.

Labour’s repeated U-turns show a Government in chaos, and that chaos is now out in the open, with the Scottish Labour leader, Anas Sarwar, calling for the Prime Minister to go. Mr Sarwar and the Prime Minister have not spoken in over a month, so I ask the Leader of the House whether the Prime Minister has been banned from Scotland. Has the man supposedly leading the United Kingdom been told not to venture past Carlisle or Coldstream? Is that how weak the Prime Minister has become? Scotland, a place that the Prime Minister visited several times during the general election campaign, is now a no-go area for him.

What of the rest of the Labour Government? Have they also been banned from Labour’s campaign in Scotland? This week, Anas Sarwar said:

“I’ve been open about saying that this is an unpopular UK Labour government and we have an unpopular prime minister, that’s a statement of fact.”

Does the Leader of the House accept that fact? Will this unpopular Labour Government help the Labour campaign in Scotland by staying away, or will they help the SNP by getting involved? The Scottish Conservatives offer a clear alternative: responsible spending, economic growth and lower taxes for hard-working families. This election is about stopping an SNP majority—something we have done before and something we will do again.

Finally, on Tuesday, the official Opposition lost some of our precious debating time because the Chancellor decided to make a statement. Unfortunately, the statement did not announce anything new, and what there was had already been briefed out to Chris Mason at the BBC. May I therefore ask the Leader of the House for another half-day Opposition day debate before the end of the Session?

Mr Speaker, as we approach the Easter recess, may I wish you, the Leader of the House and all Members and their staff a very happy Easter?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I thank the shadow Deputy Leader of the House for his questions; it is always good to see him in his place. First, I join him in his remarks on the terrible attack in Golders Green. I hope the whole House will join us in condemning this attack on Jewish community ambulances; it was an horrific antisemitic hate crime, and we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community.

This week marked nine years since the murder of PC Keith Palmer, who died protecting this House. His courage and commitment will never be forgotten, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with PC Palmer’s family, friends and colleagues. We thank the police and security officers who keep us and this place safe today.

I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House and you, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to David Winnick. With a distinguished tenure of more than 40 years, he was unwavering in his commitment to his constituency, and I am sure Members will join me in sending our condolences to David’s friends and family.

I have just announced that the King’s Speech will take place on Wednesday 13 May. At its conclusion, this parliamentary Session will have seen the delivery of over 50 Bills. Through that legislation, we are improving renters’ rights, changing planning laws to streamline the delivery of new homes, bringing our railways into public ownership and strengthening employment rights. We are delivering on the changes that we promised, and we will continue to build on that in the next parliamentary Session.

I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House in wishing all Members a very happy Easter. It will be particularly special for the newly ordained Archbishop of Canterbury, the first woman to take the role. I hope that all Members will be able to spend some time with their families and in their constituencies during the recess.

Let me turn to the specific remarks from the shadow Deputy Leader of the House. I join him in recognising the important work of the charities, consultants, families and others involved in the battle against epilepsy on national epilepsy day. I also join him in standing in solidarity with the people of Iran. Of course, we hope that the conflict will end soon but also that it ends justly.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House asked about the cost of living. We are already bringing down energy bills by £120, and I am sure the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero will keep the House updated. As this international crisis unfolds, we will need to take careful stock of what is happening, particularly to energy bills, and we will not only keep the House updated but, if further action is necessary, we will take it.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House referred to the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the former Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I have just read out a list of this Government’s achievements in the first Session. She was at the heart of many of those achievements, so the divide that he seeks to create is not one that exists in reality.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House talked about letting people down, including pensioners. Pensioners will next month see a considerable rise in their state pension as a result of the triple lock, which we are committed to keeping, unlike the Conservative party.

The shadow Deputy Leader of the House also talked about the situation in Scotland. I can reassure him that there will be plenty of support for our colleagues and plenty of opportunities for campaigning north of the border, where the choice is a very clear one: to continue with the failure and underachievement of the SNP Government or real change under Scottish Labour. That is the choice, and there will be plenty of opportunities for every member of the parliamentary Labour party and of the party to be out making the case for that change. In terms of what he said about the Scottish Tories, it was great to see him finishing on a joke.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I certainly will do as my hon. Friend asks. The Government are taking action on these matters, but I will also undertake to escalate this in the way that she suggests.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Tomorrow I will be enjoying Kelso’s musical theatre performance of “Beauty and the Beast” at Tait Hall; on Saturday, I will be at Lauder Amateur Dramatic Society’s performance for its 76th year at Lauder public hall. From the Leader of the House’s marvellous performances here in the House of Commons, I know that he is a great fan of amateur dramatics; will he join me in wishing the performers and production teams well?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

It is always good to hear from the ironman on the other side of the House, not least about musical theatre. He is right that I am a fan of musical theatre, so I will certainly join him in wishing all the participants in the Kelso musical theatre and Lauder Amateur Dramatic Society shows the best of luck. On a serious point, amateur dramatics groups across the country play a valuable role in bringing communities together and nurturing talent, and we thank each and every one of them.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government have already taken action on some aspects of reform of the Lords. He is not really talking about the Lords and their work per se; it is about the people who enter that place. The Prime Minister has confirmed that we will bring forward legislation to ensure that peerages, for example, can be removed from disgraced peers. We are looking at what other further action can be taken to improve standards in public life.

The Government are committed to wider reform of the House of Lords, but as I have said before, when we have tried this previously, there has been no consensus. There are many other priorities that the Government need to get on with. While not forgetting about Lords reform, we have to ensure that the Government do all the other things that they need to do, not least in the next Session facing us.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Scottish Government’s Fire and Rescue Service has been reviewing the future of Hawick fire station. Like thousands of local residents, I have signed the petition calling for it to be retained as a 24/7 service, but it has been announced that the decision will be delayed for six months. Does the Leader of the House agree that delaying the decision until after the Scottish Parliament election looks politically motivated, and that local residents should know what the SNP plans for their fire station before they vote?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that important matter to the House. I know from experience, as I am sure others do, just how important fire services and coverage are for our constituents. As he points out, it is a devolved matter and, as I have said before, this Government have provided the Scottish Government with the biggest funding settlement since devolution began, which they should be taking into account. I hope that those responsible in the Scottish Government have heard the hon. Gentleman’s contribution today because, first and foremost, they should be listening to residents.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Leader of the House will be aware of the Countryside Alliance’s annual “Rural Oscars” awards. I am delighted that eight of the finalists come from my constituency: Briggsy’s Butcher, the Allanton Inn, the Buccleuch Arms, the Blackadder in Greenlaw, the Gordon Arms, Fine Feathers, the Ancrum Pantry and the Oxton Community shop. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating those businesses and in wishing them well in the public vote?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I absolutely join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating all the finalists in his constituency; they are so important in making community work in his part of the world. The Government are committed to supporting small and rural businesses through our small business plan, saving them time and money, boosting their access to finance and opening new opportunities. There are some fantastic businesses across his constituency and they deserve to be recognised, so I wish them all well.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Given the importance of this matter, I am sorry to hear of the concerns that my hon. Friend raises and the fact that things are taking time. I would go further than simply raising it with Ministers; I think she should seek a meeting with Health Ministers so that she can raise those concerns with them directly.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The Scottish Borders are being inundated with new energy infrastructure projects. SNP Ministers in Edinburgh blame the Labour Government here, and the Labour Government here blame the SNP Government in Scotland—frankly, it has become ridiculous. Ultimately, responsibility rests with the Scottish Government’s planning framework, which allows those energy projects to be imposed on local communities, even if there are concerns about grid capacity or the local council strongly objects. I would be very grateful to the Leader of the House if he facilitated a meeting between the UK Government Energy Minister, the Scottish Government and me, so that we can provide local communities and the environment the protection that they deserve.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that planning is a devolved matter. I remind the House—it would not be business questions without my doing so—that we have provided the Scottish Government with more than £50 billion a year, which is the biggest funding settlement since devolution began. I would be happy to facilitate the meeting that he requests.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 12 January includes:

Monday 12 January—Committee of the whole House of the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day 1).

Tuesday 13 January—Committee of the whole House of the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day 2).

Wednesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

Thursday 15 January—General debate on new towns, followed by a general debate on financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 16 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 19 January includes:

Monday 19 January—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Sentencing Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Holocaust Memorial Bill.

Tuesday 20 January—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the National Insurance Contributions (Employer Pensions Contributions) Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 (Remedial) Order 2025.

[John Lamont]

Mr Speaker, may I begin by wishing you, the Leader of the House, right hon. and hon. Members and all staff of the House a very happy new year? I appreciate that the Leader of the House may still be recovering from the excesses of the festive season, so I will try not to add unduly to his discomfort, but I will start with a simple request: will he give a clear commitment that the Government will stop making significant policy announcements when Parliament is not sitting?

I know that you take this issue very seriously, Mr Speaker, but we had another significant announcement made not to Parliament but to the media. While Conservative Members welcome the partial U-turn of the vindictive and cruel family farm tax, it was utterly wrong for the Government to sneak out such a major policy shift just a few days before Christmas, when the House was not sitting and Members could not properly scrutinise Ministers about their change of course.

We then saw Labour Members rush to social media to claim that they had

“always thought it was the wrong policy”,

and had been

“working hard behind the scenes”

to persuade Ministers to change it. I have to say to the House that that will simply not wash with farmers. Farmers are not daft. They will remember right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches trooping through the Lobby to vote down Conservative attempts to stop the dreadful family farm tax. They will remember Labour MPs clapping like seals from the Back Benches every time the Prime Minister insisted that the tax was the right thing to do.

There was, however, one exception: the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). He did the right thing. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He stood up for farmers and businesses in his constituency and voted against this disastrous policy because he knew that Labour had promised before the election not to introduce such a tax, and he knew that that pledge had been broken. Now that events have proved him correct, when will the Whip be restored to him? If the Government now accept that the policy was wrong, will they accept that punishing those who opposed it was wrong, too?

The turn of the year is traditionally a time for reflection and resolution. Before Christmas, the Leader of the House informed us that he does not make new year’s resolutions—may I ask him please to think again?

In truth, 2025 was a year defined by U-turns. What will the Leader of the House do to ensure that the Government are better led, more stable and more honest with the public in the year ahead? In 2025, we had U-turns on: inheritance tax on farmers and small businesses; a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs; winter fuel payments; the two-child benefit cap; income tax; welfare reform, national insurance; and compensation for WASPI women. The Prime Minister warmly welcomed el-Fattah back to Britain only to claim that he regrets it. The Deputy Prime Minister forced to resign over her tax affairs. The US ambassador Peter Mandelson was sacked for his links to a notorious paedophile, and the Homelessness Minister quit after making her tenants homeless.

On issue after issue, the Government have lurched from announcement to reversal, creating uncertainty for families, for businesses and for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. With all that chaos and uncertainty at the very top of Government, does the Leader of the House believe that the Prime Minister will still be in his job this time next year? If the Prime Minister’s beloved Arsenal stay top of the table and win the league this year, will he be enjoying that as Prime Minister or as a punter?

There has been speculation that His Royal Highness the King will open the new Session of Parliament on 12 May. Can the Leader of the House confirm that and when Parliament will prorogue?

Finally, the pub and hospitality sector face a bleak “dry” January, but this winter is particularly bad because of the policy decisions taken by this Labour Government to hike their taxes. Hundreds of pubs, restaurants and hotels across the country have now banned Labour MPs from their premises. One publican said:

“Everyone is fed up because the Labour government hasn’t listened and instead has taxed us more.”

Why do the Labour Government not understand the important role that local pubs and hotels play in our economy?

The country is ready to call time on the Prime Minister. It is last orders for his Labour Government. After just 18 months in power, the Prime Minister’s leadership is stale. He is like a flat pint—even the regulars have had enough. Will the Leader of the House commit to make representations to the Chancellor to lessen the tax burden on this industry, and will he tell us if he has been banned from his local pub?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everyone across the House a happy new year. I congratulate parliamentarians past and present who were recognised in the new year’s honours. It is right and proper that people who make an exemplary contribution to public service are recognised, like so many others across our country.

I was saddened to hear about the passing of Sir Patrick Duffy at the age of 105. He was a committed Member of Parliament for Colne Valley between 1963 and 1966 and then for Sheffield Attercliffe between 1970 and 1992, and he served as Minister for the Navy. He is the longest-lived MP in British history, and I send my condolences to his friends and family.

I must say that it is a shame that the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), is not here today. I understand that he has been described in Tatler as “the last upper-class” Tory MP and the “truest renaissance man in parliament”. He does always bring some class to our proceedings, but I am delighted to be responding to his more than capable deputy today.

This week the Government have published the road safety strategy. The strategy makes our roads safer and will cut road deaths by 65% by 2035. We will save thousands of lives on our nation’s roads and are taking decisive action to make our roads safer for everyone. We will tackle drink driving, improve training for young drivers and introduce mandatory eye tests for older motorists. This is another example of the Government responding to the concerns raised by Members across the House, including at Business questions, and the Transport Minister will say more in her statement later today.

But that is not all: thousands more free breakfast clubs will open in the coming months, 3,000 more neighbourhood police officers will be on our streets by March, almost 120 community diagnostic centres will be open seven days a week across the country by April as we bring down waiting lists and renew our NHS, and new rights for renters and workers will come into effect in the spring. That is why, after 14 years of decline and drift under the previous Government, our aim is that 2026 is the year of renewal, when it becomes real, visible and felt.

The shadow deputy Leader of the House asked about announcements. He knows my view, because he has quoted it back to me, that wherever possible announcements should be made in this House first, but the reality was we were very aware of the concern among the farming community. We have listened to the farming community, and at the earliest opportunity we wanted to inform them of our plans. I have to say, contrary to the impression he has given today, that the announcement has been warmly welcomed by farmers. We will have an opportunity to debate this matter more fully because I have just announced that we will debate the Finance (No. 2) Bill shortly. On whipping, I am delighted to say that whipping is a matter for the Chief Whip, no longer for me.

In terms of Government being better led and more stable, it is not in our gift alone to decide that, because that was decided by the country at the last general election, when they were very clear that they voted for a stable, well-led Government, and that is what we are delivering. We have said that the King’s Speech will be in spring 2026. That will obviously depend somewhat on the progress of business.

Finally, the hon. Member raised the issue of hospitality. The Prime Minister has been absolutely clear that we are listening and actively looking at further measures to help the hospitality industry and pubs, whether they are in rural or urban areas. But we are not going to take any lessons from the Conservatives, because a record number of pub closed during their 14 years, and they did nothing to help the situation, which is why we have a job to do, and we are getting on with it.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 18th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)]

The business for the week commencing 5 January 2026 will include:

Monday 5 January—Debate on a motion on mobile connectivity in rural areas. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 6 January—Second Reading of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.

Wednesday 7 January—Opposition day (15th allotted day). Debate on a motion in the name of the official Opposition, subject to be announced.

Thursday 8 January—Debate on a motion on the effectiveness of Magnitsky-style sanctions for serious human rights abuses, followed by debate on a motion on high street gambling reform. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 9 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 12 January includes:

Monday 12 January—Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day one).

Tuesday 13 January—Committee of the whole House on the Finance (No. 2) Bill (day two).

Wednesday 14 January—Remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill.

Thursday 15 January—General debate on new towns, followed by general debate on financial support for small businesses and individuals during the covid-19 pandemic. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 16 January—The House will not be sitting.

[John Lamont]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the start of the new year.

I begin by expressing my deepest condolences and sympathies to the victims of the Bondi Beach attack at the weekend. I am sure that we were all horrified to see the events unfold, with innocent Jews murdered as they enjoyed Hanukkah in the evening sunshine. As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, we must do much more to tackle antisemitism and Islamic extremism around the world, but also here in the United Kingdom.

Mr Speaker, I wish you, the Leader of the House and Members, the Doorkeepers, the catering team and all parliamentary staff a very happy Christmas.

Will the Leader of the House be making any new year’s resolutions? I know that he respects this place and the important role of MPs and Parliament in holding Ministers to account. May I suggest that his new year’s resolution should be to ensure that the 2,644 parliamentary questions that have not received a response are answered as soon as possible, please, and that all the many letters and emails from MPs to Ministers that have not received the courtesy of a reply are dealt with as quickly as possible?

As we look ahead to 2026, I am reminded that Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol” is a tale not just of redemption but of the perils of ignoring reality. Sadly, after only 18 months of this Labour Government, it is already clear that no amount of festive storytelling can disguise what is happening to our country. If anyone needs a visit from the three ghosts this year, it is those on the Government Benches.

Let us start with the ghost of Christmas past. In opposition, Labour promised everything to everyone: lower energy bills, shorter NHS waiting lists, kick-starting economic growth, safer streets, 1.5 million new homes and world-class public services, funded—apparently—without raising taxes. The British people were sold a vision of transformation without the trade-offs. Now that Labour is in government, reality is quickly catching up.

The ghost of Christmas present shows us the consequences. Since the election, we have seen rising taxes on working people, a retreat from every major spending pledge, a benefits bill rising higher and higher, a cost of living crisis made in Downing Street and economic growth going in the wrong direction. Labour promised an immediate plan to rescue the NHS; instead, waiting lists have continued to rise and militant doctors remain in dispute, resulting in 93,000 lost appointments and patients being told to expect a long, difficult winter. This Labour Government promised a plan for social care; six months later, there is still none. They promised cheaper energy bills; bills are up again. They promised 1.5 million new homes; yet planning reforms are already being bogged down by internal Labour rows. They promised 6,500 more teachers, but there are now 400 fewer teachers since the election. They promised to smash the gangs, but illegal migration continues to rise, and despite promising to restore trust in our justice system, Labour’s early release scheme has seen offenders let out early while police forces struggle with 1,316 fewer police. This is not the change the public were promised.

Now to the ghost of Christmas yet to come: if the first 18 months are a sign of things to come, the future should send a winter chill through us all. Even more tax rises are due to hit working people thanks to the Chancellor’s “Nightmare before Christmas” Budget last month. The family farm tax will take effect, which will decimate our rural economy and undermine food security. We will see Departments told to brace for spending cuts after Labour admitted the money was not there; councils warning of bankruptcy, and investment faltering as businesses grapple with mixed signals on planning, energy and regulation; our liberties under attack, with the introduction of digital ID and the scrapping of trials by jury; and a Prime Minister who talks endlessly about missions but is yet to deliver a single measurable improvement to the lives of ordinary families.

The lesson of Dickens’s tale is that it is never too late to change course. For the sake of our country, we on the Opposition Benches urge the Government to do exactly that. We urge them to be honest about what they can fund, to be transparent about what they will cut, to show some backbone and, above all else, to keep their promises. Let us hope that by next Christmas, the Government have changed direction, because the country cannot afford another year like 2025. Happy new year.

[Sir Alan Campbell]

First, I join the shadow Deputy Leader of the House, and the whole House, in sending our thoughts and condolences to those affected by the terrorist attack in Bondi Beach. Hanukkah should be a time of celebration; instead, it has become a scene of horror and violence. Antisemitism has absolutely no place in our society, and we stand in solidarity with the Jewish community.

This is our last business questions of the year, so I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, and wish you and Members across the House a very merry Christmas and a happy new year. It is a shame that there are no Reform Members joining us in the House today. I understand their nativity play has been cancelled this year because they could not find three wise men.

I want to address some of the points raised by the shadow Deputy Leader of the House specifically, but let me first take the opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved over the past 12 months, and recognise and thank all those who have embodied the spirit of good will and service this year.

First, I acknowledge the hard work of charities and organisations in our constituencies—none more important those that support people experiencing homelessness. The Government are backing those organisations with our homelessness strategy, which outlines our commitment to halving the number of long-term rough sleepers. We are also delivering on our promise of safe and secure housing by banning no-fault evictions and introducing new protections for renters. We are bringing forward planning reform to build the new homes that we need and to deliver the biggest boost to social and affordable homes in a generation.

We must also recognise the contributions of charities and community groups in supporting the most vulnerable through the cost of living crisis. We have extended the household support fund to support struggling households. We have also launched the warm homes plan to deliver lower energy bills and lift 1 million households out of fuel poverty, and we have published our child poverty strategy, which will lift half a million children out of poverty. We are improving children’s life chances now, and addressing the root causes of child poverty in the future.

I also thank teachers and all those who support our young people. I hope that they get a well-deserved rest over the festive period. We are backing them by investing in our children’s future, recruiting 6,500 more teachers nationally, and increasing school funding by £1.7 billion.

NHS workers are the backbone of our health service, and I acknowledge their dedication—they continue to care for patients through the festive period. We are backing them with our long-term plan to rebuild our NHS over the next 10 years, protecting investment, creating more appointments, and recruiting more GPs and mental health workers.

We must also acknowledge and thank local authority workers, postal workers and shop workers, who work throughout the festive period and keep our country running. And last but not least, I acknowledge the dedication and tireless work of our police and emergency services, who keep our community safe. We are backing them with the resources they need to do their vital jobs, which is why we are publishing our provisional police funding settlement today and will continue to ensure that money is directed to the right places. We look forward to delivering on our commitment to recruiting more police officers in 2026.

Let me address some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He asked about my new year’s resolution; it will be not to make resolutions. He asked about parliamentary questions and other correspondence from Ministers. I do take those matters seriously, as he said; we constantly tell Departments that they need to up their game. However, he knows through his work—not least on the Modernisation Committee—that there is a deeper issue with PQs. Their number has increased enormously. Departments need to up their game quite frankly, but at the same time, we must think carefully about the number of PQs we are putting in and whether the system can cope with it. This has been a problem not just for this Government but for the previous Government, too.

The hon. Gentleman referenced Dickens’s “A Christmas Carol”. Let me turn instead to “A Tale of Two Cities” and draw a comparison between 14 years of Conservative Government and 18 months of Labour Government. To paraphrase, “It was the worst of times, it is now the best of times.”