Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to close the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate on behalf of the Opposition, in which we have heard a great many excellent contributions from across the Chamber. Of course, this is a time to remember Sir David himself, who always made sure that the people of Southend were put firmly on the map during this debate. I will always remember his warmth, conviction and generosity when I was first elected to this House in 2017. He was a tireless advocate for the people he represented and for the causes he championed.

I join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe, who was a woman of great conviction and always said what she thought. You might not have completely agreed with her, but you always knew where she stood. The way in which her life was cut short last week in such horrific circumstances is truly heartbreaking, and my thoughts are with her family, her friends and everyone who knew and loved her.

I also pay tribute to the members of the staff who are leaving the House of Commons this summer, including Godfrey from the Tea Room; Richard, after 37 years in the Strangers Bar; Francelise and Denis, after 25 years and almost 27 years respectively at the Members’ Restaurant; and many others who have served this House diligently for many years.

A number of Members have highlighted some of the great attractions in their respective constituencies today, such as the putting greens in Fife that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned, the air show in Sunderland that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) mentioned, or the entertainment zone at Braehead that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) mentioned. Lastly, I am looking forward to visiting the green belt mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton).

The summer is a wonderful time to visit the Scottish Borders. Members do not need to take my word for it; only a few weeks ago Jeremy Clarkson described the Scottish Borders as Britain’s “most beautiful” region. If Members are looking for a last-minute staycation this summer, they know where to come.

One of the highlights of my year remains my annual summer surgery tour, which starts on Saturday, on which I will hold more than 80 advice surgeries in every town and village across my Scottish Borders constituency. This is in addition to my regular monthly surgeries, and gives me an opportunity to visit every town, village and community, particularly those in the more remote and isolated parts of my constituency. I will once again be holding this tour alongside my Scottish Conservative colleague Rachael Hamilton MSP, who was overwhelmingly re-elected to represent the Scottish Borders back in May. There are still appointments available, so I encourage any of my constituents who would like to meet in the coming days or weeks to get in touch.

It has been a busy year. I have continued to campaign for better public transport links for the Borders, in particular to extend the Borders railway from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle, and to restore direct LNER services that have been cut from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London, which are so vital for keeping the Borders and north Northumberland connected.

My constituency is, of course, a borderlands community. We regularly cross the border to shop, visit friends and family, get to work or enjoy the beautiful Northumberland coastline. However, access to NHS services for cross-border communities remains a significant challenge. My view is simple: my constituents should be able to access healthcare as close to home as possible, even if that hospital or facility happens to be in England. It is only common sense that taxpayers, who fund our NHS, should be able to use the services that best meet their needs. I will continue to campaign alongside local residents to ensure that access to NHS care is quick and easily available to everybody who needs it.

We have heard some excellent contributions from Members across the Chamber, and I want to mention some of them. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) mentioned the red telephone box in Balfron, which has been used as a food exchange. That is a great example of the redeployment of the red phone box network, and I know of several examples in my constituency. I congratulate the residents in Balfron on securing that.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) highlighted some of the big questions regarding the Peter Murrell scandal and the problems circulating around the SNP just now. He rightly asked those questions, because many people in Scotland are asking them and calling for a full inquiry into who knew what and when—particularly former First Minister Ms Sturgeon.

The hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) both raised very difficult and tragic cases. My thoughts are with the family of Lucy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington South for raising that challenging and difficult case. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge raised an important point about fraudulent paternity testing. I hope that the relevant Minister will take that forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) raised the important issue of off-road bikes in Stockton. I know that it is an issue for many communities. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) raised a similar issue in respect of e-bikes.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the ongoing, increasing costs associated with the restoration and renewal project. I know that many Members share those concerns. It is imperative that the new Government make time for a debate on it so that the relatively newly elected Members from the 2024 election have an opportunity to have their say. Ultimately, we are dealing with huge amounts of taxpayers money, and we need to have an open and frank discussion about it.

The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who is not in her place, raised the importance of sport, with which I wholly agree. She also highlighted the risk of taking part in parliamentary sports activities, given that sharp elbows seem to have given her a broken rib—a lesson for us all, perhaps.

The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) gave a very moving tribute to one of his late council colleagues. I am grateful to him for highlighting that serious condition and what people suffering from brain tumours have to deal with.

I have not been able to mention everybody, but I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken time to raise the issues affecting their constituencies. However, we should have had this debate next week, once the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) had assumed the office of Prime Minister, so that he could come to the House to explain what he plans to do with the country. As things stand, we have little idea what he intends to do. The right hon. Member did not publish a manifesto during the Labour leadership election. He has not yet been tested. For many years, he has made countless promises without having to deliver them, but soon he will have to do so.

The right hon. Member for Makerfield said that WASPI women should receive compensation, but we hear now that he has changed his mind. What are his plans for taxation? Which taxes does he plan to increase? He has said that he will “take his responsibilities fully” to fund the defence investment plan after the Prime Minister and Chancellor left a £4.7 billion black hole. How does he intend to pay for it? What is his plan to tackle the out-of-control welfare spending? All of our constituents deserve answers to those questions. The new Prime Minister should have come to this House early next week to answer those basic questions. Instead, he has bottled it.

Yesterday, the Opposition planned to move a motion to delay the parliamentary recess until Monday so that the incoming Government could face proper scrutiny and to allow the nation to hear from the new Prime Minister about his plans. Instead, the Leader of the House—presumably acting as proxy for the incoming Prime Minister—came to the House and blocked the motion. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House believes that his actions were worth it—or perhaps he will be rewarded with a plum job in the reshuffle. I, for one, hope that he will continue in his current job because I think that he has been an exceptional Leader of the House.

As I close, may I thank my amazing constituency team, who have worked hard for me since my election to this place in 2017, and some who have suffered even longer, since 2007, when I first became a Member of the Scottish Parliament? I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and his office and the other Deputy Speakers. I also thank everyone who supports the Speaker’s Office throughout the parliamentary year. The Doorkeepers, Clerks, caterers, security staff, cleaners and Members’ parliamentary and constituency staff all work tirelessly to keep this place running every single day, and I am sure that Members across the House will join me in expressing our sincere gratitude for everything they do.

I wish colleagues from across the Chamber a restful and enjoyable summer recess. I know that for many of us, it will be time spent working in our constituencies. I look forward to seeing everybody in September.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Alan Campbell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. The Government have been working hard to improve air quality, and we have provided £582 million to support local authorities. It is very disappointing to hear of the case in his constituency. I hope that the company, Simpson, as well as his local council and the Environment Agency have heard his words, and that they will take action to remedy this issue, because I can give them one guarantee: if they do not, my hon. Friend will continue to raise the issue until they do.

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

Churches are important historical buildings and are often at the heart of our local communities. Labour stopped the last Conservative Government’s VAT scheme, which helped to maintain places of worship across the UK, but the new, more restricted places of worship renewal fund applies only to England. Thanks to Coldingham & St Abbs parish church, it has come to light that the Scottish Government are not passing on extra funds to churches and places of worship in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House encourage his ministerial colleagues to contact the Scottish Government to ensure that this money is passed on to places of worship in Scotland?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

The new places of worship renewal fund is open for applications, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is an England-only fund administered by Historic England. It is for the Scottish Government to consider whether to set up new arrangements in Scotland, and it is disappointing, to say the least, that they have not done so. I am going to say this again, because it might be the last time that I say it: the Scottish Government have had the biggest settlement since devolution. It is important that they get on and spend it on behalf of constituents, who the settlement was put there for.

Business of the House

John Lamont Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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

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

The business for the week commencing 15 June will include:

Monday 15 June—The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration, followed by a debate on a motion on NHS dentistry. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 16 June—Remaining stages of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill.

Wednesday 17 June—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the National Security (State Threats) Bill.

Thursday 18 June—General debate on the infected blood compensation scheme, followed by a further debate, the subject of which has yet to be confirmed. The subjects for these debates are determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 19 June—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 22 June includes:

Monday 22 June—Remaining stages of the Armed Forces Bill.

Colleagues may also wish to be aware that on Monday 29 June and Tuesday 30 June the House is expected to debate estimates.

[John Lamont]

My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the man who was critically injured in the dreadful knife attack in Belfast on Monday evening. The bravery shown by members of the public who stepped in to help was nothing short of extraordinary.

May I wish all those taking part in the common ridings and festivals across the Scottish Borders a successful and enjoyable season? Communities are gathering to celebrate traditions that have been passed down through generations. Last week, I was in Hawick for the Hawick common riding. I pay tribute to the Hawick cornet, Jordan Nuttall and his lass, Alix Martin, for the dignified way in which they carried out their duties. Tomorrow, I will be in Selkirk for its common riding. I hope that the standard bearer, Sam Coltherd, has a successful and enjoyable day. These celebrations are a reminder of the strength of local identity, community spirit and public service that continue to define our part of Scotland.

On matters of wider public concern, can the leader of the House find time for a debate on standards in public life and accountability in Government, particularly in the light of the continuing questions surrounding the Scottish National party and the Peter Murrell scandal? Following Peter Murrell’s conviction for embezzling hundreds of thousands of pounds, many people across Scotland remain deeply concerned that significant questions remain unanswered, particularly given reports that public money may have been involved. The Scottish Conservatives, led by Russell Findlay, have rightly called for a full and independent inquiry into what happened and who knew what.

The Scottish public deserve answers. They deserve to know how such substantial sums of money could disappear over such a prolonged period without detection. They deserve to know what oversight and governance arrangements were in place within the SNP, and why those arrangements appear to have failed so comprehensively. They deserve to know what role senior figures in the party played during the period and what information was available to them.

There are also serious questions about the handling and timing of the wider investigation and about decisions taken throughout the process. Why did it take so long for these matters to come to light? Why were concerns not identified earlier? Why have so many questions continued to go unanswered despite years of scrutiny and investigation?

At a time when public confidence in politics is already fragile, the perception that there is one rule for those in positions of power and another for everyone else is profoundly damaging. Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not optional. The public have a right to know that those who seek elected office are subject to proper scrutiny and that serious failings will be investigated openly and thoroughly. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider providing Government time for a debate on transparency and accountability in public institutions, and in doing so support calls for all outstanding questions surrounding the scandal to be properly examined?

While the media and the Labour party are busy poring over every twist and turn of the by-election in Makerfield, the election that may tell us far more about the future direction of Scottish politics is the one taking place next week in Aberdeen South. There, the contest is now clearly a straight fight between the SNP and the Scottish Conservative candidate Douglas Lumsden. As public confidence in the SNP continues to be undermined by scandal and mismanagement, there is a growing recognition that only the Scottish Conservatives can defeat the SNP and send a message to both of Scotland’s Governments that the jobs of thousands of workers in Aberdeen’s vital oil and gas sector must be protected.

The people of Scotland deserve a politics that is open, accountable and focused on delivering results, rather than being distracted by scandal. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the importance of transparency in public life, and of ensuring that the many unanswered questions surrounding the affair are not simply brushed aside but receive the scrutiny and answers that the Scottish and the British public rightly deserve?

[Sir Alan Campbell]

Let me join the deputy shadow Leader of the House in sending our best wishes to the man who was injured in the Belfast attack; we wish him and his family well. Let me also place on the record our thanks to and support for the brave police officers and the wider community, who have shown incredible bravery in the face of such intimidation.

I want to start by mentioning some of the anniversaries that will take place before the next scheduled business question. Next Tuesday marks 10 years since the murder of Jo Cox. Jo was a relentless campaigner for equality, human rights and social justice, and a powerful champion for the world’s most vulnerable and marginalised. Members will have the opportunity to pay tribute to Jo and her long-lasting legacy in this afternoon’s debate, and I hope they will take the opportunity to do so.

This Sunday will mark the ninth anniversary of 72 people losing their lives in the Grenfell tower fire. I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with the families of those who died in the Grenfell tower fire, the survivors and the wider community.

Let me turn to matters that have been raised with me previously during these sessions and report back on progress that has been made. An issue that has been raised frequently is driving tests, so Members will be pleased to see this week that further changes have been made to how and where driving tests can be booked. This is a final step in a series of changes that we are taking to make it easy to get a test and to stop the exploitation of learner drivers by online bots and reselling.

Similarly, a constant theme in these sessions has been the state of our roads and the plague of potholes. This week, we have unveiled new rules to get potholes fixed. Councils will be required to reveal exactly how well they repair their roads, thereby letting the public hold them to account. Long-term preventive repairs will be prioritised over costly patch-up fixes, saving motorists hundreds of pounds a year on pothole-related repairs.

Last week, the Modernisation Committee launched a new opportunity for Members to directly shape the work of the Committee by pitching ideas for what we should do next. More information is available on ParliNet, and I strongly encourage Members to take part and share ideas.

As the House will know, the world cup kicks off today, and I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing England and Scotland the very best of luck. Members will be pleased to know that pubs across the country are set to benefit from extensions to licensing hours and special screenings. As I have said before, England has only ever won a world cup under a Labour Government; I expect that theory to be tested in not just this world cup but the next one.

Let me turn to the remarks of the deputy shadow Leader of the House. He talked about the importance of the common ridings and festivals, and he is absolutely right that events such as the Borders common ridings are a reminder and a display of local identity and community spirit that have endured for centuries. I am pleased that he is able to attend and take part in such events, and join him in wishing all those taking part an enjoyable season.

The hon. Gentleman says he will be at the Selkirk common ridings, which I believe takes place tomorrow. It commemorates the town’s last and only survivor of the battle of Flodden in 1513. I hope the weather is better tomorrow than it was on the day of the battle.

The hon. Gentleman raised two substantive points, the first of which was on standards in public life. I absolutely agree with him that it is important that the public get the answers they deserve when there are scandals like the one we have seen north of the border. I encourage people to be open about what has happened. If the authorities need to carry out further investigations, it is right that they do so.

Not surprisingly, in the context of next week’s by-election, the hon. Gentleman talked about the important question of oil and gas. Let me point out two things. First, this Government are absolutely committed to new clean energy and to energy independence, and we will bring forward measures on the latter shortly, but oil and gas will continue to flow for many years ahead as we make the transition. The international situation has again underlined the importance of that transition.

Finally, we should be concerned about what happens to jobs in the transition, but I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that in 14 years of Conservative Government, 70,000 jobs were lost in oil and gas. I am sure that the voters of Aberdeen will want to bear that in mind.

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.