Church of Scotland (Lord High Commissioner) Bill

John Lamont Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Pat McFadden)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I am pleased to open the debate on this Bill, which I hope will have the House’s support. It is a simple, straightforward and clear piece of legislation that seeks to do one simple thing: it will remove a legal barrier that prevents Catholics from holding the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. This historic legal restriction applies only to Catholics; it does not apply to people of other faiths or indeed of no religious faith.

For those hon. Members who are not familiar with the role of Lord High Commissioner—if there are any—perhaps it is beneficial for me to set out some context. The Lord High Commissioner is the sovereign’s personal representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. They are appointed as an observer to attend proceedings on behalf of His Majesty the King. The General Assembly is the governing body of the Church of Scotland that meets each May in Edinburgh to hear reports, make laws and set the agenda for the Church for the coming year. The ceremonial duties of the Lord High Commissioner include addressing the Assembly at its opening and closing sessions as well as attending the daily business on the sovereign’s behalf. In addition, the Lord High Commissioner undertakes official visits in Scotland as well as hosting engagements at the Palace of Holyroodhouse.

Historical legislation currently prevents the appointment of Catholics to the role: specifically, the Claim of Right Act 1689 set out restrictions against Catholics being appointed to public offices in Scotland, including the role of Lord High Commissioner. Most of that was changed by the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which removed many aspects of religious discrimination towards Catholics. However, it did not explicitly remove the restriction against Catholics holding the office of Lord High Commissioner. That means that a legislative restriction exists to this day against someone of the Catholic faith being appointed to this office. Until now, the issue did not arise because no Catholic was ever appointed to the role, but that position changed in December with the announcement of the appointment of Lady Elish Angiolini. The Bill will allow Lady Elish to take up the role.

There is similarity to the approach adopted in the Lord Chancellor (Tenure of Office and Discharge of Ecclesiastical Functions) Act 1974, which removed restrictions on Catholics taking up the role of Lord Chancellor. The Bill is short—as hon. Members can see—and narrowly focused. It will deliver a small but important modernisation to allow Catholics to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner.

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

I should declare an interest as a member of the Church of Scotland and an elder of the Kirk. I very much support the Bill, but the Minister will be aware that the Law Society of Scotland has suggested that it would have preferred consultation before the Bill was introduced. Does he have any reflections on that? I think that its particular concern was about wider religious discrimination on the statute book that could have also been dealt with as part of this process.

[Pat McFadden]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for the Bill. I will come on to the timetable that, by necessity, we have had to adopt.

Legislation of this kind is not always preceded by a consultation. Some hon. Members may remember our late friend David Cairns, whose position in this House was facilitated by legislation removing barriers on ordained priests being elected to the House. As I understand it, that particular piece of legislation did not have a consultation before it either.

I turn to Lady Elish Angiolini, whose appointment as the Lord High Commissioner for this year will be facilitated by the passage of the Bill, if it proceeds. Lady Elish has a distinguished background in law, justice and academia. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire for services to the administration of justice in 2011. In 2022, she was appointed by Her late Majesty the Queen to the Most Ancient and Most Noble Order of the Thistle, and in that role she participated in the coronation in 2023. Lady Elish has also been principal of St Hugh’s College, Oxford since 2012 and was made a pro-vice chancellor of the University of Oxford in 2017.

The announcement Lady Elish’s appointment as Lord High Commissioner has been widely welcomed in Scotland. The appointment would make her the first Catholic to undertake the role of Lord High Commissioner and would be a significant symbol of unity, good will and collaboration between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland. It builds on the spirit of the St Margaret declaration, signed at Dunfermline abbey in 2022. That was a historic declaration of friendship between the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland, and the legislation before the House builds on the spirit of that.

The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) referred to the circumstances and the timetable. I say to the House that the Bill is on an accelerated timetable, which is necessary to ensure that Lady Elish’s appointment can be finalised ahead of the General Assembly in May. We hope to have all the parliamentary stages completed by the end of next month when, subject to Royal Assent, the formalities of the appointment can begin. That process will include a formal commission for the office, accompanied by a royal warrant, and the speedy passage of the Bill is to allow the formalities necessary to enable Lady Elish to act as Lord High Commissioner and address the General Assembly at its opening and closing sessions in May.

Were the appointment not able to proceed, that would be a setback to recent progress and an outcome that I do not believe anyone wants. I therefore hope that the Bill can proceed today with the support of all parties in the House. While the Bill relates to the reserved matter of the Crown, I have spoken to the First Minister of Scotland and to representatives of both the Church of Scotland and the Catholic Church in Scotland about the Bill and the desire to facilitate the appointment of Lady Elish. I thank them all for their constructive and collaborative approach. I have also had the pleasure of discussing the matter with Lady Elish directly, and I have no doubt that she will be an excellent Lord High Commissioner.

Moving on to the Bill itself, there are two clauses. Clause 1 makes provision to allow a person of the Roman Catholic faith to hold the office of the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and clause 2 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill and its commencement, including that the Bill will commence on Royal Assent. It is a small step to remove a religious barrier. Without it, neither Lady Elish nor any other Catholic could take up the appointment by the sovereign. The Bill changes that and ensures that the announced appointment can go ahead. It is short and simple, but still in its own way an important Bill. I hope it will receive a broad welcome, and I commend it to the House.

High Street Businesses

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Matt Vickers]

The hon. Member is right. For many small businesses, the specific relief for leisure, hospitality and retail has already been slashed from 75% to 40%, the end consequence being a more than doubling of what they are paying. It is just not affordable for businesses that are struggling to carry on employing people and doing business, especially with the other challenges that come their way. It is simply not affordable. It is the wrong thing to do, and it has a cost for our communities and those employers.

As I said, funds such as the community ownership fund were not just about a lick of paint but turning around vacant and lifeless high streets, and they created community spaces that were valued, restoring pride in our towns. What is more, community-owned assets are estimated to contribute £220 million to the economy each year.

My constituency of Stockton West saw real progress under the last Government in taking our town centres forward. In Thornaby, the £23.9 million town deal we secured from the last Government has allowed us to achieve many things, including the creation of a new vocational training centre, security and energy interventions in some of the most challenging housing, upgrades to cycling infrastructure and much more. It is allowing us to build a new swimming pool in the town centre, which will drive footfall to businesses.

For years, Thornaby’s skyline was dominated by the eyesore that was the disused Golden Eagle hotel, but now, thanks to money from the last Government and following a long debate with the council, it is finally coming down. Those moves are game changing for Thornaby. They will drive further footfall to local businesses and restore pride in our town centre.

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

My hon. Friend is demonstrating what a great champion he is for Stockton West and why he has a reputation in this place for being one of the hardest-working MPs in Teesside. Does he agree that high streets are a lifeline for our local communities? In the Scottish Borders, I am fortunate to have a whole number of small and vibrant high streets, but their businesses are being hammered, not only by the Labour Government’s tax hikes through national insurance but the SNP Government’s tax hikes through business rates.

[Matt Vickers]

I could not agree more. Looking at the value of high streets, it is not just about businesses and jobs. They are places where people come together, and they can tackle isolation. There is also the feeling of pride in our town centres. Businesses only have so much money to give in tax, and it is going that bit too far now, to the point where we will lose businesses forever.

I will carry on my list of wonderful things that are going on in Stockton. In Yarm, levelling-up money from the last Government has meant that we are seeing nearby Preston Park improved and upgraded with new exhibition spaces. There are upgraded toilets, a café and more parking. We are sorting the disused aviary and creating a tribute to our railway heritage. This will drive visitor numbers to our area and complement the changes taking place in the high street, where we have seen the town’s skanky public toilets replaced. Streetscape interventions are planned to make the town centre more accessible, and we have gained a much-needed car park. The levelling-up money from the last Government has also helped the town council in Yarm to deliver on its ambition to renew our town hall, creating a visitor centre fit for the amazing high street that Yarm has.

In Stockton, £16 million of future high streets funding has allowed for the complete reconfiguration of our high street, also making way for our new £25 million diagnostic hospital. Securing the money for the diagnostic hospital remains my proudest contribution during my time as an MP, because I know the huge difference it will make to the people of Stockton. We ran a petition and gathered thousands of signatures to demonstrate public support. I was involved with the NHS trust and local authority officers drawing up the bid at its inception, and, when the bid was initially rejected due to a prolonged delivery timetable, I met the Secretary of State to hear his reasoning, and then, that same day, met directors from all the stakeholders to come back with a renewed timetable and a plan to unlock this investment.

In the very near future, the doors will open on that centre, which will provide 104,000 lifesaving tests, checks and scans to local people every year and, importantly, it will be yet another reason for would-be punters to come to our town centre and support local businesses.

Those interventions, funded by the last Government, are game-changing for my community and other communities across the country, repurposing our town centres to drive footfall and keep them as the vibrant hearts of our communities. But now the taps of governmental investment look to have been turned off: efforts to innovate and reconfigure town centres will be paused; our high street businesses are being battered by the Budget; and the consequences are there for all to see. Too many businesses are closing; too many jobs are being lost; and boarded-up high streets and town centres will eat away at the pride people can have in their communities and town centres.

I ask the Minister whether the Government really appreciate the challenges posed to high street businesses by the national insurance increase, and, similarly, the impact of slashing the business-rates relief for small leisure, hospitality and retail businesses. Will communities across the country ever again be able to benefit from the game-changing interventions brought about by the community ownership fund, the levelling-up funds, town deals, and other such funds, which allowed for those interventions to protect the future of our high streets?

As a former Woolworths worker, I could go on all day about the loss of iconic retailers, and about the impact of the Budget on post offices, on local pubs, and on opportunities for young people. And I will not even mention my Labour council’s ridiculous plans to introduce car parking charges in Yarm and Stockton high streets—I have probably said enough on that. I will leave it at that. Suffice it to say that I am a fan of the great British high street, and believe that securing its future should be a priority for any Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregor Poynton]

Yes, I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I also think that his point about antisocial behaviour is a strong one; these town centres and high streets need to be places where people feel safe and want to spend time with their families.

As I was saying, the rejuvenation of our high streets and town centres is possible, but the problem in Scotland is that the Scottish Government have failed to share that vision, energy and determination. Sadly, there has been little in the way of action from the SNP but—as always with the SNP—over its 18 years in power there has been no shortage of reports. Since 2013, we have had the national town centre review, the town centre action plan, the town centre action plan year 1 progress report, the town centre action plan year 2 progress report, the town centre action plan review, the “A New Future for Scotland’s Town Centres” report, a joint response to that report with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, and the town centre action plan 2, which is a response to that response. Little wonder then that David Lonsdale, the director of the Scottish Retail Consortium, spoke recently on the need for coherent policymaking. The fact is that Scotland’s town centres are yet another casualty of the SNP’s mismanagement and chaotic government.

[John Lamont]

In a rare moment of consensus, I agree with the hon. Member’s criticism of the SNP Government. Does he agree with me that one of the changes that could be made in Scotland is to the planning system? If we allow our high streets to be more flexible in how they respond to challenges, that is a way to get new life into something that has been traditionally at the heart of the community.

[Gregor Poynton]

I completely agree. We need to be much more creative about how we use the units. Some of these businesses, frankly, are not coming back to our high streets so we should be honest about that and look at other options such as childcare, co-working spaces and housing in town centres to help rejuvenate those places and get them into action. That creative policymaking in planning is absolutely required.

The Scottish Government can take a number of steps. First, we need a level playing field between the small businesses based on our high streets and the global online retailers. Secondly, as has been discussed, more thought needs to go into the housing stock being built in our towns. With many buildings left empty, it is right to relax planning rules to make it easier to convert shop fronts into flats, while still ensuring quality housing for their residents. Thirdly, the way people work now has changed, and our town centres must reflect that, so we need to prioritise superfast broadband in our town centres. Local planning should also take childcare into account, ensuring the businesses can thrive in the places to be. Fourthly, councils should be encouraged to use the powers available to them to make ownership data on high street properties public, so that the community has the opportunity to step in and take over some units. Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) said, town centres will never thrive unless people feel safe in them, so a focus on safety is key.

All those ideas can perhaps contribute to making our towns better places to live; none would constitute a revolution, but they would be revolutionary for millions of people because, for too long, main streets in towns and villages such as Fauldhouse, Broxburn, West Calder, Uphall and others in my constituency have been neglected by the SNP Government. This can change: we can refresh and rejuvenate our high streets, but it will require fresh and rejuvenated leadership.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Lamont]

My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. On behalf of Scottish Members, can I also recommend a deep-fried Mars bar supper and a haggis supper, which are other delicacies that fish and chip shops might be able to provide?

[Wendy Morton]

My hon. Friend reminds me of a visit to Scotland, many years ago, when I tried a deep-fried Mars bar; I think it was in Blairgowrie. I must admit that I have never had deep-fried haggis—I am not sure about that one—but I have certainly tried the Mars bar.

Despite their hard work and determination, many businesses are struggling. I am in regular contact with local businesses, and they tell me quite candidly about the financial pressures they face. One issue that comes up time and again is the crushing burden of employer national insurance contributions. Quite simply, they are a tax on jobs. They actively punish the very businesses we should be supporting. Businesses are being squeezed into cutting staff hours and freezing recruitment. In some cases, as we have heard, they are shutting their doors altogether. Household names that we have heard today—WHSmith, New Look and HSBC—are among those affected. When they are gone, they are gone forever.

Let us be clear: this is not just an economic issue; it is a community issue. When a high street business closes, that affects us all. It means fewer jobs, less investment in our local economy and empty shop fronts, which drain the vibrancy of our centres. The Government cannot claim to support small businesses while quietly taxing them out of existence.

In Brownhills, one of the most pressing concerns is the derelict Ravenscourt shopping precinct. Once a thriving hub, it has now become an eyesore and for far too long has attracted antisocial behaviour. Local business owners and residents are rightly frustrated by the slow progress. I am, too. My local council and our councillors are working incredibly hard to deliver on this, with plans for redevelopment including the prospect of a new supermarket, but delays, the need for a complex compulsory purchase order, and drawn-out negotiations over remaining units are stalling much-needed investment.

Such stagnation is not unique to Brownhills. Across the country, high streets are being held back by vacant buildings that discourage footfall and undermine local economies, and the increase in employer national insurance contributions only adds to the difficulties. If this Government are serious about revitalising our high streets, there are two things they could do to make a big difference to all our high streets: look again at both employer national insurance contributions and business rates.

General Election

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing the debate so well on behalf of the Petitions Committee, of which I am a member.

Most new Governments come into power with positive plans to get things done quickly; they are often defined by early successes in their first 100 days in office and they move fast to deliver on election promises. However, this Labour Government are not normal. There has been no positivity; everything has been doom and gloom. In their first few hundred days in office, they have lurched from one disaster to another, and they have broken just about every promise that they made before the election.

Let us look at some of the promises that they have shattered to pieces. Labour promised not to increase national insurance—broken. Labour promised not to raise taxes on farmers—broken. Labour promised not to scrap the winter fuel payment—broken. Labour promised to compensate WASPI women—broken. Labour promised to protect single-sex spaces—broken. Labour promised no cliff edge in the North sea oil and gas sector—broken. Labour promised to cut energy bills—broken. Labour promised a £150 million war chest for the Scotland Office —broken.

Wherever anyone stands on any of those individual policy issues, there is no doubt that this Labour Government have not kept their word; they have broken promises to voters that they made not once or twice, but hundreds of times. In Scotland, their broken promises are letting the SNP off the hook. The nationalists are benefiting because this disastrous Labour Government are not delivering and not sticking to anything that was promised pre-election.

UK Labour is driving Scottish Labour into a ditch and nobody in Scottish Labour has the backbone to stand up to them. Scottish Labour MPs voted through these broken promises; Anas Sarwar’s Members are content not to keep their commitments. It is no wonder that so many people in the borders and across Scotland are losing trust in Labour. More and more people are moving away from Scottish Labour because they see that it does not stand for anything except broken promises. It has betrayed workers, businesses, pensioners, farmers and our oil and gas industry. Labour has broken its word on tax, on women’s rights, on social security and on energy bills. Anas Sarwar must be terrified of who this Labour Government are going to hit next.

Now, only the Scottish Conservatives are standing up to the SNP and taking on the nationalists. Under our new leader, Russell Findlay, we are reaching out to all those people who Labour have left behind: everyone who feels disillusioned by Labour’s empty, broken promises of change; everyone who feels disconnected from what happens at Holyrood under the SNP and what happens here under Labour; and everyone who wants politicians to show some common sense for a change. Labour will not represent those people but the Conservatives will.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Lamont Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue, because every single child deserves the best start in life and there are far too many shocking cases of children being let down. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is being introduced today. That puts children’s interests at the heart of Government policy and I hope it will be supported across the House.

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

Labour promised not to raise taxes on working people, but farmers are some of the hardest-working people I know. Peter Douglas from Jedburgh has looked at the details of this policy and he says that Labour’s inheritance tax increase will prevent him passing on his family farm to his son and daughter. They say Labour has betrayed them and cannot trust the Prime Minister to keep his word. They’ve got a point, haven’t they?

[The Prime Minister]

If the hon. Gentleman would kindly pass the details of the individual case he has raised to my team, we will look into it. As he knows, we put a record £5 billion into farming over the next two years in the Budget. Just two weeks ago, £350 million was put in to support farmers. That contrasts with the £300 million underspend of the last Government on farming. In a typical case, the threshold is £3 million, which means that the vast majority of farmers will be unaffected, but I will look into the individual case he has raised with me.

Anniversary of 7 October Attacks: Middle East

John Lamont Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We are working constantly with our colleagues and allies, whether in the G7 or bilaterally. We have numerous daily contacts to bring about the de-escalation that is so desperately needed.

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

Hezbollah began its latest assault on Israel on 8 October, the day after Hamas’s attacks on Israel. The Iran-backed terror group has fired more than 12,000 rockets towards Israel over the past year, but the international community called for a ceasefire only after Israel had responded. The Prime Minister has said that he is committed to standing by Israel against the threats that it faces, but will he deliver on his commitment to proscribing Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

[The Prime Minister]

I gave an answer earlier on the issue of the IRGC. We do need to address state threats; we are looking into how we can do that, and will continue to do so.