Peter Lamb MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the hon. Member for his kind remarks. Given that we are talking about democratic engagement and encouraging greater participation, does he agree that there are few better ways of encouraging people to engage with the system than getting them into student politics at university?

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Tracy Gilbert) on bringing forward the Bill. Devolution has been an interest of mine for a very long time. It was the topic of my master’s dissertation and my first job outside politics, so I am thrilled to be back dealing with it all again as a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee. The Bill reminds me that one of the main arguments in favour of introducing devolution was to free up parliamentary time. It was considered bizarre that there we were, in the late 20th century, when devolution was being debated, with feudalism still in Scotland because no Government could possibly find the parliamentary time in the UK Parliament to try to resolve those issues and other issues of concern to residents in Scotland. That highlighted the importance of producing bodies that could grant that time to consider those issues, and many other issues, on a local basis of what could be the best for residents in those areas. The fact that these measures are coming via a private Member’s Bill continues to highlight the importance of trying to secure better parliamentary time for different parts of the UK for the issues that matter to them, and the importance of devolution to ensuring that matters of relevance for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and hopefully for England in due course—are addressed. I note that the amendment continues with that approach, empowering devolved Governments’ ability to implement changes in their own way. It highlights how it remains entirely possible for the nations to have the right powers to deliver for their citizens in the right way without having to engage with all the problems that would come with any approach to independence, so long may that approach continue. I am glad to see the consultation that has taken place with devolved Administrations, as I believe consent is an incredibly important part of the process of ensuring that our devolution settlement operates well. I believe that that is critical. Technically, as a unitary system we have parliamentary sovereignty in this place and the UK Parliament can still legislate unilaterally in these areas, but if the devolved settlement is to survive, every part of the United Kingdom must be prepared to play their role in that partnership. I cannot claim to be a fan of the Elections Act 2022, which brought many of the provisions into place. During my time in local government, I was the chair of the working group that the Local Government Association set up to go through the provisions in the Bill, which was assisted by representatives of returning officers and representatives of electoral services administrators. It would be fair to say that their views of most of the provisions were wholly negative in the context of what the Bill sought to do, and many of the arguments did not seem to make a huge amount of sense at the time. None the less, we did produce a number of cross-party conclusions. Regrettably, they were not adopted by the LGA until far too late in the process to have had any viable impact. The aspects in the Bill are, I believe, positive. They should help to enable greater access to absent voting for residents in Scotland and Wales, and hopefully avoid some of the confusion that arises. As a country, we have an increasingly confusing set of election arrangements. Many different types of electoral systems are employed, there are different age arrangements in different places and there are different rules around this, that and the other. When people think that one set of rules is in play and in fact, given a particular context, there is another, that creates growing problems with confidence in our electoral system. Although it is a challenge, it is important to our democracy that, as far as possible, the general public understand how the systems operate, how they select their governors and how they express their voice. That is a critical part of the UK retaining genuine democratic accountability. The more that can be done to harmonise arrangements across the entire United Kingdom, and to ensure that there is a much simpler approach to people expressing their views to us, the greater the level of confidence in the system. Having two different sets of arrangements around casting votes cannot do much to encourage people to engage in the process. The very low levels of turnout at the last general election, which was a year ago today, suggest that there are issues that need to be addressed in how we try to engage people in the process and encourage them to participate. One big problem is that if we do not have a viable system to enable people to cast their votes, taking into account people’s differing capacities to attend polling stations, we risk having a bias in the system in favour of one set of groups and against another. Younger able-bodied people and those who are less busy will be in a better position to participate and submit their votes, meaning the electoral system will gradually move in favour of only part of the population. That will deliver outcomes in those elections that may result in the system no longer acting as a voice for the whole of society, only a part of that society. We are all aware of some areas where that already happens, where there is higher turnout by some groups relative to other groups, resulting in them having preferential status in our electioneering. The more that can be done to make it as easy as possible for people to cast their vote, the greater the likelihood that we will have a more representative sample of electors participating in the system, and that all our different institutions will genuinely represent the views of constituents within the country, and consequentially within policy. I conclude by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith on introducing the Bill. It is an important step towards addressing many of the issues, and I hope further steps will be forthcoming to increase greater accountability and democratic participation in our democracy.

• 4 Jul 2025 · Absent Voting (Elections in Scotland and Wales) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend has highlighted PACAC’s work scrutinising elections. As Parliament’s Select Committee that is overseeing this part of the process, we produced recommendations on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. Given that the Bill will devolve to Scottish Government representatives more delegated legislation powers around implementation, does he think it is important that we have a close link between our own Select Committees and those in Scotland and Wales, to ensure that the right lessons are learned and implemented across the whole United Kingdom, rather than just in any one of its constituent parts?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I came here today with the intention of voting against the Government on this Bill. I have to say that with clause 5 having been removed —which, as I am sure everyone at home will be delighted to know, completely withdraws PIP from the scope of the Bill—there is consequently nothing to vote on. However, could the Minister give me some comfort by confirming whether or not the Timms review is going to take place within a spending envelope?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to enable access to non-hormonal, non-steroidal oral contraceptives?

• 2 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Crawley is home to the Tinsley House and Brook House immigration removal centres, and their associated scandal. What consideration is being given to the Home Affairs Committee’s inquiry into immigration detention, including ending the use of such centres for indefinite detention?

• 22 May 2025 · Diego Garcia Military Base · Hansard source

  More

  In the ’60s and ’70s, Labour and Conservative Governments removed the Chagossian people from their islands in the interests of national security. In response to written questions, the Foreign Office has confirmed that many certainties that would be required for Chagossians to return to the islands have not been secured as a part of this deal—once more banning them in the name of national security. What should I tell my Chagossian constituents when they ask about the moral basis on which the UK is once again ignoring their right to self-determination while we fight for it in Ukraine for Ukrainians? On what basis can members of British overseas territories feel any certainty that they will retain possession of their islands in the event that our national security interests are suddenly piqued?

• 15 May 2025 · Brighton Main Line: Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  6. Whether she plans to increase rail capacity on the Brighton main line.

• 15 May 2025 · Brighton Main Line: Capacity · Hansard source

  More

  Network Rail has identified that if the Croydon area remodelling scheme is not undertaken, capacity through East Croydon will be exhausted by 2030, preventing passengers from across much of southern England from being able to travel to London. Given that the Department for Transport has outlined that it is minded to approve Gatwick airport’s capacity increase, almost doubling the overall numbers, so long as 54% of passengers travel by public transport—that is in addition to the 2030 figure—will the Minister outline how it is possible to achieve that without the works being undertaken?

• 12 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T9. What assessment has the Minister made of the merits of increasing local housing allowance to alleviate the pressure on housing authorities?

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In the debate, any number of challenges relating to practicality and principle have been raised about the Bill, and we have repeatedly had SNP Members shouting out, “Put the Bill to a vote, then!” Every time they say that, everyone else in the Chamber hears, “We don’t have any answers to the questions and points that you raise.” Putting the Bill to a vote would be purely symbolism, and not a serious use of the House’s time.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We have talked a lot about demographic challenges in Scotland over the course of the debate, and I do not doubt the concerns about the demography—I have a lot of concerns myself about it. But the biggest factors that affect having children—many couples desperately do want to have more children—are lack of housing, lack of access to childcare and lack of economic opportunity. In the 20 years that the SNP Government have had to do something about this, where is the progress in addressing any of those issues? If they want to look at where the problem with Scotland’s demography lies, they should start by looking in the mirror.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend, by talking about the minutiae, is doing a fantastic job of showing the vast complexity of one aspect of the SNP trying to cut off the connection between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Does she accept that this is an existential problem for the SNP? Every time they make an argument about the damage caused by losing the integration with the European Union, the infinitely greater combination of interactions between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom shows that this would be infinitely more damaging to the lives of Scots. This Bill is a fantastic example—

• 25 Apr 2025 · Devolution (Immigration) (Scotland) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The issue is not necessarily about having a border between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland; a border has in effect been put in the Irish sea by the Windsor framework. However, the SNP appears to be calling for a border between Scotland and England, without Scotland re-entering the European Union, leaving Scotland completely isolated. SNP Members talk about the UK’s delusions of grandeur—about us sitting on a few small islands and considering ourselves great—but they want to restrict the lives of Scots to only a part of that island.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Civil Service Reform · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps he is taking to reform the civil service.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Civil Service Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response and I am perfectly happy to accept the diligence of the civil service. Regardless, every two years a third of the civil service change their Department and countless more change to unrelated policy roles within each Department. Under the previous Government, policy expertise was completely hollowed out from the civil service. Will the Minister set out how we intend to resolve that to bring policy expertise back into the civil service and ensure we have Government teams capable of delivering for Britain?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister give an assessment of the potential merits of restricting triable either-way offences to summary trial, except for sentencing?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Croydon Area Remodelling Funding: Brighton Mainline · Hansard source

  More

  I am very grateful to the Minister for outlining the investment made in the line historically. Indeed, in Gatwick’s case, a very large portion of the investment was made directly by the airport, rather than by the Department for Transport. This debate is about the fact that in shortly over a decade, the line will be completely at capacity, so any train leaving Brighton will be full by the time it arrives at my constituency of Crawley. Not a single passenger from Gatwick will be able to get on the train to London without these improvements, and we are running out of time to secure the change necessary to avoid that outcome.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have learned over the years not to look a gift house in the mouth. This is a positive step forward. No doubt other steps could be taken in future, but this is significant in enabling the system to be far more sustainable than it has been of late. There must always be a role for local expertise and knowledge in planning decisions and democratic oversight, but that does not mean that the way we have always done things in the past needs to be the way we do it in the future. Indeed, it does not mean a better or fairer outcome, and a longer process is not always a better one. I am sure that we all have experience of planning decisions, both nationally and locally, that have taken a long time to produce the decision we all knew would be the final decision from day one, and that in no way meet the needs of residents or our community. Planners tell me that planning is a matter of balance, and in this Bill, the Government balance all the relevant considerations well. Another example of delivering balance is in dealing with nature. Crawley has the second worst housing crisis in the country, and during my time as leader of the council, I delivered over four times the number of units as our centrally assessed Government housing target. I point out that targets are a floor not a ceiling—they in no way restrict future development. That came to an end when Natural England unilaterally imposed water neutrality restrictions on all development in north Sussex—an area that, according to the figures, has a larger economy than most of our core cities—on the basis that it had concerns about the wellbeing of the little whirlpool ramshorn snail. As a result, since that time, housing delivery in my area has ground to a halt and economic development has been hampered, and Members would not believe the level of debate taking place on Facebook about whether Taco Bell will ever open. All the while, we are waiting for our local water company to build the water infrastructure that has been desperately needed for some time. I have nothing against little snails, but the consequence of that decision is that, until Natural England feels that its needs have been satisfied, almost 2% of my community is trapped in temporary housing at huge cost to the public sector—not to mention the enormous human cost to those families. The ability to improve our natural environment alongside development is a vital part of being able to avoid forcing a conflict between human and environmental need. The offsetting process that the Bill delivers is exactly the change that we require. I am also pleased to see in the Bill the development of spatial development strategies, which are a vital part of ensuring that housing needs are addressed beyond the limitations of any single authority. Anyone who has dealt with the current duty to co-operate system will recognise that it is largely a paper exercise that in no way actually delivers the housing required across sub-regions. Spatial development strategies overcome that in a coherent and planned-out way, and at a level far closer and more democratically accountable to residents than the old regional spatial strategies—a significant improvement. This Government are finally giving the planning system the modernisation that it needs, and I very much hope that they do not stop now. With that in mind, I will end on a topic of great concern to me: affordable housing. The NPPF is right not to set out strict affordability requirements for local plans, given the differences in local viability, in addition to setting out a 15% additional requirement for greenfield land. New towns will no doubt have a significant role to play in delivering new affordable housing, as will the relatively small amount of funding allocated so far, but I believe that much more needs to be done to deliver the number of affordable homes that are needed. Although I could bore the Minister with many suggestions, I will focus on sub-regional planning through the new spatial development strategies. Housing is not merely a numbers game. Other factors matter, not least the size and cost of housing. Although there are mechanisms for delivering overall housing numbers, in areas such as my own, where the duty to co-operate is facilitated, meeting those numbers very often delivers housing that is neither affordable nor the right type and for which there are no allocation rights. I very hope that the Government will correct those issues in their work.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Despite the many fine contributions made by Members so far and no doubt many yet to come, planning is quite a dreary subject for many. Indeed, I heard some senior Members of this House privately describe it as such. I can well remember as a young Labour member sitting through constituency party meetings wondering why we were talking about planning for such a long time. Surely, I thought, we should want to focus on education, health and inequality. I am afraid that it took me a long time to realise—until I was one of those dreary people sitting at meetings saying these things—that planning is central not only to each of those issues, but to just about every aspect of Government policy and, indeed, to our daily lives. Unfortunately, far too often the system and those we task with running it come under attack, including by those who should know better. Planning is attacked for delays, excessive red tape and perceptions of nimbyism. For every 10 planning applications submitted, nine are approved. That is hardly the sign of a system opposed to development. Where the system struggles is with capacity. The time it takes for a decision to be reached has increased significantly over the years, not just for the application but all the subsequent decisions required for development to commence.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend must be reading ahead. The impact on escalating costs and viability as a result of the delays is hard to overstate. The capacity issues do not stem from laziness or as a covert form of development suppression; they stem from one issue and one issue only: the absence of sufficient numbers of planners in the public sector. The rates of pay at local authorities are massively out of kilter with the private sector. The consequence is that an increasingly small number of extremely hard-working people are left trying to keep the system afloat principally out of their public spiritedness. Yet, instead of receiving the thanks they deserve, all too often they have to deal with public rhetoric that regularly denigrates them and the work they do. I hope that I am not the first or the last in this Chamber to thank those public servants for their efforts on behalf of our communities and country. Much needs to be done to reverse the decline in public sector planner numbers. While the Bill sets out many positive steps forward, I remain of the belief that few areas in the public sector would be better suited to, or would generate better economic returns from, the introduction of AI than planning. It could use decades’ worth of computerised training data to deal with simple applications automatically, freeing up expert human planners to deal with the cases that would genuinely benefit from a human eye. As a former council leader, I am defensive of the record of local government in planning. However, despite my initial scepticism, I found much that is good in the new national planning policy framework and in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, showing that this Government genuinely listen to voices across the sector.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. What consideration has been given to the introduction of safe leave for employees experiencing domestic abuse?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. I am well aware of the amount of effort that local schools are having to make directly to deal with the consequences of financial deprivation. It is important that we try to ensure that the statistics on free school meals are accurate, because it is a gateway to support. It is also how we measure any number of indicators of poverty in our society. If there is a statistical link between some groups under-reporting compared with other groups, we will have inaccurate figures on where deprivation is in our society and how best to try to address that problem. The last benefit of auto-enrolment relates to the pupil premium of £1,455 a pupil, which is designed to counter the impact of deprivation on educational outcomes. It is a payment that schools receive on the basis of the number of pupils in receipt of free school meals. Low uptake of free school meals is now directly limiting the funding available to those schools where it would make the most difference to educational outcomes. As a Government who are ambitious for the education of our children and committed to securing high levels of economic growth, the failure to address these matters of deprivation is a hurdle that we have to clear if we are going to succeed. This is well recognised. The Education Committee recently reported: “We consider that the arguments for auto-enrolment in free school meals for those children currently eligible are conclusive. In the interests of alleviating hunger in schools and improving health and educational outcomes for the poorest children, auto-enrolment must be brought in without delay.” Pilots run by local authorities, which quite heavily bend the rules set by current legislation to try to get as many of their children registered as possible, have repeatedly shown over recent years the scale of under-registration and the impact that auto-enrolment could have, both for those families benefiting and for school funding in deprived communities. The Government’s own figures suggest that under-registration stands at a minimum of 11%, which is equivalent to a quarter of a million children, although research nationally and in my own constituency suggests that the overall figure could well be significantly higher. It is worth noting that the £7,400 income threshold cuts off the overwhelming majority of children who are living in poverty in this country, who still do not qualify for free school meals. That should certainly be corrected in due course, but for now, this Bill would make the most amount of difference to the very poorest children, benefiting them, their families, their schools and—through improvements in educational outcomes—society at large. I accept that the mess the new Government have inherited from the last Government and the economic uncertainty created by decisions currently being taken in Washington mean that it may be too much to expect a wholesale adoption of the policy today. However, I hope that the Minister—who has been generous with his time with me on this matter, and has demonstrated his commitment to increasing the uptake of free school meals—will be able to give a commitment that auto-enrolment will be given serious consideration as part of the work now being undertaken to bring an end to childhood poverty in the United Kingdom. I also hope that today’s debate will underline the support among Members of this House for bringing about this change on behalf of our most vulnerable constituents. Surely, the very least that our country has a right to expect of its Parliament is that we will ensure that the nation’s children are fed.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. I am very grateful for my good fortune in having the chance to introduce a Bill in my first year as a Member of this House and to seek to address, in part, one of my greatest policy concerns: childhood poverty. The previous Labour Government made reducing child poverty one of their most significant missions in office, and research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies has demonstrated that without the changes they made to benefits, child poverty would have increased by more than a quarter by 2010—instead, it fell by more than a quarter. It was a remarkable achievement under the circumstances. Unfortunately, the actions of the Conservatives in the years since have reversed much of that good work. Today, in one of the wealthiest countries in the world, almost a third of our children—innocents who have no control whatsoever over their personal circumstances—are living in poverty. Harold Wilson famously said that the Labour party is “a moral crusade or it is nothing.” If this Government are to be judged on anything over the next five years, let it be how they treat the most vulnerable members of our society. Like many Members of my party, I have found the decision not to immediately lift the two-child benefit cap extremely painful. We do not need further reports on how this policy was one of the most significant drivers of child poverty under the previous Government; at this point, I do not believe the bookshelves of the House of Commons Library could support any more evidence, were it to be submitted. However, I do accept that £3.2 billion cannot simply be found overnight. If we are serious about ending childhood poverty, we need to consider all the issues in the round, and the child poverty taskforce is a vital part of ensuring that limited public money is used most effectively to address this crisis. What can we do here today, while we await the findings of the taskforce, to try to improve the conditions of children living in poverty? Members will be aware that private Member’s Bills cannot authorise new expenditure, and I do not seek to challenge that. This Bill seeks simply to ensure that the children whom this House has already stated should receive free school meals receive them automatically, unless their parents actively opt out of the system. It will not require a penny more in expenditure than is necessary to fulfil the social contract that generations of Parliaments have sustained with our poorest children. The requirement to qualify for free school meals is a combined household income of £7,400 or less—an income of roughly half the average rent in my constituency. I find it hard to believe that it is possible to sustain a household on such a low income. It is these children the Bill seeks to support. The stories we hear of child poverty are heartbreaking, not only because of the hunger and the impact on children’s performance at school, but because of the stigma, with stories of children pretending to bring food out of their bags so that they can fit in with their friends at school, even when there is nothing available.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Government are doing a lot to try to address this issue, but that is not to say that we cannot do more. We hear those stories of stigma, with children pretending to bring food out of their bags so that they do not miss out or so that they fit in, even if they do not have the actual food. We should be glad that over the years since, the system of free school meals has changed, so that people cannot tell which children are in receipt of free school meals. I will come back to that point, but it hopefully has encouraged parents to make use of the option. Free school meals are estimated to save roughly £500 a child. Against such a low income, that amount makes a huge difference. For a family affected by the child benefit cap, it would increase their income by a fifth or more. Why, given the difference that it could make to their household, is every eligible family not claiming? There is a range of reasons. In some cases, there is a belief that their children might be bullied due to being in receipt of a free school meal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) mentioned. If there is one immediate outcome of this debate, I hope it is to reinforce the message to parents that no one can now identify which child is on a free school meal. There is no stigma in claiming—please make the application. We know also that the same barriers exist as with any other form of state support, where barriers of language, agency, awareness and ability ensure that those facing the greatest disadvantages in our society are the least likely to access the support available. These are the families who would benefit most from this legislation.