Peter Swallow MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Dec 2025 · Puberty Suppressants Trial · Hansard source

  More

  It is fair to say that the recommendations of the Cass review were not welcomed by everyone—not least by all members of the LGBT+ community—but the Conservative party commissioned the review and accepted its findings, and the Labour party supported the review and supported its findings. Does the Secretary of State share my concern that there are those who would now seek to cherry pick which of the findings they agree with and which they do not? Is it not the case that an independent review with such serious and important findings should be accepted in its entirety?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  As a member of the JCHR, I am concerned that the shadow Northern Ireland Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he suggested that our Committee did not discharge our roles seriously and consider all the evidence in this case when we produced our report.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  Our report recommended that this remedial order be made in no small part because of the incredible sensitivity around anything to do with the Northern Ireland troubles and the need to make sure that we are building bridges across communities, and in no small part, too, because of the seriousness with which the Committee feels the Secretary of State takes this issue. It is therefore quite right, I believe, that the Secretary of State make this remedial order. Does he agree that it is not right, and not serious politics, to play party politics with such a delicate issue?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point I was trying to raise in my question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was that on any issue to do with the Northern Irish troubles, we must tread with appropriate solemnity and seriousness. It was therefore disappointing to be accused of being an idiot by a Member on the Opposition Front Bench while making that very point. What advice would you give on ensuring that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) apologises appropriately, not to me but to the whole House, for lowering the tone of that serious debate?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  A once senior leader of the Reform party is now in jail for colluding with Russia. When the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) heard about that, did he launch an inquiry? Did he perhaps review his own previous statements on Russia, including saying that he admired Putin? No, he did not; he called Nathan Gill a “bad apple”. I welcome this review and the fact that all political parties will be invited to contribute, but will my right hon. Friend commit to make clear to the House, when he reports back on the findings of the review, exactly which political parties took part in this exercise of scrutiny and transparency and which did not?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Electoral Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to say that I did. The hon. Member for Clacton is not in his place to hear my comments, but I hope he is listening anyway.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Planning Reform · Hansard source

  More

  When I met local nature activists in Bracknell, they told me that swift bricks are used not just by swifts, but by house martins and sparrows. Sadly, they are not used by swallows—although this Swallow certainly welcomes them. As the Minister knows, I have been strongly calling for swift bricks, so I am really pleased to see that they will be a requirement in new developments. Does he agree that this demonstrates that bringing forward the housing that we need to address the housing crisis does not have to come at the cost of nature? If we get this right, we can make sure that there is fantastic access to nature, alongside the homes we so badly need.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Jimmy Lai Conviction · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Foreign Secretary and the shadow Foreign Secretary for their powerful words on the horrific antisemitic attack in Australia. Jimmy Lai has been persecuted for standing up for human rights and democracy, and I know that the Bracknell Forest Hong Kong community shares my utter horror at this cowardly act by the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments. As many Members from across the House have said, such communities face their own security threats from the long arm of the Chinese state. In the light of that, I thank the Foreign Secretary for recognising the importance of the 5+1 British national overseas settlement route. It is really important that we have recommitted to that. However, will she share with Home Office Ministers my constituents’ concerns about changes to the language and income requirements for that route? It is right that we stand by Hongkongers with that settlement route and that we recognise our historical commitment to the Hong Kong community.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is setting out the strong action that the Government are taking to target those threats. Does he think that social media companies are doing enough to ensure that their platforms are not being used by Russia and others to undermine democracy?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  These are dangerous times for democracies in Europe and across the world. I will not be alone in having heard one particular word used increasingly to describe our social and political state as a country over the last 10 years: “divided.” From Brexit to immigration, from the conflict in Gaza to LGBT+ rights, it feels as though we as a country are more divided than ever. In a sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, division is a feature of democracy—so much so that when we vote in this, the mother of Parliaments, you quite literally shout “Division!”, and we divide off into our respective voting Lobbies. However, healthy division must be underpinned by a willingness to listen to other views, respect them even when we disagree passionately with them and, yes, sometimes accept that we are wrong. That is what I fear we have lost in this country—the ability to engage in the debate—and I fear that social media has much to do with that. I see a democracy under pressure, not from internal division but from external actors looking to destabilise our way of life and our beliefs. It will not be a surprise to hon. Members or to our constituents that social media is used by foreign actors, particularly Russia, Iran and China, to actively undermine our democratic institutions and exploit the natural disagreements present in democracy to sow the seeds of division. As anyone who has been on Twitter recently will know, it is also increasingly being manipulated by its owner to promote a very specific—and, in my view, very dangerous—narrative. Today, I want to focus my remarks on Russia and the impact of its state-affiliated and state-aligned online activities on our democracy. Earlier this week, the Foreign Secretary strongly reaffirmed our commitment to UK support for Ukraine against Russian aggression in her speech to commemorate the signing of the Locarno treaties here in London. Ukraine is fighting to defend western democracy against Russia’s illegal invasion, and is paying a high price to do so. As the Foreign Secretary recognised in her speech, though, while Russia’s war may be physically constrained, its offensive is playing out on multiple frontiers, including our very own social media feeds. Evidence given to the Foreign Affairs Committee identified Russian operations across every single conceivable channel and platform, including Minecraft. These operations include bot farms that produce fake accounts at a rate far faster than they can be banned, and use them to create significant noise around a particular issue, drowning out legitimate discussion and undermining trust in UK institutions. If I had stood here and said even a few years ago that Russia had infiltrated my local Facebook groups to spread disinformation, as well as the local Facebook groups of many Members across this House, that would have been received with some scepticism. Now, if I may say so, we should be more sceptical of the fool who believes that Russia is not doing that. The corrosive effect that it has on community cohesion is immense, and it is happening every day on a hyper-local level. Russian troll factories are spewing out lies not to push any single political ideology, but simply to sow chaos and undermine faith in institutions. I fully welcome the Government’s decision to sanction a further seven entities and individuals for their role in destabilising Ukraine, but I also ask the Government to go further and consider what action can be taken within our own borders to curb this economy of disinformation. I welcome the provision in the Online Safety Act 2003 to limit foreign interference as a priority offence, meaning that services must take proactive steps to identify and minimise users’ exposure to state-sponsored or state-linked disinformation aimed at interfering with the UK, but I question whether any social media company is living up to its obligations under the Act. I have asked to meet Meta to discuss the issue, but I am disappointed to tell the House that I have not yet been given that opportunity. I assume that all social media companies are aware of the threat of foreign interference and know that it is happening on their platforms, but I have not seen any evidence of their taking any action to stop it. If social media companies do not take action, then we must pursue them and force them to do so because our democracy is more valuable than their profits. We cannot ignore the fact that Russian interference is clear and evident not only within the borders of our own country, but within the walls of this House and the political sphere across the great nations of this country. I am sure that I do not need to remind colleagues that the former leader of Reform in Wales is now behind bars for taking bribes to make pro-Russian statements. Reform is now refusing to conduct an investigation into pro-Russian interference in the party. That prompts a question: what are they hiding? That is, of course, a question we could have asked Reform Members today, had they shown up. Pro-Russian narratives are nothing new to Reform or its previous incarnations, the Brexit party and UKIP. In fact, during the 2024 election campaign, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) suggested that the EU and NATO had “provoked” Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He said that he “admired” Putin. Madam Deputy Speaker, he is a Kremlin apologist. The fight against Russia in Ukraine is morally right, but it is also strategically right, and the Government are correct to be unwavering in their support of Ukraine—for their future and for ours. Ukraine is defending Europe’s eastern flank. Any Government who neglect that approach neglect their first duty to the security of the public, and we must be in no doubt that Reform is a threat to that and to all of us. A further aspect highlighted by the Royal United Services Institute report is the need to support civil society and media ecosystems that are directly targeted by such operations. It is not just about technical defences, but also about improving media literacy so that everyday citizens can be better prepared to spot deepfakes, fake news and misinformation. Yesterday, the Government released their national youth strategy and, amid all the fantastic announcements about funding for more youth facilities, a plan to address workforce challenges and give more young people a voice. I want to highlight specifically the commitment to embed media literacy into the curriculum and ensure that Ofcom can fulfil its obligations under the Online Safety Act to promote media literacy. Media literacy is important not just for young people—although it is—but for everyone, especially older people who may be more vulnerable to the effects of deepfakes and misinformation. Our democracy rests on our ability to disagree with each other, but to remain a united country. We must not allow ourselves to be siloed. We must not refuse to listen to those whose views we do not share, but who we should nevertheless respect. Losing sight of the ability to disagree agreeably drives a wedge into the unity of this United Kingdom, and leaves us more vulnerable than ever to the narrative that hostile foreign actors would so like to see spread. We are a country of diversity, and proudly so. Our greatest strength must not be allowed to be exploited to become our greatest weakness. We must all of us in this place commit to fighting Putin’s corrosive influence over our democracy, wherever it is found. That starts by recognising the extent of the challenge we face.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Foreign Interference · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a powerful case about Reform UK speaking on Russia’s talking points. Of course, the biggest talking point of them all is that NATO is the enemy. When her leader says that the Green party believes we should leave NATO, is that not a Russian talking point?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  During the Budget debate, I asked the shadow Chancellor whether he would address the fact that, on multiple occasions, he referred to the public finances in a fantastically negative tone that appeared far from the truth that was revealed at the Budget, suggesting at one point that there was a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. As the shadow Minister says that we were not being straight with the public about the state of the public finances, will he take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of his colleague for doing just that?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Secretary of State talks about modernisation and his concerns about the Government’s approach. In 2017, South Western Railway spent £1 billion on new trains to serve my constituents on the Reading to Waterloo line. Those trains sat in sidings, and it was not until SWR was brought back into public ownership that we saw a quadrupling in the number of those Arterio trains being rolled out. That is the real, demonstrable benefit of this Government’s approach. Does he not agree that the model to which he proposes we return failed, and there is no clearer sign of that failing than those trains sitting in sidings?

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am listening carefully to all the hon. Gentleman’s recommendations. Many of them sound wonderful, but I suspect that they come with something of a price tag. I hope he will get on to the part of his speech where he sets out how the Liberal Democrats would fund those investments.

• 9 Dec 2025 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am delighted to speak today in this debate. I hope that the Bill marks the start of a new era for our rail system. Bracknell’s rail links are its lifeblood, connecting us to jobs, friends, family and opportunities through lines to London and Reading, as well as to Gatwick airport from Crowthorne and Sandhurst. That is why I am so delighted that South Western Railway has now been brought back into public ownership, with Great Western Railway services to follow shortly. The renationalisation of our rail services will create more opportunities for growth, more opportunities for investment, and a rail service for the public good. First, the Chancellor froze rail fares in the Budget, which means my constituents will save almost £300 on the cost of a season ticket into London, and now we are laying the foundations for a new, modern and joined-up railway system, owned by the public and run for the public. The new GBR livery revealed today, which proudly incorporates our Union flag in its design, is, I think, a powerful symbol of the national pride that we should feel in our railways, but which has, for many years, been undermined by high prices and low reliability. Bracknell is already seeing the benefits of renationalisation, including the ongoing upgrade of the fleet on the Reading to Waterloo line. The new Arterio trains will provide 50% increased capacity compared with the outdated class 455 fleet, and will offer accessible toilets, air conditioning, charging points at every seat, real-time information screens, on-board wi-fi and walk-through carriages, meaning that more people can travel in better conditions every day. These trains were first purchased back in 2017 at a cost of £1 billion but have been stuck in the sidings. What greater symbol can there be for the failure of privatisation than that? I thank the Rail Minister for meeting me recently and for all his work to roll out this new stock. I am also delighted that the Bill makes provision for GBR to take control of the timetable, as the current system has led to some inexplicable gaps in service. As the SWR timetable stands, after 9 pm there is only one service an hour from Bracknell to Reading. Trains from Reading to Bracknell are also reduced to an hourly service after 10 pm. Needless to say, that has a significant impact on the ability of Bracknell Forest residents to travel for work and leisure. Again, I call for that to be addressed. The north downs line is deeply unreliable, and I know that Members across the House are concerned about the need to electrify it. The Minister knows that I care passionately about a rail connection to Heathrow airport as well, which is vital, and I know he cares passionately about delivering that along with private sector investment. On that, I will—

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I am honoured to represent Bracknell in this place. It is a relatively prosperous community, but still one in five children are growing up in poverty after housing costs. Bracknell food bank gave out 8,000 food parcels last year, 3,000 of them to children. Does my right hon. Friend agree that poverty affects all communities across the UK, with children living in poverty in every constituency, and that that is why it must be our moral mission to stamp out child poverty wherever we find it?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for making this important announcement about a consultation on the role of trustees. As part of that consultation, will he keep in mind the important issue of pre-1997 indexation so that we can ensure that trustees are acting in the best interests of their pensioners?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can I say at the outset how much I have enjoyed the debate? I particularly want to highlight the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who powerfully raised some of the issues that I will go on to address, and—purely because I enjoyed the fiscal geekery—the contribution from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who rivals the Minister himself in her enthusiasm for financial issues. What a delight it was to experience that. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which touches on several issues close to my constituents in Bracknell Forest. It is also worth acknowledging the strong action that the Chancellor took in the Budget to support all pensioners by raising the state pension by up to £550. That is possible only thanks to Labour’s steadfast commitment to the triple lock on pensions. That is real action on pensioner poverty, at a time when the Conservatives and Reform have flirted with scrapping the triple lock. Similarly, the Bill delivers real benefits to private pension savers across the country by simplifying and streamlining the system. The measures will increase their returns—around 3,300,000 workers on defined contribution schemes in the south-east alone stand to benefit by about £29,000 more for their retirement—while helping to unlock around £50 billion of investment in the UK economy. Hon. Members need only follow the Minister on Twitter to see why it is so important that we increase investment in the UK economy after many years of under-investment by the previous Government. I thank the Minister for the work to get the Bill to this stage. I welcome in particular the measures providing for action on an issue close to the hearts of many in Bracknell Forest: the slow erosion of pre-1997 defined benefit pensions. It is for that reason that I will focus on new clause 22, which calls for the indexation of pre-1997 pensions. I sympathise deeply with the spirit of the new clause. The erosion of those pensions is an injustice—one that urgently needs addressing. It is important to say that not all pre-1997 schemes are in surplus. Although I agree that that is not the fault of their members, legislating to index would put entire schemes at risk, and I believe that that is not a risk that any sensible Government would take. However, it is vital that the Bill marks the beginning of further action to bring justice to those with pre-1997 defined benefit pensions whose schemes are now in generous surplus. I was delighted when the Chancellor announced at the Budget statement that members of the Pension Protection Fund will have their accruals protected from inflation, ending years of degradation. That has been carried through in amendments before us. I welcome the recognition in principle that those with pre-1997 pensions are indeed facing an injustice, and that action must be taken to rectify it. I have met many constituents who were formerly employed by HP and later HPE, which used to be based in Bracknell. They are now members of the HPE pension scheme, and have seen their returns decimated. I have spoken with other pensioners in other schemes, too—many of which have been mentioned by others Members across the House. It is not right that people who have worked hard and paid into their pensions now face ever-diminishing life savings through no fault of their own, despite many schemes, including HPE, having significant reserves. One of my constituents, Ed, began drawing from his pension nine years ago. In that time, his pension has increased only three times, by three separate percentage increments: 3%, 1%, and 1%. He says that, had his pension risen in line with inflation, he would have seen his pension increase by around 38% over the years to 2025. As a result—this is the real-life impact—he has seen a dramatic fall in his living standards. Ed is not alone. Constituents in Bracknell and across the country should not have to fight any more to make themselves heard and achieve justice. This is an opportune moment to do what we can to put that right. In the Bill, the Government are reforming the use of surpluses, rightly strengthening the hands of trustees to act, as the Government themselves have done for the PPF scheme, for which they effectively act as the trustee—they are leading by example. I thank the Chancellor and the Pensions Minister for meeting me to discuss that before the Budget. The Minister has been clear on his expectations of trustees following the passage of the Bill, including in his contribution today, and I thank him for his comments, specifically on strengthening guidance for trustees. Today must be the beginning, not the end, of the story. I have written to the trustees of the HPE scheme urging them to use the powers in this Bill to right the wrong. I wanted to take this opportunity to call once more on the trustees of the HPE scheme, and other schemes similarly in surplus, to do everything in their power to ensure that pre-1997 pensions are protected from inflation, and I wanted to do so on the Floor of this House because I think it important that we are as clear as possible that trustees will be given the powers they need to act and should follow through with concrete action to protect pensions. That is the right thing to do, and with the powers the Government are granting in the Bill, it is now in their hands to do it.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is being extremely generous in giving way. Effectively—not legally—the Government act as the trustee for the PPF, which is why they have been able to take this decision. Does she agree that if the Government see fit to use their role to increase PPF pensions, trustees of these companies should act just as the Government have done to address this injustice?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady just as she is getting on to a point that, as she knows, I care deeply about, but I wanted to tease out a point about ethical investment. What I am struggling with is that her Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), has spoken against mandation, but the hon. Lady has talked passionately about the need to ensure ethical investment. Will she address the fact that there is a conflict here? I am deeply sympathetic to both viewpoints and understand both of them, but I also recognise that there is a conflict. We either have a system in which pension schemes are given clear guidance about where they should invest and what they should invest in, or we do not; we cannot have both. Will the hon. Lady address that conflict and come down on one side of the fence or the other, not—if I may very gently say so—do the Lib Dem thing of sitting on that fence too much?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  On 3 September, the shadow Chancellor stood at the Opposition Dispatch Box and claimed that the hole in the public finances could be as much as £40 billion. As it happens, that was not the case, not least because of the Chancellor’s steadfast commitment to stabilising our economy. Does the Minister not agree that it is a bit rich for the Conservatives to go around claiming that people are talking down the economy and talking up the gap in our public finances, when the only people doing that are them?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady has repeatedly suggested that energy bills are going up— [ Interruption. ] If she does not believe me, perhaps she will believe Martin Lewis, the money-saving expert, who tweeted earlier today: “I’ve just got the new predictions for the April Price Cap, which is a cut in cost of 4.2%. Without the Budget changes, it would be predicted to be rising 3.5%.” Will she correct the record and explain why she does not support the work that we are doing to cut energy bills?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Before the hon. Gentleman gets to the part of his speech that I do not think I will like as much as what he has said already, does he welcome the freezing of rail fares for the first time in 30 years, which means almost 300 quid off a season ticket into London for commuters in Bracknell?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton), who is my constituency neighbour, for securing the debate and opening the discussion so comprehensively. Colleagues may remember that I led a debate on this very subject in this very Chamber just over a year ago. Accessing driving tests continues to be a source of frustration for constituents across Bracknell Forest. Wait times for a practical test in the south-east remain among the highest in the country, creating a barrier to opportunity for young people and all those who want the freedom that comes from passing their driving test.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I say gently that my hon. Friend’s contribution is slightly more up to date than some of those we heard from the Liberal Democrats earlier, because the Government have already taken action on banning bots. I will come to that in a moment. I know that the Government take this issue seriously, and we are already seeing progress. Focused efforts, including on recruiting driving examiners and improving booking systems, have meant that the DVSA conducted an extra 56,336 tests between June and October 2025, compared with the same period in 2024. I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for all the work he is doing on this vital issue. It is clear to many, particularly in the south-east, that there is definitely more to do, so I fully welcome the Government’s recent announcement on further actions on driving test availability. I was particularly pleased to hear that action will be taken to ensure that only learners themselves will be able to book tests. That will prevent bots from block booking precious slots and selling them on at a substantially marked-up price. We have already heard about the frustration of well-meaning people who just want to get on and book their test, but feel that the only way to get a precious driving test is to use a dodgy site, which may leave them exposed to fraud or greatly increased fees, so it is fantastic to see action being taken. I called for it in my debate last year and am really pleased to see the Government delivering it. What timescale is expected for the implementation of this welcome change? The use of defence driving examiners is a hugely welcome intervention, although I note that the specific test centres set to benefit have not yet been announced. I am sure that I speak for many colleagues from across the south-east when I urge the Minister to bear in mind the high need in our region when he makes the decisions. I also remind him that Bracknell is not served by its own test centre, with the two nearest being in Reading and Farnborough. I therefore press the Minister again for a test centre in Bracknell, which would also benefit constituents of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, who I am sure would support it. [ Interruption. ] I see him nodding. There is always more that can be done, and I want to use my time in this debate to highlight the desperate need to improve the recruitment and retention of examiners. In 2024, the most common answer to the question, “What more can DVSA do to support you?” in the DVSA’s annual survey of driving instructors was, “Increase driving examiner recruitment and retention”. Although the use of defence driving examiners is welcome, it is not a permanent solution. If we are to meet the Government’s target of reducing test waiting times to an average of seven weeks by summer 2026, we must be more ambitious both in our actions and in how fast we work to implement them, and to prevent shortages from reoccurring we should ensure that driving test examining is an attractive, long-term career option. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on what more we can do to end the current backlog and ensure that our driving test system remains efficient and sustainable long into the future. The Government inherited a tremendous driving test backlog. Although progress has been made, there is still a lot more to do so that my constituents in Bracknell Forest are no longer being driven up the wall, but are instead back in the driver’s seat.