Peter Bedford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving way. As a supporter of the Bill, I have listened to the debate closely and I agree that we need better palliative care across the UK. My own grandparents were both superbly supported by amazing Macmillan nurses in their final weeks battling incurable cancers. But I recognise that this support is not universal across the country, and that more needs to be done to improve this important service. The blunt truth of the matter is this: if someone is dying from an incurable condition, they could have the best palliative care possible, but ultimately they are still dying. In her final weeks, my nan told me that it was her time to go, that she had made peace with her God, and that she did not want to endure the next few weeks of decline in her physical and mental health. Days before her death, she was hallucinating from the high dose of medication to treat her pain, telling me vividly how she was flying a spaceship. That was not how she wanted to spend her final weeks, and I know that because she told me so. She, like so many others, had been denied her final wish. The legislation has received far more scrutiny than much of what we vote on in this place—and rightly so. The 28 Public Bill Committee meetings interviewed 40 witnesses, and divided 110 times on proposed amendments. As a country we have been debating this subject for over 20 years. I can recall as a 16-year-old law student discussing the case of Diane Pretty, and her campaign back then to change the law. I believe the Bill as presented is narrowly defined, with the necessary safeguards to ensure that those with a terminal condition can freely choose the time of their own passing. There are those in this House, often through religious beliefs or otherwise, who could never support a Bill of this kind. That is their right and I respect that. But that right should not extend to denying the choice to other people. There are those who argue for what they see as even greater safeguards, but we should remember that legislation must be balanced and workable in the real world beyond this Chamber. The Bill is not about shortening life; it is about shortening death. I ask all hon. Members across the House to support it.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On Second Reading I spoke in support of the principle of the Bill, because I believe that freedom of choice, especially at the end of life, should always rest with the individual; that it is the individual with a terminal diagnosis who is best placed to decide when it is their time to slip away. As a society, we do not talk about death enough—it is one of those subjects that we shy away from—but thousands of our fellow citizens each year must come to terms with terminal diagnoses, their medical treatment and their final days. I put on record my thanks to the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater) for the way that she has conducted the debate. I know that it has been difficult at times, particularly with the criticism coming from outside this place. Voting for the status quo—voting against the Bill—will not solve the problem. Indeed, with the advance of medical techniques that prolong life but not necessarily the quality of life, the case for the compassionate ending to one’s life will continue to grow. At least one Brit every week is taking the stressful and too often lonely journey to Switzerland for an assisted death at the cost of £12,000. To decide the time of one’s own death is an option only available to those who have the wealth.

• 18 Jun 2025 · Crime and Policing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As MPs, we receive a wide range of correspondence from constituents during some of the most difficult times in their lives, but the email that I received from Emma Johnson was perhaps one of the most harrowing that I have ever received. It is because of Emma’s story that I have tabled new clause 51, and I will speak to it today.

• 12 Jun 2025 · Support for Entrepreneurs · Hansard source

  More

  I recently met a load of entrepreneurs and small businesses in Mid Leicestershire who all have the same concern about the low VAT registration threshold of just £90,000. That is stifling their growth, because it adds a lot of bureaucracy and cost. What representations will the Minister make to the Chancellor to ensure that those small businesses can flourish?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Local Authority Funding · Hansard source

  More

  One way of ensuring that new unitary authorities such as those for Leicestershire have adequate funding is to base that funding on robust business cases. Given that the Department was five weeks late in providing feedback to the local authorities, will the Minister commit to extending the deadline to ensure that those local authorities have the time that they need to build up those plans?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that those pensioners who missed out on their payment in the winter of 2024 and will qualify under these rules should be reimbursed for the money they lost?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Protesters: Sentencing · Hansard source

  More

  While we might not agree with their methods, peaceful protests can take many forms, including the burning of religious texts. Does the Minister agree that freedom of expression must be protected and that any move by Parliament or the courts to introduce a blasphemy law would undermine it?

• 22 May 2025 · Lower League Football Clubs: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister give assurances to football fans in my constituency that with the burdens of the Employment Rights Bill, the hike in national insurance contributions and the introduction of yet another regulator, there will not be a hike in ticket prices?

• 20 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Given that my constituents overwhelmingly voted to take back control of their borders in the 2016 referendum, what safeguards is the Prime Minister putting in place to ensure that his youth experience scheme is not open borders by the back door, which would be seen by my constituents as yet another Brexit betrayal?

• 12 May 2025 · Young People not in Education, Employment or Training · Hansard source

  More

  Employers in my constituency tell me that they are less likely to employ young people as a result of the Employment Rights Bill because of the increased risk of employing someone at the start of their career. What representations has the Minister made to her colleagues to ensure that the most damaging parts of that legislation are softened?

• 6 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T10. The Government have committed to providing 700,000 extra emergency dental appointments, but in the midlands the units of dental activity rate is just 83% and there is no additional funding for the integrated care boards. Will the Minister therefore give assurance to my constituents that he will fully deliver on that promise?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill addresses the serious issue of fraud and error in our public services. I welcome the Government’s continuation of the work of the previous Government to protect taxpayers’ money and uphold the integrity of our welfare system. The amendments proposed by the official Opposition would not undermine the Bill; they would enhance it. Our amendments would preserve the fundamental principles of fairness and proportionality while strengthening the tools at our disposal to tackle wrongdoing. In that spirit, I rise to speak in support of new clauses 8 and 21. New clause 8 is a measured and necessary proposal that would simply bring the Department for Work and Pensions in line with other Government bodies, such as HMRC and the Child Maintenance Service, which already have the power to issue arrest warrants for cases of serious fraud against the state. Why should it lack those enforcement capabilities when the crimes that it deals with are just as serious? The taxpayer enters into a social contract with the state—a contract based on trust, responsibility and accountability. My constituents pay their taxes and quite rightly expect that those who cheat, lie or exploit the system will face the consequences. We in this House are the guardians of that social contract. If the public believe that we are turning a blind eye to fraud or failing to act decisively, that trust begins to erode and the social contract will be put at risk. Illegal actions must have legal consequences. In supporting new clause 8, the Government could send a clear and unequivocal message: fraud and deceit have no place in our society. Turning to new clause 21, it has recently been highlighted that individuals are using social media to promote ways of defrauding the system, including through the Motability scheme. That is deeply troubling. Although Ministers have previously responded positively to my questions on that, the current version of the Bill does not go far enough. Unless the Government support our amendments, they will fail to take the concrete steps needed to address that evolving form of deceit. This House has an opportunity today to work across party lines to further strengthen the Bill and reaffirm our commitment to protecting the social contract between the Government and those governed. Let us act with unity and resolve to reduce fraud, restore public trust and ensure that our systems work for those who truly need them and not for those who seek to abuse them.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Guidelines (Pre-sentence Reports) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What the Sentencing Council ludicrously proposed was nothing short of two-tier justice: guidelines which would mean that young black, Asian or indeed other non-white offenders could receive more lenient sentences than their white counterparts in exactly the same circumstances. Let me be clear: justice must be equality before the law. As someone once said, “justice should not only be done, but…be seen to be done”. It should not depend on your race, the colour of your skin, your culture or your religion. It is high time we reminded the unelected, unaccountable, and quite frankly woke quangos that equality means treating everyone the same, and not creating one rule for some and one rule for others. I am therefore glad that we have finally reached the Second Reading of a Bill that will stop the madness espoused by this out-of-touch, “liberal dinner party set” advisory body. For far too long, bodies such as the Sentencing Council have been allowed to rule the roost. Quangos of this kind—unserious and wasteful organisations —are costing the taxpayer more than £64 billion a year. Parliament must be sovereign, and should not continue to come up against a brick wall of regulatory and bureaucratic obstacles. I cannot help having a sense of déjà vu. I was sitting in this very place well over a month ago when my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Lord Chancellor, introduced legislation that would have prevented this slide into two-tier justice—and all the while, the Lord Chancellor allowed the chairman of the Sentencing Council to effectively run rings around her, the Government and the will of the House. Let us stop pretending: sadly, two-tier justice does exist, and the British people know it. Let us look at the facts. People are being thrown into jail for making stupid comments online, while grooming gangs were able to operate unchallenged because of a fear of cultural sensitivities. This is wrong, and the British people demand that it end now. However, it is not happening just in the courts. Police forces in the UK have been caught blocking white applicants from jobs, and that was based not on ability but purely on the colour of their skin. How on earth did we get here? This is the country of the Magna Carta, the birthplace of common law and some of the greatest legal minds that the world has ever seen, yet we have enabled an unelected quango to propose guidelines that are openly discriminatory, and equality before the law has been replaced by ideology over fairness.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Reoffending: Young People · Hansard source

  More

  Aspiration and ambition are drivers of social mobility and help to reduce deprivation and crime. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Education to increase apprenticeships and training, so that these opportunities can be extended to all and we can reduce young offending throughout the UK?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Mauritius Treaty: Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  15. When he plans to present to Parliament the proposed treaty with Mauritius on the sovereignty of the Chagos islands.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Mauritius Treaty: Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  Given that there is no binding legal basis for the ceding of the Chagos islands and that the deal will cost the hard-pressed British taxpayer north of £9 billion, £18 billion or possibly £50 billion a year, will the Secretary of State confirm what total financial liabilities will be brought to the UK and whether they will be funded from the uplift in the defence budget announced in the spring statement?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Off-road Bikes · Hansard source

  More

  At the weekend, I was speaking to residents of Braunstone Town, and many, particularly the elderly, were frightened by the use of off-road bikes and similar vehicles given the noises they make and the risk to pedestrians. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the Government are taking the matter seriously and that they will empower local police forces to bring those driving the bikes to justice?

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

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that housing targets mean little if the Government do not get a grip on immigration, which is causing massive demand for housing?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  It is painfully clear that if this Government believe you did not vote for them, they will continue to turn their back on you. That is clear from their treatment of independent schools, small business owners, farmers, and now—and most cruelly—pensioners. Within just weeks of taking office, this shameful Government scrapped the winter fuel payment for 10 million pensioners. Those individuals, many of whom are frail and some of the most vulnerable people in society, have given so much to our country. They built our foundations, our communities and the national fabric, yet in return, they receive a cold shoulder from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. She could not wait to get her hands on their £300.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  No, I am not giving way. That small sum of money allowed pensioners to keep the heating on, helping them to make it through those cold winter nights, and supported them in not having to choose between heating and eating. Wherever I go in my constituency of Mid Leicestershire, I have conversations with older people, and the word they use is “betrayal”. It is a betrayal felt deeply in their hearts, particularly by those who helped build this country. Let us not forget that 348 Labour MPs are complicit in taking the winter fuel payment away from millions of pensioners, and 71% of disabled pensioners have lost that vital support. Labour Members have repeatedly told us that theirs is the party of the NHS, but let us face the facts: they are all complicit in costing the national health service an additional £169 million, which is the cost of looking after the 100,000 pensioners who have been left out in the cold.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The numbers simply do not stack up. In comparison, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the triple lock and increased the state pension by almost £4,000. It was a Conservative Government who reduced the number of pensioners living in absolute poverty by more than 200,000, and it is the Conservatives who have pensioners’ interests at heart.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree with me and many of my hon. Friends that policy decisions by unelected non-departmental bodies such as the Sentencing Council are eroding public confidence in our democratic institutions? Will he commit to scrapping such bodies, so that policy is always made by Ministers, who are directly accountable to this House?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  It is right that the welfare system supports those with disabilities. However, does the Secretary of State agree that social media influencers who are teaching people to game the Motability system in order to get free vehicles is a disgrace? If so, what does she intend to do about it?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about financial education; and for connected purposes. Without that education, we are collectively creating the greatest financial crisis of our time. The problem, quite simply, is that we as a nation are not living within our means. There was once a sense that people had certain financial responsibilities: to save for a house, to save for retirement, to save for holidays or for a rainy day—but no more. Two fifths of Brits have less than £1,000 in savings and, as a result, money has become synonymous with anxiety. How will we pay our bills, our mortgage, our tuition fees and even our meals? We have also ignored people’s anxieties about money for far too long, whether they be university students, apprentices or parents not eating to ensure that their children can. We have high expectations but low means. An extraordinary and deeply depressing statistic is that 96% of young people worry about money every single day—yet we continue to spend, not least because it is so easy. Offers pop up on our screens every day, created by marketing wizards who know exactly where we are most vulnerable. They use our search history to whet our appetite for new books, video games, appliances and overseas trips. In a single click, we are committed and plunged further into the red. Around 20 million people effectively pay on account, not to local shop owners who know them and live locally but through impersonal buy now, pay later schemes that bring with them all-too-easy extortionate rates of interest. The debt just keeps on growing. There is a solution, which is to treat the problem at source, through education. Young people need to understand how money works, the principle of saving and the dangers and opportunities of compound interest. This is not a new idea. The coalition Government brought in financial education for secondary schools, and this Bill aims to consolidate that learning and extend provision to primary schools and tertiary education. Money habits are formed at an early age—indeed, from the age of seven—yet many school leavers remain in the dark. Fifty-five per cent of those employing apprentices are aware that many of their workers face financial difficulties. The situation does not require extra resource, just extra creativity. In fact, it can bring the curriculum to life. In Finland, for example, money is incorporated into the teaching of all subjects. In maths lessons problems link to savings and debt, geography lessons explain the cost of deforestation on goods in the supermarket, and IT lessons explain the financial consequences of buying extra credit for a favourite video game. This is not a party political matter. The Bill will reduce inequality and help explain the importance of property, the benefits of home ownership and a comfortable retirement, and what it takes to provide for one’s own family. I have spoken to bankers, teachers, children, parents, police, employers, councillors, accountants, magistrates and lawyers. Whatever their political persuasion, they all agree that money is the root of many of society’s problems, not least because people are increasingly unaware of how to manage it or what is possible through careful budgeting. Schools should prepare young people for the adult world. Yet for all the focus on balancing an equation, there is no attention given to balancing one’s bank account, and for the many hours spent generating interest in past events, none is focused on meeting interest payments on a future loan or mortgage. We are sending our young people out into the world and putting them into the game of life without even teaching them the rules first. Fifty per cent of the British public would fail an OECD financial literacy test. We rank alongside Thailand and Albania despite being one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It is no wonder that only 1% of teachers believe their pupils possess adequate financial skills, or that 67% of young people do not feel confident planning for their financial future. In my maiden speech, I focused on the importance of social mobility. We did not have much—I could not always attend school trips and we could not always have the heating on—but I found ways to save for the things that I wanted in life. In an age when many believe that the responsibility of toothbrushing should be handed to teachers, we cannot leave our entire financial future to materialise like magic and our economy to decay even faster than those young teeth. As a country, we have to balance the books, and that starts by understanding the principles of money. That is why I and the sponsors of this Bill urge the House to give future generations the tools and the knowledge to avoid walking into financial ruin and to lead successful and prosperous lives, irrespective of their background. Question put and agreed to. Ordered , That Mr Peter Bedford, Jerome Mayhew, Blake Stephenson, Josh Newbury, Mr Jonathan Brash, Sir Roger Gale, Shockat Adam, Wera Hobhouse, Ian Roome, Siân Berry, Lewis Cocking and Martin Vickers present the Bill. Mr Peter Bedford accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 April, and to be printed (Bill 195).

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I recently wrote to all Departments about the total cost of employee settlement agreements. Although there were some astronomical figures, most Departments have provided me with a response, but the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice have refused to answer that basic question, even rejecting freedom of information requests from my office. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can obtain that information, particularly since the two Departments have frustrated my efforts to scrutinise them thus far?