Peter Bedford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Mar 2025 · Public Procurement: Support for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Given that public sector procurement accounts for a third of all public sector spending, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that it is less siloed, more joined up, and as efficient as the private sector?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Saving · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, it has been widely reported that the Chancellor is planning to slash the amount of cash that savers can save in ISAs from £20,000 to £4,000 a year. Will the Chancellor rule out this punitive measure, which will see savings drop and push even more people into income tax?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Hospices · Hansard source

  More

  Leicestershire is home to some superb hospices, such as Rainbows and LOROS, both of which are set to be massively impacted by the hike in national insurance contributions. Given the important work that these hospices do, particularly for people at the end of their lives, will the Minister urge the Chancellor to reverse this pernicious tax rise?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Cat Breeding: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  6. Whether he plans to regulate the breeding of cats.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Cat Breeding: Regulation · Hansard source

  More

  As a proud cat dad to two cats, one of which was beaten to the title of Purr Minister by Attlee, Mr Speaker’s cat, it has amazed me to find out that the 2018 regulations on animal breeding focus merely on dogs and not cat breeding. Can the Minister therefore assure me that he will look at updating the regulations to include cats?

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for bringing this immensely important debate before the House. I am sure that hon. Members will have seen the Barclays bank television advert explaining how money habits and behaviours are formed in young people by the age of seven, but Governments of all colours have continuously failed in promoting the teaching of sound financial management to young people. The education system is supposed to teach young people the game of life, yet currently we are not even teaching them the rules of the game before they play. Previous Governments tried, with the coalition Government introducing it into the national curriculum in 2014, but little progress has been made since then. It is an indictment that one in two Brits were found to be unable to pass a financial literacy test run by the OECD. The UK is well below comparable western nations such as France, Norway and Canada; indeed, we rank alongside Thailand and Albania. How on earth can it be the case that, as one of the wealthiest countries in the world, that is where we sit? Why is this of particular concern now? Technology has opened up a new world of consumerism. I am able to sit in the comfort of my own home and purchase pretty much any item I would like. It is the epitome of having the freedom to make one’s own financial decision. However, that freedom comes with an understanding of how choices will impact my own personal financial wellbeing. At the click of a mouse or even a touch of a screen, young people can make high-value purchases without knowing how it may impact them, because they are not taught the importance of budgeting and saving. Young people are becoming addicted to buy now, pay later schemes, which allow them to enter into credit agreements without fully assessing whether they will be able to afford them in a few months’ time. There is also the additional threat of fraudsters targeting young people in the hope that they will not know how to deal with complex financial problems. Is it any wonder that 96% of young people worry about money daily? We must do something about this. The ongoing national curriculum review should not remove any aspect of the financial education that already exists, since it remains an important part of school life for students. I am not the only one saying that, as 95% of parents believe that schools should be at the heart of developing better understanding of financial education for young people. Alongside keeping it on the national curriculum, better support for teachers and long-lasting improvement is needed. I hear of teachers having real concerns about their own ability to teach students about sound money. I strongly urge the Department and its partners to instigate better advice for teachers on how to improve the quality of these lessons. Finally, as a strong supporter of apprenticeships and vocational training, I would like the Government to promote financial teaching in post-16 educational settings. Put simply, one in three students leave school at 16 for apprenticeships or employment. At a time of increased spending, they potentially lose all chance of being taught financial education. Is it any wonder that nearly half of all apprentices struggle to keep up with their bills? It would be negligence of the highest order not to protect and strengthen the financial education provision for our young people. We must not stand idle and allow the next generation to walk into financial ruin through not understanding the thing that, whether we like it or not, makes the world go round.

• 4 Feb 2025 · UK-US Bilateral Relationship · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I serve in the British-American Parliamentary Group. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing this important debate. As President George H. W. Bush once said, “America has no truer friend than Great Britain.” That sentiment has been repeated time and again but, sadly, we now have a Government seemingly intent on weakening that vital bond. We have a Foreign Secretary who, without hesitation, labelled the leader of the free world a “racist and KKK/neo-Nazi sympathiser”; a Health Secretary who referred to him as an “odious…little man”; and, perhaps most concerning of all, a Prime Minister who accused the leader of the free world of an “attack on democracy”—a far cry from leadership figures such as Churchill, Thatcher and even Blair, who understood the value of forging strong and meaningful relations with our closest ally. Unfortunately, it is not just the Government’s words of woke condemnation that are cause for concern, but their actions. The Trump Administration have unequivocally expressed their concerns about the Foreign Secretary’s reckless proposal to cede sovereignty over the strategically vital Chagos islands to Mauritius. Yet the Foreign Secretary pressed ahead, attempting to finalise the deal before President Trump officially took office. That pattern of misguided priorities and dangerous diplomacy cannot be ignored. Do the Government believe that the special relationship no longer matters? Prime Minister after Prime Minister and President after President have been steadfast in their commitment to that enduring relationship. Why? Because both sides recognise that our trade is worth more than £300 billion, with 1.2 million Americans working in British companies and 1.5 million British citizens working for American firms. The UK imports around £58 billion in goods from the US and exports £60.4 billion in return. Our Chancellor has stated that she is focused on growth, so surely consolidating and strengthening those economic ties must be a top priority? The previous Government were in talks with President Trump about a post-Brexit deal that would have seen trade increase by potentially “three to four, five times”. It is deeply concerning that some Members on the Government Benches and all those on the Liberal Democrat Benches seem intent on undermining the biggest democratic decision this country has ever made: our decision to leave the European Union. Rejoining the EU customs union would not only be undemocratic, but would damage our special relationship with American businesses and prevent us from fostering our own independent trade deals. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway recognised, President Trump is an Anglophile. He has property in Scotland and a deep sentimental connection to British culture and the royal family. It would be regrettable to see that bond undermined by a Government determined to placate the cultural left at every opportunity. It is therefore essential that the Government invite President Trump over for a state visit at the earliest opportunity. That would send a powerful message to the world that the special relationship between our two great nations is as strong as ever. The Government must stop playing politics with our national interest. The United States is and always will be our greatest ally. We share a history, a culture and, most importantly, a vision for how the world should be. The Government must act now to secure our future and preserve the special relationship for generations to come.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Jobcentres: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that whatever steps her Department is taking to get people into work are being immediately undermined by the anti-growth, anti-jobs and anti-business measures included in the Government’s Employment Rights Bill?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to echo many of the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). Like her, I am a conditional supporter of the Bill. While I welcome its intent, I would like to raise a few questions regarding its implementation and its true impact on reducing fraud and error in the system. Conservative Members understand three core principles: the importance of promoting personal responsibility, the importance of law and order, and of course, the importance of reducing the burden of an overreaching state and ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent efficiently. I am therefore pleased that by introducing this legislation, the Secretary of State appears to have accepted the long-standing arguments made by Conservative Members. The Bill, much like the previous Government’s policy paper, is both necessary and overdue. It is a scandal that fraud and error in the DWP benefits system has reached such levels. Since the pandemic, the UK taxpayer has overpaid £8 billion due to a lack of proper provision for the DWP to thoroughly investigate cases of fraud and error. This Bill maintains the focus of the previous Government’s policy paper on fighting fraud in the system. Under the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the DWP saw a 10% drop in fraud and error in the system, which led to savings of over £2 billion between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through the Department recruiting over 2,000 review agents and hiring 1,400 counter-fraud professionals. Unfortunately, due to time constraints at the end of the last parliamentary Session, my right hon. Friend was unable to carry out the modernisation of information-gathering powers or to broaden the scope of cases that could lead to civil penalties. I have no doubt that, had those Conservative policies been fully implemented, fraud and error levels would be lower than they are now. Turning to the Bill, although I support its principles, I seek clarification from the Secretary of State on several key points. First, can the Secretary of State guarantee that this Bill will not distract her and the Department from much-needed reforms to benefit conditionality, including work on health assessments and increasing incentives for people to find work?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with all the sentiments my hon. Friend has expressed. Getting a job is the best route out of poverty, and it is the best route to ensuring that we have a more socially mobile society. Secondly, my instinctive belief in personal liberty means that I believe provisions allowing access to individual bank accounts must be handled with caution. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that such measures will be used only as a last resort, and that the independent person appointed by the Cabinet Office will be given full oversight and will report transparently on the use of these powers? Thirdly, the Bill proposes the restriction of driving licences for those committing fraud against the DWP, but what alternative deterrents does the Secretary of State propose for those who do not drive? His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service already have these powers. I would like to see the independent person assess whether these measures are as impactful at the DWP. Fourthly, Gareth Davies, the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office, wrote last year that the forecast “shows that DWP no longer expects Universal Credit fraud and error to return to the levels seen before…the COVID-19 pandemic”. In response, the DWP explained that this was because there has been an “increasing propensity” for deceit across British society. I do hope that the Secretary of State will push back against this defeatist culture in the DWP and that my constituents in Mid Leicestershire do not continue to foot an astronomical bill for people committing fraud in the Department. Finally, to gauge the correct path when dealing with fraud and error in the system, will the independent person conduct a review to determine whether the provisions in this Bill are just as effective as the Conservative policies of the previous Government? In conclusion, as a Conservative, I support the intent of this Bill. It is shocking that fraud and error are at current levels. However, I urge the Secretary of State to work collaboratively with Members across the House to ensure that individual freedoms are respected, that the Bill does not distract from wider welfare reforms and that its measures deliver a long-term reduction in the welfare bill.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Public Confidence in the Justice System · Hansard source

  More

  Jason Hoganson was wrongly released under the Government’s early release scheme. Last week, he was convicted of assaulting his ex-partner just a day after he was freed under that botched scheme. Does the Secretary of State agree that this shocking case, and cases like it, continue to undermine the public’s trust and confidence in our justice system?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Public Confidence in the Justice System · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps she is taking to increase public confidence in the justice system.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that there are no Members from the Government Benches here to take part in this debate?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate. Illegal migration, an often overlooked issue in the country, was frequently raised on the doorsteps of Mid Leicestershire during the recent general election campaign. I am sorry to say that the last Conservative Government failed to make significant progress in this area, but as the Leader of the Opposition said in a speech last week, the dreadful Labour Government are doubling down on the mistakes of the past. At the general election, the Labour party promised to smash the gangs and reduce the number of hotels used as asylum accommodation. Let me ask the Minister, how is that going? The vile gangs profiteering from the exploitation of vulnerable people remain firmly in operation, the camps in Calais are still run by criminal networks and hundreds of illegal migrants are crossing the English channel daily, all while the UK Government seem to be sitting idly by and doing very little about it. Instead of reducing the use of hotels for asylum seekers, the Government have actually increased their number. Communities are forced to accept those hotels with little to no consultation, creating significant community tensions and leaving local authorities to foot an enormous bill. Astonishingly, the Government have compounded the already dire situation, so let us look at the numbers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) said a moment ago. Since 5 July, nearly 20,000 people have crossed the English channel, which is a 23% increase on the same period in 2023. For a Government that pledged to smash the gangs, those figures are nothing short of an abject failure. Indeed, the National Crime Agency has said that without a deterrent, the numbers are likely to rise. Under the Labour Government, 220 hotels across the UK are now being used for asylum seeker accommodation. Without seeking to pre-empt the Minister’s response, I suspect that she will tell us that the Government are likely to reduce that number by the end of March. How can my constituents trust the Government? Migrant numbers are rising and the Government have no credible plan beyond the slogan to “smash the gangs”. The costs keep going up: the taxpayer is now footing a £3.1 billion bill to house 35,000 illegal migrants. That is a slap in the face to the millions of pensioners who recently lost their winter fuel payments. Within Mid Leicestershire, two of the three boroughs that straddle my constituency have more than 245 illegal migrants housed there. Those migrants are costing the hard-pressed taxpayers of my constituency £35,000 a day—more than £12 million a year. The impact on the local economy is equally damaging, because hotels that once supported our villages and brought in tourism revenue are now closed to the public. Local jobs have been lost and, worst of all, communities feel deceived and disempowered by the Home Office’s lack of transparency. The Minister will no doubt attempt to shift the blame to other parties, but let us be clear: the situation has worsened under the Labour Government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Secretary of State for Justice, has said, we need to have a serious conversation about the UK’s continued membership of the ECHR. Leaving the ECHR would give us the tools to take back control of our borders and challenge the influence of left-wing activist lawyers who undermine efforts to enforce robust immigration measures. Deterrence works. Australia has proven that with its own deportation schemes, which dramatically reduced illegal migration. Laughably, even Germany is now using the framework established in the Rwanda scheme developed by the last Government, yet our Government clearly lack the political will to follow in the footsteps of those successes. The Government have also decided to double the length of time that asylum seekers can stay in hotels from 28 to 56 days. That single policy change adds £4,000 to the bill of accommodating each migrant, and it must be reversed, particularly if the Government hope to close more hotels. My constituents in Mid Leicestershire should be under no illusion that this dreadful Government are making things worse. They have no plan, they have no credibility and they have no commitment to solving this spiralling crisis. It is time for action.

• 20 Jan 2025 · English Devolution Bill: Local Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Several Mid Leicestershire villages such as Glenfield, Birstall and Braunstone town are extremely anxious at the prospect of being forced into a large city unitary as a result of the English devolution Bill. Will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss this matter, and will he give my constituents the assurance that they will not be forced into a city unitary against their wishes?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. Age UK Leicestershire has done a sterling job over the last few months in supporting pensioners who have lost the winter fuel payment as a result of the Government’s Budget. It now faces a staggering £400,000 increase in its costs as a result of the increase in national insurance. What advice can the Prime Minister give to charities such as Age UK that now have to decide whether to cut jobs or slash services to some of the most vulnerable in society?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. Why am I moving a new clause tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell)? I asked myself that question. I believe that it is important that the Committee hear and debate in full every proposed amendment to this truly awful Bill. Indeed, this is why my constituents in Mid Leicestershire sent me to this place. They likely knew what the make-up of the House of Commons, and therefore the composition of this Committee, would be after the election. I believe they would want me to hold the Government to account, particularly on legislation such as this. Even though I find the views of the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington completely unagreeable, he has been sent to this place to put on record what he believes is right. It will be interesting to see how many on the Government side agree with his new clauses. In layman’s terms, new clauses 2 and 3 relate to allowing prison officers the right to strike. I am sure their instinct is to support these new clauses. I will take the time to outline why I believe this would be a step in the wrong direction. Prisons are essential for every functioning society. They serve out punishment, act as a deterrent and reform offenders. The prison guard—or screw, to use the colloquial vernacular—plays a crucial role in maintaining these key purposes. In 2024, there were more than 23,614 prison guards in England and Wales. This increased by 5,000 during the term of the last Conservative Government. I am sure that everyone on the Committee will be thankful for the work of Conservative colleagues in increasing that total. Anecdotally, when I speak to residents in my Mid Leicestershire constituency, a large majority believe that prison officers do a great job and should be commended for all they do to keep us safe. Although my constituency does not have an active prison within its boundaries, there are three nearby in the county of Leicestershire. First, there is HMP Gartree, which is located to the south-east of Leicester city, a short drive from Mid Leicestershire. It is a category B prison and has had some notable inmates over the last 60 years. There is also HMP Fosse Way, which is a category C prison located to the south of the city. Finally, there is HMP Leicester, a category B prison in the city centre that hosts more than 400 inmates. In fact, the strange castle design of the prison leads to many tourists visiting it and taking photos. The prisons offer three incredible employment opportunities for my constituents in Mid Leicestershire, but I fundamentally believe that they would be deeply concerned about the provisions in these new clauses. What would happen in these prisons on strike day? Would prisoners be able to do as they pleased? Would they be left in their cells? Who would be there to care for them if something terrible—

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

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

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Held by my arguments and the arguments put forward by hon. Members, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 4 Non-disclosure agreements: harassment “(1) Any provision in an agreement to which this section applies is void insofar as it purports to preclude the worker from making a relevant disclosure. (2) This section applies to any agreement between a worker and the worker’s employer (whether a worker’s contractor not), including any proceedings for breach of contract. (3) In this section, a ‘relevant disclosure’ means any disclosure of information which, in the reasonable belief of the worker making the disclosure, shows that harassment has been committed, is being committed or is likely to be committed, by a fellow worker or a client of the employer. (4) In this section, ‘harassment’ means any act of harassment as defined by section 26 of the Equality Act 2010.”— (Steve Darling.) This new clause would render void any non-disclosure agreement insofar as it prevents the worker from making a disclosure about harassment (including sexual harassment). Brought up, and read the First time.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Twentieth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Vaz. Who would be there to care for them if something terrible were to happen? Most importantly, for my constituents, who is there to stop these prisoners getting out of the prison grounds? We could have a situation whereby, within a short journey of Mid Leicestershire, hundreds of inmates are on the run. Furthermore, with the funding settlement that the Government have announced for rural areas such as Mid Leicestershire, it is questionable whether the police would be able to catch those who have escaped. It appears that my opinion is not unique. YouGov has been polling the UK public on the matter since August 2019, when 52% of the public thought that prison guards should not be able to strike. Incredibly, even through tough times, that figure has increased to 54%. I believe that the public would be particularly sceptical about new clauses 2 and 3 because of the riots that they have seen on prison grounds, which unfortunately have happened even when prison officers have been on the premises. For example, many remember the riots at Strangeways in 1990, which were caused by poor officer-prisoner relations and poor conditions on prison grounds. I am also concerned about the two-tier impact on police and prison officers. The policing profession is intrinsically linked to that of prison officers. Police officers are at the heart of keeping the public safe. Police officers throughout the UK join the profession willingly and, because of their professionalism, accept that they will never be able to strike. Police officers throughout the UK know how important it is to keep the public safe. In fact, many police officers I talk to express their annoyance at how little they can do to fight real crime when a lot of their time is taken up by other issues, such as non-crime hate incidents and investigating dubious posts on social media. However, the crux of the argument against new clauses 2 and 3 is public safety and the lack of supervision should they be accepted. I therefore hope that they are not added to the Bill.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Nineteeth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that it would have been better and more efficient for the Bill to come before the House in a more final version, which may have put at ease many of us with concerns about the cracks that may still exist?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. To follow up on the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater makes about the advisory board, what is the Minister’s view of ministerial accountability? Will there be transparency on the board’s recommendations and on being held to account for decisions? Over the past several years, Governments of all colours—Conservative, coalition and Labour—have tended to create boards, advisory panels and so forth and have felt obliged to follow the advice that they give. They almost want to derogate from their responsibility. What is the Minister’s view of the advice given by the board? Does he believe that robust ministerial responsibility should still exist, so the Minister could, or should, take decisions that are against the board’s advice? I guess I am asking what the transparency is on the board’s advice to the Minister.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Eighteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the phrasing in the clause is perhaps a little too ambiguous and could lead to the mission creep he mentions? If that were to happen, it could result in abuse of power.

• 9 Jan 2025 · Employment Rights Bill (Seventeenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. There are a few points about the creation of the agency that I would like the Minister to address. I am broadly supportive of synergies and of the rationalisation of public bodies, particularly to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money, but have the Government considered the cost of this new body and whether it will result in savings for the taxpayer? Will they consider locating it outside London so that it is more broadly reflective of the country at large?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Employment Rights Bill (Ninth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. On the point about the hospitality and pubs sector, on which I held a debate in Westminster Hall a few weeks ago, there is real concern about this part of legislation, in particular about freedom of expression and freedom of speech. Does my hon. Friend agree that one consequence of the legislation might be that industry take actions beyond those intended? For example, people might self-censor beyond what could be seen as an off-colour or offensive joke, because they are scared that they could be held liable later for not protecting their employees. My hon. Friend gave an example, but another one is a comedy club, which would be conscious of and concerned about who they invite to entertain because of the perception that some of their staff could be offended, and the reasonableness of how that could be interpreted in the context of harassment. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a concerning unintended consequence of the legislation?