Peter Bedford MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend puts the case very clearly, and he is absolutely right. Labour Members talk about intergenerational unfairness, but they do nothing about it. We Conservatives believe in encouraging young people to determine their own futures.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will give the hon. Member an example of Conservative aspiration. My family never owned their own homes—my grandparents did not own their own home—but Margaret Thatcher gave them the opportunity to do so. She gave many people like my grandparents the opportunity to aspire, to achieve and to own their own homes. That is the aspiration we need to get back to as a country. Every generation of Conservatives has understood this ambition. It is not our background that shapes our future. This is equality of opportunity in action, not the equality of outcome that the Labour party desire so much. We cannot talk about aspiration without celebrating the Prime Minister who understood it best. Mrs Thatcher gave people the freedom to own their own future. She rewarded hard work through lower taxes, turned millions of people into shareholders through privatisation and made dreams of home ownership a reality for many across the country with her right-to-buy scheme. Mrs Thatcher just got it; she understood human nature. She understood that people are ambitious and she knew that when we trust individuals and not the state, Britain succeeds.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Kelly Hatfield sadly lost her father Ken Purnell as a result of the covid-19 vaccination. The family received a vaccine damage payment, yet the sum, which has not increased since 2007, falls short of the loss, trauma and long-term financial impact on these families. Will the Minister explain why that one-off payment has not been inflation-adjusted and will she commit to reviewing its adequacy and fairness?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the vaccine damage payment scheme.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Many of these agreements were established 50, 60 or 70 years ago, in a completely different world. They are completely outdated and are not applicable to modern Britain. With regard to the hon. and learned Member’s comment about the returns agreement, which has been mentioned by other hon. Members, when an agreement was in place before Brexit, we were a net recipient, so his argument simply does not hold water. Time and again, these outdated frameworks have been used by activist do-gooders to block any form of deportation. We will never have control of our borders and do what the petitioners have asked for until we leave these conventions. A clean withdrawal from them will enable a future Government to act in a tough but fair manner for the people of Great Britain. We will not be deterred by woke protests or sneering lectures from the chattering classes; we will secure our borders and we will restore fairness. And that is not all. A future Conservative Government will establish a dedicated removal force with real power and financial backing. That force will deport all illegal migrants within seven days of arrival, to ensure that foreign criminals have no place in the UK and to stop economic migrants abusing our system. Ultimately, we must put the British people first and restore fairness to the system. Yes, my words today have been direct; they have been stark. That is because every petitioner from my constituency has had enough—I have had enough. It is time to stop the lawfare, deport those who have no right to be here, and restore confidence and fairness to our immigration system.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Asylum Seekers: Support and Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the hundreds of Mid Leicestershire residents who took the time to sign the two petitions. I want to speak directly to each and every one of them: you are absolutely right to sign, and you should not feel ashamed, belittled or even embarrassed for doing so; your views come from a deep sense of national pride, a strong belief in the rule of law and, above all, a commitment to fairness. They reflect a widespread feeling that the immigration system is failing. It is failing law-abiding British citizens, the British taxpayer and the integrity of our borders. We in this place must do better. Today, I proudly stand with my constituents, who deserve better. [Sir John Hayes in the Chair ] It is deeply disrespectful to the hard-working families in Mid Leicestershire and across the UK—who get up early, work long hours, pay their taxes and contribute to society—that individuals who come here illegally stay in hotels with access to three meals a day, healthcare and all the other benefits. Meanwhile, my constituents are struggling with the cost of living, and watching their purse strings tighten month after month. That is not sustainable, and it is simply not fair. We must put an end to this open-door policy, which is placing unbearable pressure on our welfare system, public services and communities. We must close the hotels and deport those who are taking advantage of our system. It really is that simple—we just need a Government with the gumption to do it. As a country, we cannot continue to spend £6 million on these hotels every single day. Our once-great nation—the nation of the NHS, world-class education and the rule of law—is choosing to spend billions on illegal migrants. That is money that could be better invested in our schools, police and hospitals. Hotels that once welcomed tourists to showcase the best of Britain are now occupied by individuals who in many cases have no respect for our borders, culture or rule of law, all while veterans sleep on the streets, local economies die and housing waiting lists grow rapidly. The system simply is not fair, and it is not what the British people voted for. What did we get from the Government in response to the petitions? Bluster, what-aboutery and a clear lack of understanding. Governments of all colours have made mistakes on migration over the past 40 years. Many new MPs, particularly on the Conservative Benches, have articulated this point brilliantly to those Members who were in the House before us. I know that the Leader of the Opposition gets this and has a plan. First, we will end the endless lawfare surrounding illegal migration. Then, as some Members have expressed it, we will deport, deport, deport. It really is that simple. The Conservative party is united in its commitment to leave the European convention on human rights and the European convention against trafficking and repeal the Human Rights Act 1998.

• 20 Oct 2025 · Higher-level Learning Target · Hansard source

  More

  Too many young people are being saddled with huge debts from universities with little to show by way of career prospects. There is a clear case for the Government to slash poor-value degrees and redirect the savings to the apprenticeship budget, doubling it to, say, £6 billion a year. Will the Secretary of State explain why she is allowing low-quality university courses to continue unchecked, while taxpayers write off billions of pounds every year in unpaid student loans?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. Business confidence has fallen for five consecutive quarters, and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has said that there are significant concerns in the housing market. The Prime Minister could inject some confidence back into the economy, he could help working families to get on to the housing ladder, and he could even simplify the tax affairs of his Cabinet if he adopted the policy advocated by the Leader of the Opposition of scrapping stamp duty on residential properties. Will he at least give a commitment not to raise property taxes in his nightmare-before-Christmas Budget?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Net Zero: Evidence-based Policy · Hansard source

  More

  The Climate Change Act forces Ministers to meet rigid, legally binding emissions targets, regardless of the economic consequences. Does the Secretary of State accept that this law has directly contributed to higher energy bills, the loss of British industry and declining competitiveness, and that the only sensible course of action is to repeal it?

• 16 Sept 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy (Removal of Two Child Limit) · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I thank the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) for introducing the ten-minute rule Bill today. While we may not agree on the Bill, I believe that this House is at its best when Members argue for what they believe in, and I am glad we have the opportunity to do so today. My Conservative colleagues and I cannot support this Bill. We oppose it because we fundamentally believe in two core principles: fairness and personal responsibility. I believe that this Bill undermines both. Let us be clear: this debate is not about the principle of child benefit. As the eldest of three children from a single-parent family, I know from my own lived experience the challenges faced by those in genuine poverty—having to scrabble around at the end of the week to find enough money to keep the electricity meter running, having to go next door to borrow a cup of sugar to make it to the end of the week, and having to go without the basics at school that most of my friends had. Every child deserves the best start in life, and we should support that, but what is being proposed is something entirely different. The Bill seeks to remove the two-child benefit cap—a cap introduced by the previous Government to address a spiralling bill in a welfare system that was, at times, being abused. Such a cap is fair to the hard-pressed taxpayer. Why should individuals already in receipt of state support gain additional benefit for having yet more children, while working families who get up early, pay their taxes and take full responsibility for their lives do not? Removing the cap would not foster fairness. Instead, it would penalise the people we should be championing: working families who play by the rules. It is only the Conservative party that is standing up for those families, promoting individual responsibility and protecting the country’s fragile finances. Meanwhile, Members on the Government Benches—not content with the chaos they have recently inflicted on the nation—are now competing to be the most socialist, declaring their support for scrapping the cap despite knowing full well it will cost the country an eye-watering £4.5 billion a year. We must be honest with the British people: removing the two-child cap is a massive unfunded commitment that does not reward people for doing the right thing. Simply put, I ask the House: why should a small business owner in Mid Leicestershire, who is already burdened with additional taxes, be asked to pay even more to support someone else’s children, especially when they are struggling to support their own? At the heart of this matter is a philosophical debate. As Conservatives, we believe in incentivising work, not penalising those who seek it. We do not consign people to a life of state dependency; we encourage them to strive, to achieve and to be the best they can be. Unfortunately, it is not just those on the Government Benches who are promoting this recklessness. The Green party wants to spend £40 billion on its radical net zero agenda while still backing the two-child cap’s removal, and the SNP wants to add billions to their welfare bill by pursuing an open borders immigration policy paid for by hard-working Scots. Most surprisingly of all, though, is Reform UK’s position. Many of their hon. Members are proud Thatcherites—or so I thought. They appear to have undergone a damascene conversion and are now, I believe, backing scrapping the cap—a policy that would hammer hard-working ordinary white van men across the country. As we approach what would have been Mrs Thatcher’s centenary, I can only imagine what she would have to say about such an anti-aspirational and profligate approach to the public finances. Politicians simply cannot claim to want to reduce the welfare bill while pursuing policies that would push that bill up by billions. Let me speak directly to the British public, who are inherently conservative-minded: if your political beliefs are rooted in economic freedom and low taxation, can you really support parties that want to take your hard-earned money and hand it to those unwilling to take responsibility? Only the Conservative party stands with you. We believe in letting people keep more of the money they have earned. We believe in addressing poverty at its roots, not just by writing cheques but by reforming the system that traps people in dependency. Our approach is clear. A future Conservative Government will stop sickness benefits for foreign nationals, fix the UK’s sick note culture and reintroduce face-to-face assessments to stop people gaming the system, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), has said. We need to bring about a cultural shift where work, personal responsibility and self-reliance are once again core to our national ethos. As I said at the Work and Pensions Committee last week, we should not blindly throw money at the welfare system. We must instead highlight the importance of getting a job, promote better financial management and uphold a meritocratic system where hard work always triumphs over idleness. The Conservatives will vote against this Bill. We are the only party telling the uncomfortable truth about our out-of-control welfare system and the serious financial realities facing our country. We owe it to our constituents to protect the public purse, we owe it to hard-working families to uphold fairness, and we owe it to future generations to build a society built not on entitlement but on effort, enterprise and aspiration. Question put (Standing Order No. 23).

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will come on to some of those points later, so I will address them then.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Outrageous!

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. As a proud Englishman, it is not often that I admit the Australians are better than us at something. I am talking not about cricket, but about the immensely important issue of pensions adequacy. The Australians do it better, and what underpins their success is the super stapling model, a system that fundamentally changes how savers interact with their pensions. That is why our new clause 36 seeks to follow in Australian footsteps by establishing a model that would automatically amalgamate pension pots through an individual’s working life. Although I recognise and commend the Government’s work on small pot consolidation, I believe that real engagement and adequacy benefit lies in moving towards a lifetime pension pot model. It is a bolder, more engaging and more adequate model that would benefit pension funds and savers alike.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I trust the pensions industry to make those judgments because they are the experts in this area, not Government Ministers, who often have short-term views. On Second Reading, one of my hon. Friends raised the example of HS2 and how Government priorities and policies can change over time. Would the hon. Member be happy for his constituents to have their money invested in a Government project or a large infrastructure scheme that is then scrapped, and to see huge losses to their pension scheme? I have huge concerns about the mandation point. Clause 38, in its current form, undermines the trust that I mentioned earlier. I therefore urge hon. Members to back our amendment to ensure that the fiduciary duty remains and that we protect the security of millions of savers.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I refer the Committee to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having worked in the water sector before being elected to Parliament. I will be speaking predominantly to amendment 248. The Committee heard evidence from industry experts who expressed concerns about the Bill’s mandation power. They were consistent and clear in raising concerns about the reserve powers in the Bill. I would like to reiterate some of those concerns raised by the industry, which I believe hon. Members should support today. At the heart of clause 38 is its impact on the fiduciary duty of trustees—not just a mere technicality, but a duty that has been at the heart of trust-based governance for centuries. Trustees have a legal duty to act solely in the best interests of their members. However, the Government believe it is acceptable to tear up that duty through a ministerial power grab. If the Bill is passed in its current form, Ministers will have the power to override the judgment of trustees, which I do not believe is appropriate. That is not to guide or support, but to mandate them—to potentially force them to act against what are arguably the best interests and returns for their members. That leads me to the potential impact on pensions adequacy in the UK. We are facing a pensions adequacy crisis, as I and other members of this Committee have said before. The majority of people are not saving anywhere near enough for retirement, and the cost to the state pension will only continue to rise, yet we have seen that the Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I hope to address some of those points. The Government are willing to take investment decisions out of the hands of pension fund trustees to force investments into projects that may be politically convenient for them, but may potentially lead to financial loss for members. They are directing investment on the backs of ordinary UK savers. When people save into a pension scheme, they are entrusting their future security to a system that is working supposedly for them and not for political gain. To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Hendon, rather than coercing trustees to follow conditions set by Ministers, would it not be better to create the right economic conditions to make trustees want to invest in the UK? The last Conservative Government, through their Mansion House reforms and the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, brought in active commitment from the pension fund trustees who want to invest. We did not need to mandate that, and the Government should learn from that approach. Amendment 248 will preserve the fiduciary duty, but continue the trajectory to increase pension fund investment in the UK.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Channel Crossings: Military Assets · Hansard source

  More

  The safety and security of my constituents is my No. 1 priority. Given the national security risk posed by some of those who cross the English channel illegally, I ask the Minister to look again at using military assets to physically stop those small boats from landing in the first place. Will he do that today?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Channel Crossings: Military Assets · Hansard source

  More

  5. Whether he has had recent discussions with the Secretary of State for the Home Department on the use of military assets to help prevent crossings by illegal migrants of the English channel.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to reiterate a lot of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North. Financial education is key to unlocking many of the challenges that we face in adulthood, whether budgeting, debt management, saving or planning for retirement. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill, the Financial Education Bill, earlier this year; I know we already have an element of it in secondary schools, but we need to go further as a country and ensure that everyone, from the very young upwards, has that education to inform the key decisions in our lives. I take the hon. Member’s point on DB schemes funding those seeking advice for DC schemes, but it is often the case that members have pensions in both DB and DC schemes: people move quite fluidly from a job in the public sector to one in the private sector, and will inevitably have membership in both DB and DC schemes. The Bill would benefit from the amendment proposed by the Liberal Democrats. I also take the hon. Member’s point on the need for better engagement by employers. I know some large companies offer employees mid-life MOTs on financial education and management. Certainly, FTSE 100 companies that I have worked for offer employees that kind of support as they approach retirement. I am sympathetic to new clause 1, which amendment 3 is connected to, because it is essential that as we get older and plan for retirement, we are fully informed on those decisions. I will support the Liberal Democrat amendment.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendment 260. I thank my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for outlining our rationale for the amendments. My comments regard informing members. I support the right to pay surplus to employers—I think that is the right thing to do, so long as the correct safeguards are in place—but it is right to inform members of that decision. Not only is it the right thing to do, but it will improve member engagement in the whole pensions process. I made a point in Tuesday’s evidence session on the importance of financial education, and a number of witnesses supported that position. By more actively engaging with members, we will ensure that they take part in their own pension provision and ensure that the right decisions are made in their own interests.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I hope that the Government consider amendment 246, which would require annual reporting by LGPS asset pools on the financial performance of local investments. This is not bureaucratic red tape; it is a necessary safeguard that would help trustees in upholding their fiduciary duties and responsibilities and protect the interests of scheme members and the people whose pensions are at stake. It would be a sensible addition to the Bill, especially when we consider the fact that the Government’s impact assessment offers very little on LGPS consolidation. There is no reference to the impact that the de facto mandation of local investment will have on the trustees’ fiduciary duty or on members’ outcomes. I urge the Government to consider the amendment, not only for those reasons but because it would give consolidated asset pools greater clarity over whether their investments are best placed.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  At present, the Bill arguably lacks a clear definition of how the priorities of the asset pools must follow, particularly on what qualifies as local investments. Our amendment seeks to address that gap by simplifying this. Put simply, we believe that local should mean local. These asset pools should prioritise investment in large-scale projects, actively promote local growth or make tangible improvements in local infrastructure—improvements that directly benefit the people in that local area. Where no such opportunities exist, other investment options should be considered, but we cannot allow a situation where, for example, an LGPS fund raised in the midlands is continuously redirected elsewhere in the country. Unfortunately, the Bill appears to suggest that the other areas included in the consolidated LGPS schemes could benefit disproportionately. My constituents may ask me, “Why aren’t these funds being used locally by investing in local opportunities, rather than being gifted to councils in other areas of the country, assisting in the same way?” I believe the amendment will add clarity on that to the Bill, and I would welcome the Minister’s comments on it.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  As Members of Parliament, we receive campaign email after campaign email every week on dozens of issues, from environmental matters to recent calls for a general election. Amid all that, there is one concern that continues to cut through: support for our pubs and the wider hospitality sector. Why? Because the UK’s hospitality sector is more than just about business. It is a vital part of the social fabric of our communities. Whether it is the Nook café in Anstey, the Ex-Servicemen’s Club in Groby or the Coach and Horses in Markfield, these are not simply places to eat and drink; they are places of refuge from everyday life, places where people come together and places that sustain the spirit of our towns and villages. Yet what do we see from this Government? With Starmer the pub harmer at the helm, it seems they are determined to call last orders on our fantastic hospitality sector. Since the general election, we have witnessed a series of reckless decisions that have shattered business confidence. Take the Chancellor’s disastrous autumn Budget, which slashed the rates relief for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors and imposed damaging rises in employer’s national insurance contributions; or look at the Secretary of State for Business and Trade attempting to push one of the most damaging employment Bills in a generation through Parliament—and I know so, because I sat on the Bill Committee. The legislation will do more to hinder job creation than to help workers. In my own constituency, I have spoken to countless publicans and small business owners who are feeling the strain—none more so than the Royal Oak in Kirby Muxloe, which recently won my Mid Leicestershire best pub competition. Local hospitality businesses in Mid Leicestershire pose the same questions to me time after time. Should they raise their prices and risk losing customers, or should they cut staff and reduce their opening hours just to stay afloat? Neither choice is fair and neither is sustainable. Across the country, we have seen the consequences: 83,000 hospitality jobs lost as a direct result of this Government’s actions. And what for the future? We know the Chancellor is facing a self-inflicted £40 billion black hole as a result of her Budget, and with the recent reshuffle at No. 10, with supporters of high taxes and high spending being promoted, there is a worry among businesses in Mid Leicestershire that the worst is yet to come. It does not have to be this way. If the Government would only listen to industry experts such as UKHospitality and the British Beer and Pub Association, or to brewers such as Punch Pubs and Everards, we could actually help the industry rather than hinder it. I urge the Government to act boldly and continue to cut business rate reliefs for the hospitality sector, reduce duty on draught beer and lower VAT on products sold in hospitality settings, just as many of our European neighbours do. It is time that the Government stopped punishing the sector and listened to the rational arguments of those who work in and care so much about the industry they love.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Where is that support going to lie—with organisations such as Age UK, charities or the pension provider? Where do you see that balance sitting? Christopher Brooks: It could lie either with Government and the Money and Pensions Service providing a widespread service, for example. It could lie with charities, or providers could be told to help people with these decisions—they could potentially commission charities. We are working with Aviva to look at running a pilot in the retirement space, which will hopefully go ahead soon and give us some insights into what kind of support people need. People think about their lives holistically, and they are not necessarily thinking about a pension as separate from their current accounts, so we need to think about how it works for people. That is the key thing. Jack Jones: I think we look at this slightly differently. I am not convinced that any more financial education, guidance, or points at which we need to intervene in the system to ensure that people are equipped to make decisions is the way forward. This Bill recognises that, and the introduction of default retirement products is a recognition that everywhere else in the pension system, it works on the principle of default and generally works quite well. We have seen that that principle is really powerful; if people are defaulted into something, they will stay there, whether that is their contribution rate or the investment options. Defaults are really sticky; we rely on that and make use of it through auto-enrolment, to get people into saving schemes. More and more, as we find ways in which that does not work, we need to go back and look at fixing the system a little bit so that it works better by default, rather than providing people with more education, because that is pushing against the grain of all of our experience of what works and what is effective. I think that Chris is right that it puts a lot on the governance structures and on the consumer protections there, but I think that is where this Bill has to work. It has to put in place something that will be appropriate for the vast majority of members, and that will work with the minimal amount of engagement—we have to have some kind of engagement on retirement, such as, “This is what I am going to retire and this is where my pension should be paid,” but not beyond that.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to go back to your point around the value for money implementation, which a few Members have already raised. Specifically, there is always this competing challenge between satisfying the metrics that are in there and delivering returns for your investors. How do you see that balance in the Bill? Do you see it being too much one way, or do you see it hindering the performance of investment? Colin Clarke: At a high level, the Bill, as it stands, is primarily rule-making powers. A lot of the detail is going to be in the secondary legislation. In terms of rule-making powers, as it stands, I think the Bill has the right provisions in place. The detail is going to be around the actual assessments that you have to follow for determining whether something is delivering value, not delivering, intermediate and so on. For me, getting that detail right in the secondary legislation is going to be quite key, as is having clarity at an early stage on what that is, so that it can go through the proper consultation paper and we can look at the risks and at whether there are any unforeseen consequences. At a high level, we know that the Bill’s rule-making powers set the right framework for that secondary legislation.