Peter Bedford MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q3. Unlike many of his parliamentary colleagues, I actually do not think that the Prime Minister should resign. But at the start of a new year, it is time to reflect—reset, detox, if you will—on his Government’s appalling economic policies and tax rises, particularly business rates and the impact they are having on the hospitality sector. Will the Prime Minister commit to doing that today?

• 6 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. Since the Government came to office, the average household energy bill has increased by £200, so the Government’s claim to be cutting bills by £150 rings somewhat hollow with my constituents. Will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing the green levies and taxes that continue to drive up energy prices for hard-working families?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Jury Trials Proposal: Impact · Hansard source

  More

  8. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the proposed ending of jury trials for certain offences on the right to a fair trial.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Jury Trials Proposal: Impact · Hansard source

  More

  The Justice Secretary may have complete faith in the independence of the judiciary; sadly, I do not. We have seen a plethora of cases, particularly involving freedom of speech, where the judiciary has arguably been influenced by political correctness and the virtue signalling of bodies such as the Sentencing Council. If his proposals are designed to reduce the backlog, why do they not include a sunset clause?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Welfare Spending: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  In their first Budget, the Government hiked taxes on employers, leading to a sustained increase in unemployment. Earlier this year, we saw a botched attempt to reform welfare, which is now going to cost us more in welfare spending, and in the Chancellor’s “Nightmare before Christmas” Budget, she hammered hard-working families with yet more tax rises. Why do the Government loathe aspiration and hard work in favour of an economy based on welfare and state dependency?

• 8 Dec 2025 · Welfare Spending: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  21. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of future welfare spending on the economy.

• 26 Nov 2025 · New Nuclear Sites · Hansard source

  More

  What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the SNP Government in Scotland, whose luddite approach and ideological blinkers prevent Torness, Dounreay and Hunterston from being considered for future nuclear projects—and all the jobs and investment that go with them?

• 26 Nov 2025 · New Nuclear Sites · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on the potential for new nuclear power sites in Scotland.

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My constituents are very concerned about that. It is a strange anomaly. In addition, under the current legislation, councils are required to hold referendums when they wish to increase council tax beyond a certain level, so it seems very strange that the Government will not empower local communities to hold a referendum when local boundaries are to be redrawn. In conclusion, let us empower our communities to decide their own destinies.

• 24 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Let me begin with the title of the Bill; it claims, perhaps optimistically, to empower communities. By the end of this debate, we will see whether the Government truly intend to empower them. Community empowerment matters. I believe that my constituents and the councillors who represent them are far better placed to make informed decisions about their area than bureaucrats sitting in Whitehall. Every amendment I have tabled seeks to do one thing: empower communities. If Labour Members truly believe the Government’s rhetoric and intentions, I hope that they will support those amendments today. I will focus primarily on my amendment to introduce a statutory requirement for referendums ahead of local government reorganisation, but before I do, let me briefly highlight my proposal on cross-boundary planning. New clause 33 seeks to fix a flaw in the planning system. My constituency straddles three local planning authorities. Too often, councils place the housing that they are required to allocate right on their boundary, knowing full well that the impact on services and infrastructure will fall primarily on a neighbouring authority that has little power to do anything about it. Now, I am not a nimby. I recognise the need for better, affordable homes, but the system encourages siloed thinking. It enables councils to tick off the list their obligation to deliver housing stock, while residents living on the boundaries bear the brunt. Introducing joint planning committees for developments within specific distances of neighbouring authorities would at least bring about a dialogue that is currently absent. I ask the Minister to look at this anomaly in the planning system, so that local communities are better empowered over decisions in their area. Amendments 104 to 106 offer the greatest opportunity to empower communities. We know that the Government will press ahead with local government reorganisation, and I understand the motives behind that; there is too much waste, and often there is duplication, and this would be one way of reducing it. But if the Government want to take people with them, including my constituents, residents must have the final say on their preferred reorganised boundaries through local referendums. This is of real importance to the villages that I represent in Mid Leicestershire, where there is immense concern about being absorbed into the greater Leicester city council area. Residents in Birstall and Anstey have told me of their concerns that if reorganisation takes place and they are placed within Leicester city, they will face higher council tax. I thought that we in this place believed in the principle of no taxation without representation. Meanwhile, residents in Braunstone Town and Leicester Forest East are visibly and immensely concerned about the sad decline of Leicester city over the last few decades. After years of mismanagement, they have no desire whatsoever to see the Leicester city mayor have influence in their communities. My constituents in Glenfield and Kirby Muxloe know exactly why the mayor wishes to extend his boundaries. After declaring a housing crisis, it is obvious that he would look at sites such as the old Weston Park golf course in Glenfield to meet the city’s housing stock requirements. The city mayor knows full well that this would place the burden squarely on the villages, not the city. In conclusion, I commend the Government’s stated intention of empowering communities and reducing waste in local government. However, they should accept the amendments that I have tabled.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Home Office has requested transitional accommodation for asylum claimants, following the closure of Garats Hay in my constituency. However, neither Leicestershire county council nor Charnwood borough council has been consulted or received any additional funding for this extra burden. Why are these councils being bypassed, and will they get the funding that they need?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Budget: Press Briefings · Hansard source

  More

  In the past year, a record £70 billion has been withdrawn from pension schemes through the tax-free lump sum as a result of the fear driven by the uncertainty of recent months. Does the Minister understand that the constant leaks and policy kite flying are leading to this adverse effect on pensioners’ savings?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Regional Economic Growth: Pension Funds · Hansard source

  More

  Pension scheme trustees have an obligation to make decisions that they believe are in the best interests of savers, which is otherwise known as their fiduciary duty. The reserve powers in the Pension Schemes Bill could force investment in Government vanity projects, which is contrary to that duty. Does the Minister agree with me and much of the pension industry that mandation is a massive state overreach and is gambling with the futures of those saving for retirement?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Of course not. We on the Conservative Benches know that the hard-pressed taxpayer deserves better. I am proud that the shadow Secretary of State has outlined tough but fair proposals to cut the welfare bill. Our plan to make work pay and to stop the unfair gaming of the system would make savings of £23 billion for the Exchequer. First, we will clamp down on the ridiculous system that enables people with mild health conditions to receive thousands of pounds from the state, when people with the exact same conditions go out to work and pay their dues. Secondly, we will reduce fraud and error in the system by bringing back face-to-face assessments, which are a means of ensuring that support is in the right hands. Finally, we will restrict benefits for non-UK nationals. We all know that migrants are attracted to the UK, because of our welfare system perhaps being too generous.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Anyway, to go back to the £5 billion of welfare savings the Government proposed, that was a small but important step in the right direction that we on the Conservative Benches would have supported. Embarrassingly, they conceded to the hard left in the Labour party, so we are now in the perverse position that their welfare changes will invariably end up costing the taxpayer more and not achieve even the smallest of savings they intended. Other parties that claim to be fiscally conservative are now openly supporting the removal of the two-child benefit cap—a move that undermines the very principle of personal responsibility.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am not giving way. The welfare system should be there for British people who need it, not for others who perhaps just want it, and Conservative Members will never apologise for believing in aspiration over dependency.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Oh, go on then.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  When the Conservatives left office, there were just 2 million people on universal credit for health-related reasons. Today, that number stands at 3 million—a remarkable increase that highlights the sheer lack of action by this Government to get welfare under control. It tells the younger generation that aspiration is no longer the British way and that it is easier to depend on the state than to strive. While the Government continue to spend, it is our constituents—hard-pressed taxpayers—who are footing the bill. We in this House would be wise to remember that there is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers’ money. Unfortunately, taxpayers are getting a rough deal. Our approach is different. Only the Conservative party is on the side of the taxpayer. The Government published proposals to save £5 billion in welfare spending.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The welfare bill is out of control. A system with laudable aims that was designed to act as a safety net for those who fall on hard times now threatens not only the nation’s finances but the spirt of hard work and self-reliance. That is why I will support the motion. My Conservative colleagues and I believe in fairness. We are the party of the strivers—the men and women who rise early, work long hours and provide for their families. The shopkeeper who opens up before dawn, the construction workers on site in all weathers, and the parents balancing multiple jobs—these are the people who make Britain great. They keep our economy going and our communities alive. This Government are letting people down. People see many others gaming the system, while their taxes continue to rise to fund a welfare bill that has spiralled out of control. Of course, I understand that there must always be a safety net—I say that as someone who has lived experience of being on the breadline growing up—but this safety net has turned into a fishing net, with a culture that promotes the idea that it is okay not to work, that it is fine for others to pay for our lifestyle choices and that it is acceptable to rely on the state forever. Since the general election, we have seen over 1 million more people added to universal credit—1 million more people. For all the Government’s talk of saving the NHS and helping people back into work, the numbers tell a different story.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes his point perfectly.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In September 2024, my constituents and, indeed, the country were left shocked by the senseless killing of Braunstone Town resident Bhim Kohli. Mr Kohli, a well-respected and decent man, was just walking through Franklin park as he usually did, accompanied by his dog Rocky, when he was targeted and assaulted to death by a 14-year-old boy, egged on by a 12-year-old girl. Since this horrific event, I have been working with Mr Kohli’s daughter Susan, and I pay tribute to the Kohli family for the dignified manner in which they have dealt with the emotional and tragic aftermath of such a horrific incident. Susan is not looking for retribution; she is simply looking to promote justice for the families of victims, who at the moment do not feel that the justice system works for them. I pay tribute to Susan, who I know is sitting at home, alongside Rocky, watching today’s debate. I have tabled new clauses 1 and 14 in memory of Mr Kohli, and I would like hon. Members across the House to support them. They would place greater responsibility on child offenders and the parents of child offenders. New clause 1 would require the Secretary of State to undertake an assessment of the effectiveness and use of parental orders throughout the justice system. For hon. Members who do not know, parental orders are measures that either require parents of child offenders to pay for their children’s crimes, or force them to attend parenting classes. Yet, despite those powers being on the statute book, they are rarely used. In fact, the Ministry of Justice confirmed that their use has decreased from over 1,000 in 2010 to just 27 in recent years. That is woefully inadequate. These measures are designed not to punish, but to support; to help families restore discipline and stability; and to prevent the next crime before it happens. Susan put it to me that if the parents of the two individuals in this case were placed under parental orders, they would perhaps appreciate the damage and impact that their negligent behaviour has caused. The fact that one of the parents recently asked for their child’s tag to be removed so that they could go on a family holiday is shameful. New clause 14 would bring an end to anonymity protections for young offenders who commit the most heinous and serious crimes. I believe in deterrence, and I believe that when an individual commits an act so vile and abhorrent, the full weight of justice must be felt, including being named publicly. The boy—15 years old by the time of the trial—should not be shielded. Our judicial system should not protect those who have shown such disregard for human life; they should be named, just as Axel Rudakubana was following a court order, and as Mohammed Umar Khan was last week. New clause 14 is simple: if an individual under the age of 18 commits a serious crime, they will be named—no ifs, no buts. In my eyes, if someone is old enough to commit such an appalling crime, they are old enough to face the full consequences of their actions.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Sentencing Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. My hon. Friend mentions the rumours that the Government are planning to lower the voting age, and it would seem contradictory to have two ages of responsibility. I will turn now to new clause 18, tabled my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan). It is shocking that the girl who was with the 14-year-old boy, and who egged him on to commit the assault—quite literally to kill a man—did not receive a custodial sentence. Sentencing guidelines make it nearly impossible for individuals of that age to receive a custodial sentence. But what can we in this House do about that? The answer is “very little” because we have an unelected and unaccountable quango determining sentencing guidelines, rather than democratically elected Members in this place. That is wrong and must change. We must abolish the Sentencing Council and restore democratic accountability to our judicial system to promote equality before the law and ensure that serious crimes are treated with the tough punishment that they deserve, irrespective of a defendant’s sob story. Crime is crime. That is why I also support new clauses 17 and 19, which would ensure tough sentences for those who commit sexual abuse or murder. I also support new clause 21, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), which would deliver a powerful message: someone who takes a life through dangerous or reckless driving should forfeit the privilege of driving. It would prioritise public safety and provide justice for families who have lost loved ones, like my constituent Emma Johnson who lost her parents to the actions of a careless driver. I sincerely hope that the Government support the amendments. We in this place must ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.

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

  More

  This debate captures the key difference between Conservatives and the Labour party, because we on the Conservative Benches believe in people. We believe in their talent, their drive, their hopes and their aspirations. By contrast, the Labour party likes to box people in, to restrict, to regulate and to let the state determine every aspect of their lives. We on this side of the House believe in setting people free to work hard, to achieve and to build their own future. Let us unleash the power of individual freedom. Let us unleash the energy of the maker and of enterprise. Above all, let us unleash the unstoppable force of aspiration across every part of the UK. The word “aspiration” runs through the very DNA of the Conservative party. It is who we are, from delivering educational reforms and promoting social mobility to delivering a property-owning democracy.

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

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for putting that on record. I am not confident that this Labour Government understand aspiration, because they simply cannot comprehend the politics of people wanting to better themselves, their families and their communities. Sadly, they actually fear aspiration, and that is why this Labour Government are the most anti-aspirational Government in living memory. They have strangled the jobs market and they have sent unemployment rates soaring. That is the direct result of their punishing employer national insurance hikes, and their reckless unemployment rights Bill is striking fear into businesses up and down the country as they question whether to take a punt on recruiting new people, particularly young people. The Government have caved in to the hard left on much-needed reforms to the welfare system—a system that should reward hard work and not entrench state dependency. As is always the case with a Labour Government, they invariably side with the shirkers and not with the strivers. Sadly, they have driven our economy into a full-blown doom loop: a cycle of ever-increasing taxes, rising inflation and net zero growth. Every hard-working family in Mid Leicestershire is paying the price for this Government’s failure, but what is most damaging of all is not the economic damage; it is the lack of a can-do attitude that they are instilling in our young people.