Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Bedford Excerpts(4 days, 17 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
With the number of young people not in education, employment or training hovering at the 1 million mark, apprenticeships now more than ever are key to supporting opportunity and aspiration for so many of our young people. Conservative Members fundamentally believe that the best path out of poverty is being in work and contributing to society, with all the economic freedoms that a job brings. Given that the number of apprenticeships in the Secretary of State’s own Department dropped from 5,000 in 2024 to 3,500 in 2025, is it not the case that the Government’s message to business is, “Do as we say, but not as we do”?
Pat McFadden
I agree with the shadow Minister that work is the answer. As I said a moment ago, apprenticeship starts are up on the latest figures and apprenticeship achievement rates are up. The reforms that we are putting in place will mean more youth apprenticeship starts, and that is where the money should be directed, because that is where the need is greatest.
Draft Chemicals (Health and Safety) (Amendment, Consequential and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026
Peter Bedford Excerpts(1 week, 3 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for such a comprehensive run-through of those regulations and the changes proposed. I can confirm that the Opposition will not oppose the changes today; we believe, fundamentally, that overbearing and unnecessary red tape should be removed wherever possible. It is worth celebrating the fact that a Government rumoured to be exploring a path back into the EU are taking advantage of one of the benefits of being outside the EU to make these changes.
The statutory instrument amends three pieces of retained EU law. Those changes are proportionate and grounded in the recommendations of the Health and Safety Executive. Collectively, they will help ensure a regulatory system that supports the economy while protecting people and the environment. However, I will briefly outline why we support each of the changes.
First, the amendments to the Great Britain biocidal products regulation are simply common sense. Extending the expiry dates of 173 already approved biocidal products ensures continuity for businesses and avoids needless costs to manufacturers. These products are safe, so we completely agree that, to avoid disruption, that is the right thing to do.
Secondly, the changes to the classification, labelling and packaging regulation are a step in the right direction. They reduce the time taken for the HSE to make classification decisions, and streamline the process.
Thirdly, the changes to the prior informed consent regulation are another simplification of rules and remove overbearing requirements for exporting purposes. This is exactly the kind of regulatory reform that businesses want, and one that, we hope, will lead to growth. I hope the Government will carry out this red tape-cutting exercise across broader areas of the economy.
We will not oppose the SI today. We believe in supporting innovation, and reducing burdens on business, to drive economic growth in the future.
Draft National Employment Savings Trust (Amendment) Order 2026
Peter Bedford Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. As with many areas of Government policy, there is a degree of consensus across the House; the draft order is no different, and the official Opposition will not oppose it today.
Auto-enrolment, alongside the creation of NEST, was an obvious achievement of the Cameron Government. It marked a fundamental shift in how people across the country look at retirement, encouraging millions to save and take long-term financial planning seriously. The liberalisation of one of the NEST pension schemes by enabling flexi-access drawdown is a logical next step. It aligns with the broader principle of pension freedoms introduced under previous Conservative Governments and represents a positive development for workers and savers within NEST.
However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points with the Minister. First, the pensions industry is uncomfortable with the significant use of secondary legislation in the Pension Schemes Bill, but we are where we are with that. Secondly, as I have touched on, the official Opposition strongly support the principle of pension freedoms. With that in mind, will the Minister revisit previous amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would allow greater access to pension savings for the purpose of obtaining financial advice? Perhaps even more radically, will he introduce the sidecar savings pot discussed during consideration of the Bill? People under the age of 57 sometimes fall back on that in hard times.
Finally, while reforms to promote pension freedoms are a positive step, the situation ultimately depends on the adequacy of savings and investment performance. Where individuals have not saved enough or where returns have fallen short, those freedoms risk offering a limited practical benefit. Could the Minister update the House on what steps the Government are taking to increase auto-enrolment contribution rates, and will he give a clear assurance that the Government will not use the so-called “reserve power” in the Pension Schemes Bill in a way that prioritises public finances at the expense of individuals’ pension pots?
The Opposition will not be opposing the statutory instrument, but I emphasise that cross-party co-operation has long been the foundation of successful pensions policy. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to listen to Opposition parties and the industry to reconsider the inclusion of any form of mandation clauses in the Pension Schemes Bill.
Pension Schemes Bill
Peter Bedford ExcerptsWednesday 15th April 2026
(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2026 View all Pension Schemes Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 15 April 2026 - large print - (15 Apr 2026)
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
Who knew that the Pension Schemes Bill would become so controversial? It is a Bill on which there was so much consensus; a Bill begun by one party in government and now being continued by another; a Bill that could have sailed through Parliament. But no, that was not to be, because the Government had an idea—a bad idea. Labour saw £400 billion-worth of pension funds, the savings built up through years of successful auto-enrolment, and it was tempted. We can picture Labour Members looking at the pensions piggybank and saying to each other, “Just imagine what we could do with that money—we could perhaps put it towards some of the Energy Secretary’s net zero schemes.” They have taxed the country to the hilt, they cannot bring themselves to make savings on welfare, and they have run the Treasury dry, so now they are coming for pensions.
Labour snuck in the power that we talk about as mandation under the auspices of a backstop to the voluntary Mansion House agreement. Well, well, well. It really did not have to be this way. If only the Pensions Minister had been a little more receptive to suggestions from other parties or from the pension sector itself. It is hard to find anyone who supports his mandation policy. Pensions UK, the Pensions Management Institute, the Association of British Insurers, Aviva and BlackRock—I could go on—are all against mandation, as are any number of economists and respected voices, from Paul Johnson to Dominic Lawson, and even the Minister’s former colleague Ed Balls. In the other place, noble Lords in their droves have sought to expose this policy for what it is. He should have listened to their debate, as I did, but listening may not be something he likes to do. He even blocked one respected industry voice, Tom McPhail, on social media when Tom simply called out mandation for what it is: a dangerous power grab by the Government.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Is not the hallmark of every Labour Government that they end up running out of other people’s money? When they do that, they end up borrowing. When that runs dry, they end up eyeing up our pensions, as Gordon Brown did. My constituents and many people who contact me are deeply concerned by the mandation powers in the Bill and the impact those will have on their savings. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a real concern? Many people up and down the country are outraged by these powers and what the Government could do with their money.
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is exactly right. Sometimes the Pensions Minister talks about this all as being technicalities, but the fact is that the Government are coming after people’s hard-earned savings, and the public can see it. The Government think it is a pension pot they can mess with. We know that it is people’s own savings. The Government do not know best. [Interruption.] The Minister should not just listen to us; he should listen to the noble Lords in the other place.
The Minister has returned to this House after suffering 12 defeats in the other place. That is what happens when a Government put their fingers in their ears. This situation is entirely of the Pensions Minister’s own making, because there is a great deal of common ground here. Across this House, we want pensions policy to move forward. We have shared ambitions for our pension system, such as boosting pension pots through increased pension scheme scale and a greater focus on returns, rather than minimising costs. We want greater transparency and consumer engagement in the size and performance of pension pots and a system that works better for people with terminal illness. Despite all the consensus, the Minister’s Bill is still far from the finish line.
Returning to Lords amendment 1, which the Government are seeking to eject from this Bill, relates to the mandation powers. I have no disagreement with the objectives of the voluntary Mansion House agreement. On the contrary, I want to see more investment in the UK and higher returns for savers in default pension schemes, and there is widespread support for those objectives, but even the Minister should have realised that he could not get away with saying that the provision is just a backstop to the Mansion House agreement when the mandation power in his Bill was so glaringly different. Back in December last year, I warned him that mandation would not wash, but he did not listen. That is why I have fought mandation every step of the way, along with the pension sector, my colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lords in the other place, who resoundingly rejected it.
The Minister is back here with his tail between his legs, and he has changed his tune from, “It’s all fine, nothing to see here”; he reluctantly tabled three amendments last week. I recognise the direction that the Government are trying to move in. They are reining in the power that they are taking, and trying to make it look more aligned with the voluntary Mansion House accord. The fundamental problem remains unresolved, however, because at its core, the Bill still gives the Government the power to direct the investment of people’s pension savings, and that, as a matter of principle, is wrong.
Youth Unemployment
Peter Bedford Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Pat McFadden
I welcome my hon. Friend’s question and her praise for the great city of Newcastle, which I am sure we would all echo. On small and medium-sized businesses, she is right that we need to ensure that the systems are as easy to use as possible. There is a real direction of help in the package to small and medium-sized businesses, particularly with the hiring bonus for young apprentices. That is perhaps why the Federation of Small Businesses has described this programme as a “game changer” and a “decisive step forward.”
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
This is a socialist economic statement. If it moves, the Government tax it; if it keeps moving, they regulate it; and if it stops moving, they subsidise it. Will the Secretary of State accept that his national insurance rises, the changes to business rates and the “unemployment” rights Act have contributed to the hostile environment to employing young people?
Pat McFadden
I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s description of this statement will do me good or harm among my right hon. and hon. Friends, but once again he makes the mistake of assuming that this problem is something that happened only in the last 18 months, which is where the Conservative party is going wrong. It is a long-term and deep-rooted problem. We need a different approach to tackle it, and that is why we need to offer hiring bonuses to businesses and to redirect the apprenticeship system to help young people, precisely because of the long-term scarring effects of young people being out of a job for any length of time. That can mean worse mental and physical health and, in some cases, even lower life expectancy than their peers in work. We have brought forward this package of measures today because of our concerns about that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Bedford Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
When this Government came into office, unemployment stood at 4.2%. After a brutal 18 months of job-destroying, anti-business, anti-growth policies, it now stands at 5.2%, with young people bearing the brunt—1 million of them are not in employment, education or training. We Conservatives believe in being in work and off welfare, and that is the best path to eradicating poverty. Will the Secretary of State break with the mistakes of all previous Labour Governments and commit that unemployment will be lower at the end of this Parliament than it was at the start?
Pat McFadden
I believe this may be the first time that the hon. Member has appeared at the Dispatch Box in his capacity as shadow Minister—if I am wrong about that, I am sorry; but if I am right, I welcome him to his position. He asks about the forecast for the future. It was published alongside the spring statement a couple of weeks ago, and in it the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast employment to rise in every year of the forecast period.
Youth Unemployment
Peter Bedford Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
I turn 40 next week. I hope that does not render me too old to highlight the realities faced by some of our young people. They feel let down and some even speak of intergenerational unfairness. The facts are stark: youth unemployment is rising, home ownership feels out of reach, NEET levels are at unprecedented highs, and youth savings are almost non-existent. By any serious measure, being a young person in Britain today is getting harder and harder.
It is therefore no surprise that since the general election, support for the Labour party among 18 to 24-year-olds has halved. The Government simply do not understand aspiration, personal freedom or opportunity, and young people in Mid Leicestershire and across the country are increasingly starting to realise that. On the Conservative Benches, we understand that promoting aspiration, freedom and opportunity is the best path out of poverty and to improving social mobility—and, indeed, getting on in life. Put simply, we must help our young people to help themselves.
It is a shocking indictment of this Government’s economic policies—the rise in national insurance, the burdensome regulations of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the utter decimation of our hospitality sector—that youth unemployment now stands at above 700,000, with NEETs close to 1 million. Even our brightest graduates are struggling to find work. That is unsettling for young people and it is holding back their potential.
Hon. Members should not just take my word for it. Earlier this week, I hosted the Institute for Hospitality here in Parliament. Delegates told me that the sector has lost over 100,000 jobs, many of which are traditionally taken up by young people at the very start of their careers. So I ask the House: what message does that send to young people? We should be offering them opportunities, not giving them their P45s. This is a betrayal of the next generation. Young people do not want a life on handouts; they want a chance to stand on their own two feet.
Sadly, personal responsibility means very little to this Government. Surely, it is the Government’s duty to send a positive message to our young people that through hard work, determination and responsibility they can achieve economic freedom and success. They can own their own home, they can have that nice car and they can take those family holidays. They can build a life that they want through their own graft, which they and their family can be proud of. It is increasingly clear that it is only us on the Conservative Benches who understand that. We are on the side of hard-pressed taxpayers.
Lewis Cocking
My hon. Friend does not look a day over 30, so it cannot be his 40th birthday coming up.
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to go further? Of course we need economic growth. We need to tax jobs less and let the people outside create that economic growth, but we also need to look at the education system so that we prepare young people better when they leave education for the world of work. That is what employers are crying out for.
Mr Bedford
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Another campaign I have been articulating is on financial education. That is also key to unlocking opportunity for many of our young people.
Only us Conservatives believe in young people. We are on the side of hard-pressed taxpayers, we are on the side of small businesses, and now more than ever we are on the side of young people. I am a Conservative because I believe that economic freedom comes through hard work.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Bedford Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
As a result of this Government’s economic vandalism, unemployment continues to rise, particularly among young people and those with disabilities. Now more than ever, it is crucial that we support people back into work, but the Access to Work scheme is overly bureaucratic and faces significant delays. Indeed, at the weekend, one of my constituents told me they had been asked by a Department official to fill in a fraudulent timesheet in order to be paid on time. What is the Minister doing to get this programme back on track so that disabled people have the support they deserve and are contributing to the broader economy?
Dame Diana Johnson
As I just set out to the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick), there have been some problems with Access to Work, but it is this Government who are dealing with them. We have already put in resources, with a particular focus on individuals who are moving into work to make sure they get access to whatever support they need. Again, I am very happy to provide further details of what additional support we have put in, but it is this Government who are actually dealing with these problems and ensuring that people with disabilities and long-term health conditions have what they need to support them into work and to keep them in work.
Oral Answers to Questions
Peter Bedford Excerpts(4 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Pat McFadden)
We inherited from the Conservative party a welfare system that forced too many people out of work and on to long-term benefits, while leaving millions of children in poverty. We have begun to address that through reforms to universal credit, increased employment support, more help for children in poverty and, now, a youth guarantee to offer work and training to young people who are unemployed.
Pat McFadden
The Conservative party watched the number of those who are not in education, employment or training grow year by year and did nothing about it. The hon. Lady will find that, at the Budget a couple of weeks ago, the Office for Budget Responsibility projected that the levels of people in employment will rise in every year of the forecast.
Mr Bedford
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?
Pat McFadden
The hon. Gentleman will find that the welfare budget had risen three times as fast as a proportion of GDP as it is projected to rise under this Government. We have begun to make changes through the reform to universal credit—that is more change in the system than his party introduced in many years—and, critically, to employment support for both the long-term sick and disabled and the young unemployed.
Welfare Spending
Peter Bedford Excerpts(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
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.
Mr Charters
First, I congratulate the hon. Member, because I think his audience here in the Chamber is bigger than his party leader’s for her speech on welfare earlier today. Could he look back to his party’s record in government when it comes to the NHS? As the intelligent man I think he is—I consider him a friend—does he agree that larger NHS waiting lists, which his party left, increase the benefit bill? Does he agree with that easy-to-accept premise?
Mr Bedford
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.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
Conservative Members talking about what they would do in government is like me talking about having the ability to take a penalty in a world cup final. The Conservatives left us with 1.4 million PIP claimants for mental health reasons and 1.2 million on mental health waiting lists—that is 217,000 people in the midlands, where the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is.
Mr Bedford
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.
Jerome Mayhew
The Minister for Social Security and Disability, who is no longer in his place, was in the extraordinary position of starting a debate arguing that he needed to save £4.5 billion and ending the debate saying he needed to spend an additional £300 million. Was that not a bit odd?
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
On the two-child benefit cap, will the hon. Member give way?
Antonia Bance
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Do some children deserve to go hungry?
Mr Bedford
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.
Antonia Bance
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr Bedford
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.