Crime and Policing Bill

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 18th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

On 30 April 1999, three nail bombs went off in London, killing four and injuring 140. One of them exploded at Brick Lane, the hub of London’s Bengali community; one exploded in Soho, at the Admiral Duncan pub, the heart of London’s gay district; and one exploded in Brixton, in an attack on south London’s black community. The sick terrorist who committed those evil acts was motivated by hatred. He hated Bengalis and black people because of their race. He hated LGBT people because of who they love and how they live their lives. He hated those groups because they were different from him. He hated them because of who they are.

I raise that appalling incident to remind the House that hatred comes in many forms, but whoever in our society it is against, we must all stand equally strongly against it. We must have hate crime laws that show that whether the hatred is for someone’s race, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability, Britain is a country that will not tolerate it; that all hatred is equal; and that all those who commit vile acts of hatred will face the same grave consequences.

I regret to say that that is not currently the case. Today the law recognises five categories of hate crime—race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity and disability—but only two, race and religion, are treated as aggravated offences subject to stronger sentencing powers; the other three are not. That discrepancy cannot be right. We cannot say, as a society, that some forms of hatred are more evil than others.

I was at university when section 28 was introduced—I remember it vividly. It was more than a law; it was an attack on the right of people like me to live openly. It stigmatised lesbians, gays and bisexual people; and it pushed us out of public life. I went into politics to fight that cruel law and everything it represented.

Hate corrodes our entire society. It does not just harm the individuals who are targeted; it creates fear—fear to go outside, fear to speak up, fear to be seen. It silences people. It makes us all afraid. Research by Stonewall found that less than half of LGBT+ people felt safe holding their partner’s hand in public. That is the impact that the fear of hatred has on people. It makes them afraid even to show the world that they exist.

Unfortunately, far too many recorded crimes never result in charges. Of 11,000 disability hate crimes recorded by police, 320 led to prosecutions. Of 22,000 homophobic hate crimes, 3,118 led to prosecutions. Of 4,000 hate crimes against transgender people, only 137 led to prosecutions. Behind those statistics are real people, whose scars may heal on the outside but who may never recover from the fear and trauma that they have suffered.

In 2024, a teenage far-right extremist was jailed for targeting and attacking a transgender woman. Along with another young man, he kicked her to the ground in a park in Swansea and hurled transphobic abuse at her. In 2022, Cassie, a PhD student and wheelchair user, was waiting outside a shop when two drunk men grabbed her wheelchair, pushed her down the road and made sexual comments. She had to escape by rolling into traffic.

We must fight back against this hatred. We must show that we are not content to stick with the status quo. The victims of these attacks deserve to live in a society that says that we take this hatred seriously and will not stand for it. Victims must be at the heart of our criminal justice system, and we must ensure that laws protect them. That is why my new clause 122 is so important.

LGBT and disabled people tell me that they do not feel as safe as they used to. We are seeing rising transphobia everywhere. Pride flags are being taken down at county halls, and some politicians are openly questioning whether disabilities are even real. I am proud that Labour, in our manifesto, committed to equalising our hate crime laws by making hate crimes against LGBT people and disabled people aggravated offences. I am proud to be bringing forward that change through new clause 122. I hope that I can persuade all my parliamentary colleagues to support the new clause today, and to take this important step forward for equal rights.

I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball) for standing shoulder to shoulder with me throughout this process, and I urge the House to support the new clause.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

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

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Member makes an important point. Often, particularly for older people, the way in which the bikes are used is just dangerous. The deliberate ramping up of the noise to intimidate and scare people is disgraceful antisocial behaviour. That is why we are increasing policing powers and why we want to work with policing on things like the drone use and other measures to tackle antisocial behaviour.

Asylum Seeker Hotel Accommodation: Reopening

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jack Rankin]

It is a privilege to speak on an issue that I know is important to the British public and needs to be urgently addressed by the Government. It is great to see colleagues here from all sides of the House.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

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?

[Jack Rankin]

I was trying to be generous in my remarks, but I think the point has been made for the record.

This issue is emblematic of the failure of our current immigration system. I will accept, for the Minister, that this is a failure of both sides of the House, but I would say that it is deteriorating under the new Government. The issue cuts through with the public because it is so visible. These are not detention centres in specific coastal areas or on the fringes of our towns. They are often hotels at the very heart of our communities throughout the country—north, south, east, west, rich and poor. Constituents can see how their taxes are being misspent and how their borders are being mismanaged, and they mark the state’s homework. Why are we allowing tens of thousands of people to enter this country illegally each year? Why are we entertaining a farcical so-called asylum system benefiting only those who break the law, and lawyers funded by taxpayers?

Datchet is a lovely Thameside village in my constituency, of about 4,000 people. At its heart is an old-fashioned village green with a church, a pub and—unusually for a village that size—a hotel. The hotel is enabled by Windsor castle being less than a mile and a half away. Datchet sits on the north bank of the Thames, and literally just the other side of the river is Home Park, the private area of Windsor castle, where both Their Majesties and Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales live. In November that hotel—the Manor hotel—was reopened at great public expense to 85 “single adult males” who in my view are illegal economic migrants. If they are in such a location as Datchet, a mile from Windsor castle, then they are everywhere.

The Manor hotel is just one of 14 asylum hotels that have opened since the election, evidence of Labour’s broken manifesto pledge to close such hotels. With 220 hotels around the country now being used for such asylum accommodation, I am told that one in three Members of Parliament will be dealing with this problem. That shows just how endemic it is. This reopening was thrust upon my constituents with just 24 hours’ notice. Commandeering hotels at such notice without consultation requires some efficiency. Just imagine if that pace and efficiency could be used to deport these very migrants.

That is to say nothing of the detrimental effect such a change can have on local pride and community cohesion. With 85 adult men in a small village of 4,000 with no warning and no information provided about who they are and where they came from—if any vetting at all has been done—my residents, and the constituents of Members across the House, are right to be concerned. When the hotel was previously open for a public meeting, residents raised numerous concerns about antisocial behaviour associated directly with the hotel, including verbal abuse, public defecation and the photographing of children outside schools. These are the real-life impacts of this effective asylum amnesty.

I have since pressed the Minister in the main Chamber to provide my constituents with a timescale for the ending of the misuse of the Manor hotel, but my question was brushed aside, as many similar questions posed by colleagues on this topic have been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jess Phillips]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to Stay Safe East, one of very few specialist disability and domestic abuse charities. Without “by and for” services, we simply would not be serving most of the women in our country who need support.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

A report published today shows that 60,000 hours are taken up each year investigating non-crime hate incidents. Does the Minister agree that confidence in the police could be restored if they prioritised their time and resources to investigate actual crime rather than hurt feelings?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

This Government have made very clear what our priorities are around safer streets and where the focus should be for policing: on halving knife crime and halving violence against women and girls over the next decade. The Home Secretary has also been very clear that a common-sense approach must be taken to non-crime hate incidents. We will work with the inspectorate and the College of Policing on the matter.