Youth Unemployment

Debate between Peter Bedford and Lewis Cocking

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Sentencing Bill

Debate between Peter Bedford and Lewis Cocking

Report stage
Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Bedford]

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.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent and passionate speech. Does he agree that the Government should consider supporting new clause 14 and removing anonymity for young people who commit such serious crimes, because they are looking to reduce the voting age to 16? We should talk about when people in this country become adults. They should not be protected if they commit such serious crimes.

[Mr Bedford]

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.

Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill

Debate between Peter Bedford and Lewis Cocking

2nd reading
Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I would like to echo many of the points raised by the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). Like her, I am a conditional supporter of the Bill. While I welcome its intent, I would like to raise a few questions regarding its implementation and its true impact on reducing fraud and error in the system.

Conservative Members understand three core principles: the importance of promoting personal responsibility, the importance of law and order, and of course, the importance of reducing the burden of an overreaching state and ensuring that taxpayers’ money is spent efficiently. I am therefore pleased that by introducing this legislation, the Secretary of State appears to have accepted the long-standing arguments made by Conservative Members. The Bill, much like the previous Government’s policy paper, is both necessary and overdue. It is a scandal that fraud and error in the DWP benefits system has reached such levels. Since the pandemic, the UK taxpayer has overpaid £8 billion due to a lack of proper provision for the DWP to thoroughly investigate cases of fraud and error.

This Bill maintains the focus of the previous Government’s policy paper on fighting fraud in the system. Under the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the DWP saw a 10% drop in fraud and error in the system, which led to savings of over £2 billion between 2022 and 2024. That was achieved through the Department recruiting over 2,000 review agents and hiring 1,400 counter-fraud professionals. Unfortunately, due to time constraints at the end of the last parliamentary Session, my right hon. Friend was unable to carry out the modernisation of information-gathering powers or to broaden the scope of cases that could lead to civil penalties. I have no doubt that, had those Conservative policies been fully implemented, fraud and error levels would be lower than they are now.

Turning to the Bill, although I support its principles, I seek clarification from the Secretary of State on several key points. First, can the Secretary of State guarantee that this Bill will not distract her and the Department from much-needed reforms to benefit conditionality, including work on health assessments and increasing incentives for people to find work?

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent contribution and I support what he is saying. We must get benefit fraud down and I support some of the measures in the Bill. On the point he has just raised, does he agree that this is only one side of the coin in dealing with benefits in this country? Of course, we must do everything we can to get benefit fraud down, but the other side of the coin is encouraging people to go back to work, because the best form of welfare is having a well-paid job.

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree with all the sentiments my hon. Friend has expressed. Getting a job is the best route out of poverty, and it is the best route to ensuring that we have a more socially mobile society.

Secondly, my instinctive belief in personal liberty means that I believe provisions allowing access to individual bank accounts must be handled with caution. Can the Secretary of State therefore confirm that such measures will be used only as a last resort, and that the independent person appointed by the Cabinet Office will be given full oversight and will report transparently on the use of these powers?

Thirdly, the Bill proposes the restriction of driving licences for those committing fraud against the DWP, but what alternative deterrents does the Secretary of State propose for those who do not drive? His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Child Maintenance Service already have these powers. I would like to see the independent person assess whether these measures are as impactful at the DWP.

Fourthly, Gareth Davies, the Comptroller and Auditor General at the National Audit Office, wrote last year that the forecast

“shows that DWP no longer expects Universal Credit fraud and error to return to the levels seen before…the COVID-19 pandemic”.

In response, the DWP explained that this was because there has been an “increasing propensity” for deceit across British society. I do hope that the Secretary of State will push back against this defeatist culture in the DWP and that my constituents in Mid Leicestershire do not continue to foot an astronomical bill for people committing fraud in the Department.

Finally, to gauge the correct path when dealing with fraud and error in the system, will the independent person conduct a review to determine whether the provisions in this Bill are just as effective as the Conservative policies of the previous Government?

In conclusion, as a Conservative, I support the intent of this Bill. It is shocking that fraud and error are at current levels. However, I urge the Secretary of State to work collaboratively with Members across the House to ensure that individual freedoms are respected, that the Bill does not distract from wider welfare reforms and that its measures deliver a long-term reduction in the welfare bill.