Blake Stephenson MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered planning and development in Bedfordshire. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. Mid Bedfordshire—indeed, all of Bedfordshire —has played its part in delivering new housing. My constituency was once home to the world’s largest brickworks at Stewartby. Our communities bear testament to our brickmaking history, with former clay pits now finding new life as lakes and homes for nature in the Marston Vale forest, and with former industrial sites, including the brickworks at Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick, set to be repurposed as places to deliver the homes and jobs of the future. In the past month we have also had confirmation of the Luton airport expansion, the announcement of the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick in my constituency, and the publication of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. That comes on top of the recent announcement of East West Rail, work being done to develop local plans in all three of our council areas— I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a Central Bedfordshire councillor—and the work of the Government’s new towns taskforce. In this debate, I hope to highlight the ways in which the planning system can help shape the future of our communities in Bedfordshire, and some of the things that my constituents need assurance on from Government. I want to be clear at the start: I am not a nimby or a blocker, but if the Government are serious about building houses and critical infrastructure, we need to ensure that we do so in a way that is future-proof and resilient. We need to turn blockers into builders, rather than create a new generation of blockers. In my experience, most of the people whom this Government have labelled as blockers are not ideological obsessives standing in front of the bulldozers of progress; they are people fed up with bad development. They are fed up of developers throwing up housing estates but not building communities, of soulless developments that could be found anywhere, and, most importantly, of developments that worsen quality of life.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister take this opportunity to talk about building on flood plains? He may be coming on to this matter, but it is close to the hearts of my constituents and, particularly, constituents in North Bedfordshire. It is important that we do not build houses in areas that are going to flood.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend—

• 23 Apr 2025 · Planning and Development: Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. There is a lot of support for brownfield-first development, but also for gently densifying our towns and cities so that we have houses where people want to live within the existing infrastructure. The Government have been elected with a clear mandate to build, build, build, and I accept that. But I hope that they will do the hard yards to plan, plan, plan, and ensure that the 1.5 million houses that they build are the right houses in the right places, as part of the right communities and with the right infrastructure. It is in that spirit that I bring forward this debate, because Bedfordshire is not a place that is standing still. I congratulate the Government on completing the negotiations, begun by the previous Government, to secure the new Universal UK theme park at Kempston Hardwick. That will be a game changer for our local economy, and I will continue to support the Government, Universal and our councils as it progresses through the planning system, but to maximise its potential, it will be important to get the infrastructure right. That means we need to plan for the planes, trains, automobiles and accommodation. Through the planning system, we need to see work done to deliver the right accommodation that will be available in Bedfordshire for people to come and stay, hopefully to enjoy Universal and then stay a while in our towns and villages, spending their time and money enjoying everything that Bedfordshire has to offer. As I noted earlier, I understand that Government have a mandate to “just get on and build”. I have some sympathy for their frustration with Members of Parliament like me who they see as trying to put the brakes on that ambition, but I hope the Minister will recognise that that is not my intention. I believe as fervently as he does that we need to deliver new homes for young people growing up right across Britain, but I believe we must do so in a way that is sensitive to our countryside and our communities, and that delivers the right homes in the right places with the right infrastructure. The current planning system is not working for anyone. Too often, it blocks good development and allows bad development—development that erodes local character, that builds houses but divides communities, and that comes without the right infrastructure, leaving new residents and old alike frustrated and unwilling to accept the further houses the Government want to deliver in their communities. As this Government’s planning reforms progress, I hope they will take time to consider how the planning system can more effectively protect the character of our towns and villages, and how it can seek to disarm those blockers that the Government are concerned about by addressing the things they are concerned about, not by tying their arms behind their backs. That is a harder job, I accept, but is anything that is worth doing in politics easy? In Bedfordshire, I would like to see the Government give us the tools through the planning system to protect everything that makes our communities such special places to live—protections for our historic character and our villages, protections for our beautiful and unique countryside against unending and unplanned urban sprawl, and protections for the great British pub; indeed, I would like to see more of them built as our communities expand. In Mid Bedfordshire, we have always done the right thing and taken our fair share of housing—we have even taken Luton’s surplus housing need. We have done everything we were supposed to do, but our communities suffer the effects of bad development. Still, residents in Maulden see development crawling even further up the slope of the Greensand ridge, as their flood risk steadily worsens. Still, residents in Wixams find themselves fighting for a GP surgery that no one locally seems keen to take ownership of. Still, residents find themselves fighting developers who are keen to pocket the profits of development but less keen to deliver on their promises of well-maintained green spaces, proper flood protections and local amenities.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency there is a particular problem of hyper-prolific shoplifting. There are no credible deterrents and it is a scourge on our local communities and shop owners. Can the Justice Secretary rule out any possibility of allowing career criminals to avoid prison, even for short sentences?

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Trump’s tariffs will make everyone poorer and are extremely disappointing, so is it noteworthy that Reform Members have not bothered to turn up to share in our disappointment? Our automative sector is already announcing closures and layoffs, including Stellantis in Luton, which has provided great jobs for my constituents for many years. In his review of the regulatory environment in response to these tariffs, will the Secretary of State ensure that it will be easier, not harder, to create jobs in the UK in future?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Since Bedfordshire was flooded in September, Ministers will know that I have been vocal about improving resilience, and the Government can do that in this Bill. New houses mean nothing if residents find themselves ankle-deep in water in their living rooms, as they did across the country last year. I want the measures on nature recovery to be strengthened to include explicit plans to deliver nature-based solutions to flooding. I want schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be brought into force to ensure that communities have the right protections from flooding. I want this Bill to give internal drainage boards more powers to take over the maintenance of infrastructure to protect people from flooding. If it does not, local authorities should have the enforcement powers to ensure that sustainable drainage is maintained. I also want to see more robust measures in this Bill ruling out development on floodplains, which goes to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). The Bill could make a real difference to our resilience to flooding, and I urge the Government not to miss this opportunity. Despite protections in the NPPF, we still see development in functional floodplains. Rivers were here before us; they do not know and they do not care that we are here. As the Dutch have done successfully, we need to make room for our rivers. We must get out of their way, with stronger protections against development in floodplains. I turn briefly to new towns, which are provided for in this legislation through development corporations. It will be important to ensure that those corporations have the power to deliver real places and communities, not just the cookie-cutter dormitory-on-trainline that developers might like to churn out for the highest possible profit margins. New towns should capture the essence and spirit of the communities into which they are sown, and they need to be beautiful, as the Deputy Prime Minister reflected on in her opening remarks. The Government should also address important questions that they are currently dodging on how these new towns will interplay with wider local development strategies. I am disappointed not to see some of that detail ironed out in this Bill. New towns will result in a double whammy of housing development for some communities, but we do not yet know exactly how damaging that might be. The Government are also yet to confirm whether the housing provided by new towns will count towards a five-year land supply, meaning that our communities could be forced to take far more housing than they need, without the right infrastructure, unless this Bill is strengthened. This Government talk about being on the side of the builders, not the blockers, but without improvements, I am afraid that the Bill is almost guaranteed to create a new generation of so-called blockers. Homes are needed so that young people who aspire to own their own home can do so. Most of the blockers, as this Government like to call them, are not standing in the way of progress: they are standing up for their communities against bad development.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a central Bedfordshire councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. There is much to welcome in this Bill, particularly its ambition to get nationally significant infrastructure built to support our country. While I disagree with the Government’s allocation of housing targets that favour building over our countryside, rather than the densification of our cities, where building homes would alleviate the worst of the acute housing crisis, I recognise the Government’s mandate to build 1.5 million homes and the need for ambitious planning reform. What are the Government doing to ensure that the 1.6 million homes with existing planning approval are built? I see nothing in this Bill. Mid Bedfordshire has done more than its fair share in recent years to accommodate new housing, with the boroughs of central Bedfordshire and Bedford growing by 16% and 18% respectively over 10 years. We are not anti-development, but some development has changed the character of our historical market towns and quiet rural villages forever. Development is increasing the flooding risk in Maulden in my constituency, where compounded up-slope development has exacerbated the impact of pluvial flooding. We have development that has not delivered long-promised infrastructure, such as in Wixams in my constituency—a development where shovels first went into the ground nearly two decades ago but residents are yet to see the delivery of a new GP surgery. It is because of such issues that communities have become hardened to the prospect of yet more building. This Government have a real opportunity, with thought and consideration, to create a planning system that people can have confidence in. Instead, people have been dismissed simply as blockers. The pensioners who fear a flood every time it rains—blockers. The young parents who cannot get to their GP because a surgery has not been built in their town—blockers. People with real, genuine concerns whom we in this House were elected to stand up for are not blockers, and this Bill could do much more for them.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for the tourism industry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and to introduce this debate during English Tourism Week, when people across the country will be celebrating all the fantastic tourism attractions that form part of the fabric of so many of our communities. They range from Land’s End to John O’Groats, from the Needles on the Isle of Wight to the neolithic site of Skara Brae in the Orkney Islands, and from the Titanic museum in Belfast to the Roman ruins of Colchester. Across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, we are fortunate to have unique and interesting tourism attractions. We have them in, I feel reasonably confident in saying, every constituency and every corner of the country. Tourism is a vast industry. It is worth £145.8 billion to the UK economy, which is equivalent to 6.5% of UK GDP. Tourism supports 3.8 million jobs, and 1.6 million people are directly employed in tourism. Some 328,000 businesses, representing 6.6% of all businesses in the UK, are tourism businesses; 76% of those are microbusinesses. Tourism is the UK’s sixth largest export earner and it feeds into a wide tourism ecosystem, supporting local high streets, hospitality and a wide range of other industries. This Government have an ambition for our country to reach 50 million tourism visitors a year. It is an ambition that I support, and I hope that in this debate we can examine the role that Government and we in this place can play in supporting tourism nationally and backing our tourism economies locally. I am aware that, as the Member of Parliament for Mid Bedfordshire, I might not be the most obvious voice for tourism in this place. Bedfordshire has been rather left behind by the tourism economy. We are one of the last counties in England without an official local visitor economy partnership. That is despite fantastic attractions such as English Heritage’s Wrest Park, Whipsnade Zoo and Woburn Safari Park—I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests following the safari park’s kind hosting of a roundtable and tour of the park for me earlier this year. We also have Center Parcs Woburn Forest, the Wyboston Lakes Resort, Luton Hoo and so much more. Anyone who watched my debate last year on tourism in Bedfordshire—I am glad to be debating with the Minister on tourism again—will have heard me extol the virtues of Bedfordshire as a place to visit. However, despite those fantastic attractions, our county has a domestic tourism economy of just £250 million and an international tourism economy of just £100 million. We are not a remote county; we have a major international airport, a motorway and a direct rail connection. Bedfordshire’s tourism economy has so much potential to be a key part of growing the economy. Where Bedfordshire has lagged, it now can lead. The Government have already thrown their weight behind East West Rail, which has the potential to make a real difference to local tourism, setting our county up as a central piece of an Oxford-to-Cambridge growth corridor that is full of growing businesses and, more importantly for this debate, attractions that embody what it is to be an English county. Like many other colleagues, we have fantastic opportunities in Bedfordshire to deliver new attractions that will boost our tourism economy. The Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park is one such opportunity, and would be capable of attracting 750,000 visitors, creating 1,000 jobs and bringing in an extra £26 million for our local economy. I will continue to bang the drum to get that delivered as quickly as possible. The other major tourism project in my constituency is the game changer. Looming like a monstrous shark off Amity Island, a prehistoric predator off the coast of Costa Rica or an Italian-American plumber in the Mushroom Kingdom, the Universal Studios theme park at Kempston Hardwick would transform the tourism landscape in Bedfordshire. Universal is a game changer for Bedfordshire, but also for the whole UK tourism economy. Getting it right represents a £50 billion economic boost, 20,000 new jobs and 12 million more visitors every year. This Government talk a good game on growth and on growing tourism, but the proof is in the pudding, and for this Government the pudding would have the words “Universal Studios Bedfordshire” written on it. I sincerely hope that they will get this over the line. With or without Universal, it has become clear that the support available from Government to promote our county is insufficient. Getting Bedfordshire an LVEP would help—indeed, getting an LVEP in all counties that are lagging behind would help enormously—but we must also ensure that tourism is a central consideration of English devolution. We must ensure that there is proper prioritisation in the minds of new mayors and proper funding from local government to allow our regions to shout about all the fantastic reasons to come and stay awhile. If the Government want to get tourism right, they must provide that funding centrally, and resist the urge to consider local tourism taxes as a silver bullet. For Government, local taxes have the allure of a problem handed down to devolved areas to handle, but they will make the UK even more uncompetitive, introducing additional costs and confusion for holidaymakers at home and abroad.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  He might.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  That is a fantastic idea. I was travelling just yesterday on the Eurostar and thinking to myself how great it would be if the train stopped at Ashford and Ebbsfleet and passengers could get off, having come from the Netherlands, to savour the delights of Kent, a county that I know very well. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; it is a fantastic idea. Perhaps the Minister will have an update on what is happening with Eurostar.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister, hon. Members and hon. Friends, who have joined me to debate the Government’s strategy to support the tourism industry. I was delighted to secure this important debate in English Tourism Week. I was even more delighted that Members from across the United Kingdom came and we learned all sorts of things about the United Kingdom —we did not just confine ourselves to England. This week we rightly celebrate the brilliant tourist attractions across our country. It is an opportune time for us as parliamentarians to reflect on the valuable contribution that tourism makes to our local economies. I very much enjoyed the tour we took through the UK this afternoon. I am not sure whether I would prefer to go dolphin spotting and whiskey drinking in Northern Ireland, and neither am I sure which order we are supposed to do those in, or go to the spa in Scotland—alone, perhaps, not with other Members. All of us in this place will have in our constituencies businesses, venues and attractions that benefit from a vibrant tourism economy. That is why I support the Government’s ambitions to achieve 50 million tourism visitors by 2030. I will be eagerly scrutinising the tourism strategy the Government will bring forward later this year and, from what I have heard today, the Minister will reflect on the points made as he brings together the strategy. I hope that that will include a reflection on the role of English devolution, on how the Government can help to increase the UK’s price competitiveness and on how his Department will work across Government to support the industry and ensure that we have the right business support. That particularly applies in the context of the increase to employers’ national insurance contributions and the other overheads that hospitality and leisure businesses are facing. I cannot conclude this debate without repeating my desire to work with Government to grow our tourism economy in Mid Bedfordshire and Bedfordshire as a whole. Universal’s proposed theme park in my constituency would absolutely turbocharge the local economy, and we must make sure the UK as a whole has the right strategy to take full advantage of it.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  It is important that local economies are balanced, and I recognise that in some parts of the country it feels like the economy is imbalanced. Perhaps there are communities suffering from too many tourists, and I am sure that hon. Members may talk about that in the context of Cornwall. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; it is important that we have balanced economies throughout the United Kingdom. However, tourism in the United Kingdom has the potential to grow without the negative consequences that Government Members may wish to talk about. The cost of tourism is already far too high. Evidence from the World Economic Forum puts the UK 113th out of 119 countries on price competitiveness. Our visitor visas are uncompetitive internationally: a 10-year visitor visa costs £962, but the United States charges Chinese visitors just £135 for a visa of the same length. Repeat visa applicants face a bureaucratic process that requires them to resubmit their biometrics, which is often a complex process for visitors from rural areas, who may need to travel significant distances to provide their biometrics. Lower-cost, longer-lasting and simpler visas will help to make the UK much more competitive as a tourism destination. Our international price competitiveness was already low before the Government hiked the price of electronic travel authorisations by 60%—a policy that they admit will cost the UK just over 100,000 visitors every year. That is 100,000 fewer people staying in the accommodation sector, eating and drinking in our pubs and restaurants, and enjoying everything great that Britain has to offer and recommending a visit to their friends back home. The Home Office estimates that that means a cost to the UK economy in the region of up to £734 million over five years—in the same breath as the Government talk about being a Government for growth and growing the tourism economy to 50 million visitors per year. If we are to achieve the Government’s goal of 50 million visitors per year, we need to make the UK more attractive to visitors at home and abroad, and less attractive as a source of revenue for the Treasury or local authorities. The evidence shows that for every 1% decrease in the cost of visiting the UK, the earnings of the UK’s inbound tourism economy increase by 1.3%. For every £74,300 increase in tourism revenue, a new full-time-equivalent job is created in tourism. Tourism is a growth-generating machine that the Government hold the keys to, but it is a machine that needs more careful maintenance than it is currently getting from this Government. Since the general election, businesses in tourism and its supporting industries have faced significant Government-imposed barriers to growth. Most notably, the Government’s decision to tax job creation and business expansion has left many tourism businesses putting their future plans on ice. Tourism businesses were already struggling, with 19% reporting that they are either in survival mode or performing quite badly. Profitability for tourism businesses is down. The decision to increase their employer’s national insurance, taxing them for creating jobs and helping to grow the economy, all while reducing business rates relief, will have a devastating impact on the industry. If our tourism businesses fall, the attractiveness of visiting the UK falls with them, and tourism businesses are already falling. Just this month we have seen a theme park in Wales closed, citing national insurance as a contributing factor. As I mentioned earlier, in Bedfordshire we hope to be in the business of opening theme parks, not seeing them slip away. We know that where tourism thrives, it benefits the whole of the local economy, from accommodation providers and high street shops to pubs, cafés, museums and restaurants. When tourism succeeds and grows, it brings the whole of the local economy with it. When tourism fails, it puts at risk not just the future of UK tourism and the Minister’s growth plan, but the whole ecosystem that it supports. The great British pub is a staple of British culture and a key attraction for visitors to the UK. Pubs like The Bell in Woburn, The Oddfellows Arms in Toddington and the Star and Garter in Silsoe are a key part of what makes Mid Bedfordshire a great place to spend time. One in four pubs believes their future may be untenable, and the Government’s £500 million hit to the cost of our pubs doing business will leave at least some of our destinations without the great British pub, something that is so attractive to visitors. I believe that the Minister is earnest in his desire to see 50 million visitors come to the UK each year, but I hope he will appreciate my concern that we need to do more to ensure that there are thriving businesses here to provide things for those visitors to see and do. I would like the Government to focus more on supporting our best visitor attractions, including the great British pub and the British high street. We must also ensure that the planning system protects and enhances our tourism offer. That means faster approvals for game changers such as Universal, so that we can continue to be a fantastic place for projects and investment, such as that proposed in my constituency. That will mean better transport infrastructure across the whole country.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Tourism Industry · Hansard source

  More

  He also might not. Let us see. Better transport infrastructure across the whole country would help our tourism industry, which would include Luton airport expansion in Bedfordshire—perhaps the Minister has an update on that; or maybe he does not. That will mean finding the right mixture of development in areas like mine to allow for some of the things that we need to take advantage of the opportunities of tourism. In particular, in Bedfordshire we need more accommodation to ensure that people stay awhile in our communities, rather than visiting for a day and going somewhere else for the bulk of their visit. We will also need to protect and enhance some of our beautiful countryside and landscapes, which distinguish our country and our counties from our international competitors. The Greensand Ridge national character area in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire is characterised by its ancient and modern woodlands, farms and parkland and the historic look and feel of its small settlements, often former estate villages. Many of those settlements are distinctive Bedfordshire “ends” villages—hamlets or small villages built in a line along the road—but development within the national character area is threatening the character of many of those small settlements. We must make sure that delivering new development does not come at the expense of maintaining our communities as places where people from far and wide will be able to feel a sense of unique local character and pride. If our countryside and our towns become identikit places that we could see anywhere, people who want to experience them can go anywhere. We must embrace what makes Britain, and in my case Bedfordshire, a great place to spend time. I hope it has come across in this debate that I wish the Government the very best in their ambition to deliver their national visitor economy strategy later this year and to achieve 50 million visitors per year. In me they will find a constructively critical friend willing to work across the House to deliver on the promise of the tourism industry for my local economy in Mid Bedfordshire and the UK’s economy as a whole. I hope that as the Minister continues to shape his thoughts on his strategy, he will consider my remarks in that spirit. I hope that his strategy will set out how the Government will protect and enhance the attractiveness of the UK offer to visitors from overseas and domestic holidaymakers. That means protecting the things that make Britain great, from the high street, the local pub and the beautiful countryside to the many set-piece tourist attractions that we are known for the world over. I hope that his strategy will also set out a coherent plan to make the UK more price competitive with our major international competitors. The Government cannot simply talk growth into being. It takes real decisions—tough decisions—on competing priorities to make the UK more competitive and bring about growth. I mentioned electronic travel authorisations, but the industry also raised with me things such as tax-free shopping, visa costs and air passenger duty in preparation for this debate. It is clear that more must be done to bring the cost of visiting the UK down to deliver growth in tourism. I hope that the Minister’s strategy will set out, alongside the work his colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are doing, how the Government’s plans for English devolution will empower local communities like mine to drive our local tourism agendas. In particular, I would like to see the completion of the roll-out of local visitor economy partnerships so that counties like Bedfordshire can take our place at the tourism table and shout more easily about all the fantastic things to come and do in our county. I would also like to see the new mayors and local authorities backed with a framework and real funding from Government to deliver local tourism strategies. I believe that it is desirable to tie all these strands together for the Government to commit to tourism as a priority. Including tourism in the industrial strategy and having a dedicated tourism Minister working cross-departmentally —not, as he currently is, a tourism Minister stretched across multiple portfolios and Departments—would be a positive first step towards that. Finally, the Minister knows that I cannot end my speech without a final expression of hope that we will one day be able to cut the ribbon on a new Universal Studios theme park at Kempston Hardwick in Mid Bedfordshire. I know the Government remain locked in negotiations with Universal, and both parties continue to have my full support to do whatever it takes to secure this fantastic investment in my community. I look forward to hearing ideas from colleagues about how we can best support our tourism industry across the United Kingdom.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  What are this Government doing to crack down on unqualified people representing themselves as solicitors?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Construction Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Level 7 apprenticeships play a vital role throughout our economy, including in the construction industry, and support social mobility. I recently met young, hard-working apprentices in Mid Bedfordshire who would not be able to achieve their ambitions without level 7, but there are concerns about the future of those apprenticeships. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure employers and apprentices that she understands the value of level 7 apprenticeships?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Housing Targets: New Towns Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  2. Whether the number of houses recommended by the new towns taskforce will be in addition to the housing targets set in the national policy planning framework.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Housing Targets: New Towns Taskforce · Hansard source

  More

  Communities in Mid Bedfordshire have always done their bit to take new housing, but continued pressure to build is chipping away at our beautiful countryside and the historical character of our towns and villages. Will the Minister assure communities such as mine that the new towns taskforce cannot hit us with a double whammy of house building?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am enjoying the hon. Member’s speech, and to give him a few moments to gather his thoughts, I remind him that new clause 1 would require a review of how many people receiving the new state pension at the full rate are liable to pay income tax this year and in the next four tax years, and specifically what the tax liability of state pension income will be. Would he care to provide the House with his thoughts on new clause 1?

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  2. What discussions the Church has had with the Government on the extension of the listed places of worship grant scheme.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  The extension of the scheme will be welcome news to those involved with churches such as St Botolph’s in Aspley Guise in Mid Bedfordshire. People there have told me of their concern about the lack of certainty for longer-term projects that may need support beyond 12 months. Will the Church Commissioner join me and other colleagues in pressing the Chancellor to provide longer-term funding certainty?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. Later, I will talk about the need for step-free access to Harlington and Flitwick stations, but that is necessary right across the country for the reasons the hon. Gentleman has set out. In this debate, I will focus on the Thameslink services on the Bedford line and east coast main line, which my constituents use regularly. Since I first moved to Mid Bedfordshire more than a decade ago, I have been a regular user of Thameslink, but it feels to me and many of the constituents I speak to about it that something has gone wrong. Overcrowded, standing-room-only carriages have become the norm. Too often, the timetable is merely a guideline, not a rulebook for when trains will arrive. We pay more and more each year for services that deliver less and less: a season ticket from Flitwick into Farrington costs about £5,500 per year. When this debate was selected, I launched a survey of local residents to hear about their experiences of travel on Thameslink. Fifty-seven per cent of respondents told me that they thought the service is poor, 80% told me that they had been impacted by a cancellation in the past month, and 88% told me that they had experienced a delay of more than 10 minutes. Those are not healthy statistics. I want to share some of the things that people in Mid Bedfordshire told me about the impact that the poor service is having on them. Callum from Flitwick told me: “Trains are subject to delays or cancellations at very short notice. On one occasion I was on the platform and the train was cancelled with only one or two minutes’ notice before it was due to arrive, even though Thameslink must have known it hadn’t left the previous station (Bedford) at least 10 minutes before it was due to arrive at Flitwick.” Tracey from Haynes would happily use the train from Flitwick to Gatwick, but it is too unreliable; they have to use the car instead. Kate told me that despite travelling just once or twice a week, she has had to make five delay repay claims in the past month. Stephanie from Flitwick told me: “This train service is appalling. We very nearly missed our eurostar despite leaving hours to spare. It’s got the stage that we dread using the service and are always worried about being stranded in London.” Ginette from Maulden noted: “Flitwick is often cancelled as a return stop from London where there have been delays. This is usually only advised once we are on the train leading to frustrated passengers disembarking at Luton.” I hope that these examples of the hundreds of comments that I have received from residents make the problem clear. Too often, Thameslink services are unreliable, late or cancelled, and too often my constituents are stranded when their stop is cancelled while they are sat on a Thameslink train. Too often, taking the train is simply not an option for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It should not be this way. For commuters in Flitwick and Harlington, the frustration of unreliable services is compounded by the frustration caused by Network Rail’s failure to deliver step-free access programmes at pace. If we want people to use the train, we must make it easier for them to do so. For too long, things have not been getting better. In 2008, a commuter getting the 7.41 am train from Flitwick could expect to arrive at London St Pancras at 8.32 am. Nearly 20 years later, the timetable has no more stations, but commuters on the 7.41 am from Flitwick can expect to arrive at St Pancras two minutes later, at 8.34 am—and that is when the trains arrive on time. Too often, they do not arrive at all. In the past 100 days, 11% of the 7.41 am services from Flitwick have been cancelled, and 25% have arrived at St Pancras more than five minutes late. That compares reasonably favourably with the 7.43 am service, which has been cancelled 28% of the time and has arrived late 42% of the time. That is simply not good enough. That is just the morning commute. The best performing return journey from St Pancras to Flitwick between 5 pm and 6.30 pm has been more than five minutes late 23% of the time in the past 100 days. For commuters in Harlington, the evening peak period sees three services that are more than five minutes late 50% or more of the time—three evening services more than five minutes late every other time a commuter uses them—and one service that is cancelled more than a quarter of the time. We must do better than this, and we can. Investment through the Thameslink programme under the previous Government has seen the travel times from Arlesey to St Pancras drop from 47 minutes in 2008 to 40 minutes now. Here, at least, services have become much more convenient, with trains now running beyond St Pancras and into south London—and beyond. Of course, even here there have been problems with delays and cancellations, as the hon. Member for Hitchin knows too well, and the east coast main line section of Thameslink will face its own pressures, which I will address later. The picture I have painted is of an underperforming service that is letting my constituents down, and I could cite plenty of other statistics to back that up. This matters to my constituents, who suffer the inconvenience of the service in their daily lives, but it should matter to the Government, in the big picture sense, too. Quick, reliable trains into London help us to improve UK productivity, with fewer working hours lost on station platforms and more workers at their desks, growing the economy. They also allow for better economic ties between places such as Mid Bedfordshire and our capital, and make it easier for local people to set up and run growing businesses. That helps to deliver on the Government’s mission for economic growth. A well-performing Thameslink service is also vital to supporting the economic growth of the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor, which is one of this Government’s central missions. Thameslink services already link London to Cambridge, but they will one day also link London with East West Rail at Cambridge, Tempsford and Bedford. If we want to maximise the return on investment of that infrastructure project, its connections into the wider train network need to be fast and reliable. That takes me nicely to the next section of my speech. As an outcome from this debate, I would like to see not just a strategy to improve the Thameslink services we have today, but one that starts thinking about the Thameslink services we will need for tomorrow. On the Thameslink line, we have already seen the booming success that new onward connections can bring. Farringdon station, which is on the Elizabeth line, served just over 4.6 million passengers in 2010; today it serves 10 times that number. We know that Thameslink faces significant future pressures. If those pressures have even a fifth of the impact that the Elizabeth line has had on Farringdon, we will need to see serious forward planning to ensure that commuters travelling to and from Mid Bedfordshire can benefit from sufficient capacity to enjoy comfortable commutes. Take the Bedford line specifically. In relatively short order, it could see additional pressure from Luton airport expansion, a Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, an interchange with East West Rail, a rail freight interchange in Sundon, and more than 10,000 more houses in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire alone. I hope that within the next decade, we might see the Ryder cup come to Luton Hoo, bringing with it huge opportunities but also considerable pressures on the local transport network. If we are to ensure that comfortable travel on the Bedford line is the norm and not the exception—I do not think that is too much to aspire to—then we must start doing the long-term legwork now to put the capacity in place, because at the moment the capacity is simply not there. Overcrowded trains at peak times are now the norm, not the exception. The timetable shows that. Anyone who goes on the Thameslink website will see that the vast majority of morning and evening commuter services are filled with the red of standing-room-only trains. We need more capacity now so that my constituents do not have to resign themselves to a cramped, standing commute every day. However, we particularly need more capacity on the Bedford line to cope with the challenges of tomorrow. Do not misunderstand me; I know that work is already being done on that. I met with people from Thameslink recently and I set out some of the challenges that my constituents and I foresee arising over the coming years. I know from my discussions with the Mayor of Bedford that significant progress is being made on the construction of Wixams station, which will serve the new town of Wixams in my constituency. However, with the Government pressing ahead with their nationalisation agenda, it will be Ministers who will oversee much of the future planning in that area, so it is incumbent on Ministers to understand the challenges and opportunities facing our communities. It is so important that we get it right. It is important for commuters using the stations at Flitwick, Harlington and, hopefully soon, Wixams to get into work in the morning. It is important for all the growing businesses in Mid Bedfordshire, which rely on a good rail connection to do business in London and across our region. It is also vital for the Government’s growth agenda. If we want to take advantage of the potential expansion of Luton airport, and use it to grow the economy, we must get people there comfortably and quickly. If we want to get the best bang for the taxpayer’s buck on East West Rail, we need a Thameslink service that is reliable enough for people to be able to count on making their connection train at Bedford. If we want to take advantage of the economic game changer that is the planned Universal theme park at Kempston Hardwick, we must provide sufficient transport capacity to get people there. More generally, if we would like to grow the tourism economy in Bedfordshire, as I would, a Thameslink service that works is a vital part of the jigsaw. People will not visit our towns and villages, spend money in our shops or enjoy a pint in our pubs if we make the process of getting there difficult and uncomfortable. Of course, as I said earlier, it is not just the Bedford line that my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire rely on; for many commuters in the eastern part of my constituency, the Thameslink services at Arlesey and Hitchin play a crucial role in their daily commutes. That line is not immune from pressures of its own. Planned housing growth, all the way down the line, will have a significant impact on capacity pressures over the coming years, as will the line’s own interchange with East West Rail at Tempsford and the potential housing growth that the Government might like to put forward there. Significant development at Tempsford would require concentrated efforts to increase capacity, in particular to avoid services into London becoming standing room only further down the line. Any increase in capacity on that line is made much more challenging by the limitations placed on the services by the Digswell viaduct and Welwyn North station, where the line bottlenecks and drops from four tracks to two. When Ministers take full control over the services on that line, they will need to have a plan for how the network will cope with the future development plans being pushed forward elsewhere in Government. As I conclude, I will touch on the Government’s plan for rail nationalisation. I say “plan”, but at the moment I am unclear whether that is the right word. If I have understood correctly the various announcements made so far on rail, the Government will be nationalising Govia Thameslink, but they cannot say when they will do that. There will be a central, unified rail system under Great British Railways, except in areas where mayors have requested rail powers under English devolution plans. Great British Railways will be directly accountable to Ministers and mayors, but there will also be a new quango, the rail watchdog, presumably to make sure that Ministers and mayors are doing their job and improving passenger experience. The watchdog will refer poor performance to a regulator, not Ministers. The Labour party’s manifesto set out that one focus of nationalisation was affordability, but Ministers are now briefing that the savings are minimal and fares are likely to keep going up. My constituents need a clear plan to improve our rail network. So far, it is far from clear how, if at all, the Government’s renationalisation plans will do that. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out exactly how they plan to make services more reliable, to expand capacity and to keep fares down, now and in the future. That is what our constituents deserve from the Government.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  Very briefly—it is only a half-hour debate.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Thameslink Train Services · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I thank him for joining this important debate for the communities across Bedfordshire that rely heavily on rail services for leisure and work. The disruption is also having a huge impact on our economy; I will come to that later in my speech.