Blake Stephenson MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 11 Feb 2026 · Woodland Creation · Hansard source

  More

  It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer). I congratulate another constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), on securing this important debate on woodland creation. As he knows, my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which he mentioned, is home to the community forest of Marston Vale, which is one of a handful created in the 1990s to help to establish and enhance woodlands. The forest has had a tremendously positive impact on the environment in Bedfordshire, with 16.9% tree coverage across the forest area, up from only 3.6% in 1991, and nearly 3 million trees, shrubs and hedgerows planted. That has transformed a Bedfordshire countryside scarred by our historic brickmaking industry into a beautiful place to spend time, yet Bedfordshire is still in a nature and biodiversity crisis. Our countryside, particularly our ancient woodland, is under significant threat from development, due to both the increasing numbers of people roaming our area as a result of population growth, which brings its own challenges to local nature, and development proposals, including that at Keepers Place, with which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North will be familiar as it straddles the boundary between our constituencies. That is just one development among the thousands of houses proposed to be built across the area of the forest of Marston Vale in coming decades. Our ancient woodlands are at their best when surrounded by nature. The community forest has done fantastic work introducing reafforesting and sustainable woodland management practices across Mid Bedfordshire, but we cannot support our woodlands through reafforesting alone. That is why I hope that the Minister will set out, in her response, how this Government plan to ensure that our ancient and newly created woodlands alike will be protected over the short and long term. I endorse the Woodland Trust’s recommendation that the Government should ensure that our ancient woodlands are protected, including through designation as sites of special scientific interest. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that. I conclude with a request to the Government on a topic about which hon. Members have already spoken. I welcome the Government’s ambition to create a new national forest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Mid Bedfordshire sits at the heart of that corridor, alongside the constituencies of the hon. Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard and for Milton Keynes North. Mid Bedfordshire has the forest of Marston Vale at its centre, and has the expertise to deliver a new national forest that can be enjoyed across the growth corridor. I have made a number of representations to Ministers already, and I believe that the new national forest should be built on the forest of Marston Vale by expanding southwards through my constituency. It would be of value to people right across the region, would provide a lasting benefit to the growth corridor and would help to support the continued restoration of one of Britain’s most nature-depleted landscapes.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest: I am a Central Bedfordshire councillor. Central Bedfordshire will have to find £17 million off the back of this so-called fairer funding formula. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is nothing short of pork barrel politics?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Economic Impact of Government Policies · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of Government policies on the economy in Northern Ireland.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Economic Impact of Government Policies · Hansard source

  More

  While the rise in the agricultural property relief threshold to £2.5 million is a welcome step for farmers, does the Minister recognise the broader economic concern shared by the Ulster Farmers Union that inflation and steadily rising asset values will over time pull more family farms into inheritance tax liability, even when their real wealth and income may not increase?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Independent Water Commission: Final Report · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, on my first outing on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate, and I join Members who have welcomed the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe. I thank local action groups across England that are campaigning hard and cleaning up our waterways, and the employees in our water industry working hard, day in, day out, to make a difference within the framework that they operate in. I took note of the rivers that were mentioned during the debate: the River Lim in West Dorset, plus two chalk streams that I am afraid I missed; the Rivers Wharfe and Aire in Shipley; the River Wye in North Herefordshire; and the Rivers Ouse and Foss in York. We are all agreed that they need to be cleaned up. Ensuring that we have a plentiful supply of clean water and waterways across England matters to us all, including my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire. Like many places across England, Mid Bedfordshire is having to adapt to a growing population, dry summers and increasingly wet winters, all with ageing infrastructure. Having grown up spending many an hour playing in my local river, a tributary of the River Test in Hampshire, I enjoyed a childhood that many simply cannot enjoy today, with the latest assessments showing that no rivers in England are in good or high overall health. Nature is also in grave danger. Freshwater habitats cover less than 1% of the earth’s surface but support more than 10% of global species. Since the 1970s, freshwater species have declined by 85%, far outpacing declines in terrestrial and marine systems. England’s globally significant chalk streams, which make up 85% of the world’s total, are among the habitats most affected by pollution and abstraction, and I was pleased to hear many passionate advocates for our chalk streams in this debate. But what did this Government do when Opposition Members tabled amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to restore and protect those habitats? The amendments were ignored, citing care for our environment and countryside as blockers against so-called progressive builders. That all illustrates, in the first 18 months in government, a level of arrogance that will do absolutely nothing to secure our future and clean up our waterways. The problems with the water sector have been known for a long time and are well reported. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, “Water quality in rivers” dating back to January 2022 provides a clear picture of the concerns, and the previous Government went on to help to identify the scale of the problem. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; by 2023 it was 100%. That unveiled the severity of the situation facing the water industry, with water company storm overflows spilling into England’s rivers, lakes and seas for a record 3.61 million hours in 2024—although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about us needing to understand the volume, not just the hours. There is much more to do. The previous Government’s plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. Ministers in the previous Government also took action to ban water company bosses’ bonuses for illegal action. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review was a serious undertaking, running to 460 pages and 88 recommendations, much of which His Majesty’s official Opposition have cautiously welcomed. For example, we know that, as it stands, the regulators are not working as they should, and that creating a single joined-up regulator is a sensible recommendation. However, I am concerned at both the speed at which the Government are moving and some of the proposals in their White Paper, which may see bills rise for families. Can the Minister confirm how many of Sir Jon’s 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper? On water bills, what assessment has the Minister made of how smart metering may impact the average family’s water bills? Secondly, after the benefits of water metering, what additional hit to disposable income does the Minister expect that increasing bills will have on families, coming, as it will, on the back of record tax rises by this Government? Thirdly, can the Minister tell us how much taxpayer and bill-payer money has been allocated to their White Paper, and over what timeframe those taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in it? To reduce the root causes of pollution, the Government have announced that they intend to implement pre-pipe solutions—which have been discussed in this debate—but have not yet provided any examples of how those will be implemented. Can the Minister provide further details on the implementation, and particularly how it will be integrated into the planning system? The Minister knows that since being elected, I have been calling for schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be enacted, first in my Adjournment debate on flooding in Bedfordshire, and also through the Environmental Audit Committee, which recently recommended doing so. The Minister at first seemed sympathetic to the arguments, but now seems to consider that there are other ways to achieve the same outcome. Could the Minister highlight what those other ways are? Our infrastructure is ageing and needs investment. That is abundantly clear to communities in the south-east now suffering repeated and unacceptable supply disruptions. How will the Minister make sure that the infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that those catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security? It is important that in the efforts to reform the water sector, all stakeholders are engaged in the process. That includes farmers, and I was pleased to hear hon. Members today talk about the importance of engaging with farmers. Early last year those farmers had the rug pulled from under their feet when the Government suddenly halted applications to the sustainable farming incentive scheme. The SFI scheme rewarded farmers for adapting land management practices to reduce pollution, manage water flow and improve water quality. We are almost a year on from the closure of the SFI, and the Government—despite promising details on a new scheme last summer—only announced in January this year that a new scheme would open in June. Does the Minister not appreciate that farming is an occupation that requires long-term planning and certainty, particularly when so many other aspects, such as the weather, are left to chance? In another potential blow to farmers, the Government have confirmed that they are considering whether environmental permitting should be extended to cattle farming, when this was not included as a direct recommendation in the independent review. As National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos said: “Such a change would have a direct impact on farm business growth”. The beef sector is already struggling with increasing costs and higher taxes imposed on them by the Chancellor, so how does the Minister intend to ensure that it does not face another new cost pressure? Is she engaging with it to listen to its concerns? Many of my constituents care deeply about water quality and security. They are quite simply fed up that their water bills are increasing while water companies are failing to clear up their waterways. Given the Government’s habit of missing their own deadlines in the first 18 months of this Parliament, will the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? Will she clarify how long the transition will take? As she knows, and may well repeat to me, people voted for change and expect it, especially in our water sector. They demand that the Government move faster.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Like quite a few members of the Committee, I represent a rural constituency. We have a lot of villages that are not connected to our towns, and a lot of elderly people who need to get to appointments. There are also a lot of children with special education needs and disabilities who get to school via taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in fares, which will be passed on to our vulnerable constituents, is unacceptable, and that a charge will be passed on to local authorities, which is not fair to our local taxpayers?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talks about fairness in relation to amendment 41 on uprating in line with CPI. Is it also worth considering the importance of certainty, particularly for people on fixed incomes who will benefit from this measure? Uprating by CPI would give them certainty into the future that they are not going to fall into fuel poverty.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that the measures that the Government are using are appropriate, but can he explain, in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, why adjusted income was not used and why it is not appropriate?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to amendments 1 and 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. The Government and those of us supporting the amendments are trying to achieve the same outcome. The aim of the amendments is simple: to enable the Government to achieve their goal of raising billions in tax revenues from former non-doms—money that is needed to pay for public services, as the hon. Member for Burnley said earlier. The Government set out the policy intention to replace non-dom status with a UK residency tax to raise more tax from those with the greatest capacity to pay, while simplifying the system. They introduced the temporary repatriation facility—or, given that we like three-letter acronyms, the TRF—as the central part of that strategy. It is designed to encourage people to remain in the UK, to come to the UK and invest in the UK, and to bring historically offshore capital into the UK tax net. The TRF offers a reduced rate of taxation of 12% on all non-UK assets brought into the country as an incentive to do just that. We all want the same thing: we want the TRF to work, because if it does not, the money does not come here and the Exchequer and the public lose. The Government are relying on the reforms to raise very substantial sums—about £34 billion overall. The concern I express is not ideological or about the tax rate; it is about legal certainty and deliverability. The problem is that a number of the wealthiest people have left the country, and many more are doing so as we debate these amendments. Why? Odd as it may seem, it is not because they are unwilling to pay more tax; it is because of the legal uncertainty in the Bill as drafted. Using the TRF as set out in the Bill exposes people to serious legal uncertainty. First, they are subject to double taxation through double counting of the same economic value. Secondly, they are vulnerable to retrospective taxation. Thirdly, they face allegations of tax avoidance simply for using a scheme that Parliament itself has created. Fourthly, they expose themselves and their families to potentially decade-long investigations into arrangements that were entirely lawful at the time they were entered into. That is why they are watching this Bill proceed with their bags packed, waiting to see if it will fix the problems. The advisers of such people are warning them to leave, but I know that the Government’s intention is not to drive them away. We need their taxes, fairly paid, to fund the renewal of our public services. That is why amendments 1 and 2 were tabled, in a constructive spirit of co-operation, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned. Amendment 1 would stop double counting; and amendment 2 would ensure that retrospective and unfair action does not continue. Had amendment 49, which goes further, been selected for debate, I would have spoken to it as well, but I will resist doing so because it has not been selected. Amendments 1 and 2 would provide the needed certainty and make the TRF usable in practice, not just in theory. I hope that the Minister can give me some assurance that the Government recognise some of the technical problems highlighted by the amendments and intend to resolve them. I noted earlier that the Minister rejected amendments 1 and 2, giving a brief reason why, but given the representations, certainly by the Opposition, a more detailed response as to why the amendments have been rejected by the Government would be worthwhile. Much careful work has gone into the construction of amendments 1 and 2. Again in the spirit of co-operation, I am sure that Conservative Members would be happy to provide input to the Minister and officials as they consider how best to address the issues. With that, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

• 27 Jan 2026 · East Park Energy: North Bedfordshire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. He is making a thoughtful and important speech. He has spoken eloquently about the cumulative development in both our constituencies, which is putting central Bedfordshire and Bedford borough under significant strain from a planning perspective. Does he agree that it is important for the Government to support our local authorities, so that we think holistically about these developments and ensure that our landscapes are protected, our local communities are listened to, and that we secure the agricultural land that we need for future food security? The reason we have so many farmers in Bedfordshire is because we have fantastic agricultural land. Would it not be a waste to build on all that land, and in the case of East Park Energy, to do so on the altar of net zero?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chagos Islands: Marine Protection · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his response. A recent Yale University report ranked Mauritius last out of 131 states for stringency in relation to its marine protected areas, and a woeful 173th out of 180 for the protection of biodiversity. Mauritius has even admitted that it does not have the capacity to patrol the area, and that it is open to commercial fishing. I recognise the response that the Minister gave, but Britain has kept the Chagos marine environment pristine for 50 years. Why do the Government not want to secure that legacy in law?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Chagos Islands: Marine Protection · Hansard source

  More

  6. What assessment she has made of whether the Mauritian Government are able to effectively protect Chagos’ marine environment.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Following the curriculum review, will the Secretary of State outline how the Government will support teachers to deliver financial education in the constituency of Mid Bedfordshire and, of course, right across the country? Will financial education form part of initial teacher training?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Arctic Security · Hansard source

  More

  The western world must remain united to keep us all safe from both Russia and China. Regrettably, we are far from united right now, and many of our constituents will be concerned about the risk to our country and critical infrastructure. At the same time as trying to reinvigorate our relationships with our NATO partners, should our worst-case planning assumption be that the USA may not be by our side if and when we need it in the future? If it was not clear before this week, surely it is clear now that spending on defence must rise immediately to at least 3% of GDP. Does the Foreign Secretary agree?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State support Conservative calls for funding for the listed places of worship scheme to be restored? That would give places of worship such as All Saints in Shillington in Mid Bedfordshire the certainty they need to protect our heritage and continue serving all our communities.

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  When the Prime Minister first announced digital ID, it was to stop illegal working. It took most of us about a minute to work out that that was total nonsense. Flapping in the wind, the Government are now desperately trying to sell the benefits of limiting liberty and freedom for all our constituents. One thing the Government have failed to tell us is how much this will cost. Nothing in life is free; there is a cost to this. Do the Government dispute the £1.8 billion estimate that has been provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Offshore Wind · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Secretary of State give a clear assurance that not a single offshore wind project procured in this round will be built with technology made by Chinese slaves?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  London is a critical global financial centre; we all rely on it, as do all of our constituents. Does the Minister recognise the very serious risk that approving this Chinese super-embassy could, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, pave the way for economic war—not just on our country, but on the western world, including by undermining the security of critical data travelling under the site to and from the City of London?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Constituents of mine have been reporting that they have been directed to hospital for regular blood tests, rather than having them at their GP surgery. Will the Secretary of State outline how he will ensure that blood tests are done in a community setting, which surely must be much better value for the taxpayer and much more convenient for patients?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  I start by saying how extraordinary it was to hear the Minister of State for Courts and Legal Services say earlier that she would be pursuing this policy even if there were not a backlog to deal with. That suggests that it was planned all along, but it is nowhere in the Labour party manifesto. Will the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards) explain in summing up why that is the case? There is no mandate to reduce trial by jury. It is a profound constitutional shift—one that strikes at the heart of the relationship between citizen and state. Trial by jury is a centuries-old safeguard designed to ensure that an individual can be judged guilty only by their peers and not by the machinery of the state. It is the ordinary person’s shield against arbitrary power and yet, astonishingly, the Government now ask us to believe that that ancient protection must be curtailed just because Ministers do not want to do the hard work to reduce the backlog. The Bar Council, which represents the very professionals who keep our justice system functioning, is correct to raise alarm bells. There is absolutely no evidence—none whatsoever—that restricting jury trials will reduce the backlog. The Government have produced no modelling, no data and no analysis to justify that constitutional gamble. That work should have been done before the announcement was made, especially for something of such magnitude. Around 3% of criminal cases currently reach a jury. To claim that reducing jury trials further will magically clear the backlog of tens of thousands of cases is just implausible. It defies logic and makes no sense whatsoever. This is a complete distraction. No hon. Member supporting the Government position has been able to explain how the decision will actually shift the dial on reducing the backlog. Concern goes deeper, however, as many of my hon. Friends have explained. Every time this Government face a crisis, their instinct is not to work out how sensibly to fix the system but to take things away from British citizens. We have heard examples including digital ID and Chagos, and now they are taking away people’s right to be judged by their peers because they cannot get a grip of the criminal justice system. Judge-only trials may be quicker, but they are not fairer. They concentrate power in the single hand of a single state official. Did it cross anyone’s mind to pilot juryless trials in Crown courts? If not, why not? They remove the diversity of experience, the collective wisdom and the democratic legitimacy that juries bring. How many judges are under 40? How many are non-white? How many were educated in state schools? How many have personal experience of the issues? Now ask the same question of juries.

• 5 Jan 2026 · HMP Leyhill: Offender Abscondments · Hansard source

  More

  With two dangerous offenders on the run, many of our constituents will rightly be very concerned and worried. Will the Minister explain what resources are being deployed to capture those offenders as soon as possible?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill: Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  In response to the question from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), the Minister said that he respected the views of the officers who had shared their concerns—so why does he think they are wrong?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Nearly 17,000 companies licensed to sponsor worker visas have five or fewer employees, and over 3,000 of these have just one employee. Ministers have been unable to tell me how many inspections have been made of companies since the general election. How sure is the Home Secretary that these are not bogus companies offering a back door to Britain?