Blake Stephenson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 22 Jun 2026 · East Midlands Railway Collision · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I thank Ministers for briefing me over the weekend on this tragic event. I also thank all the emergency services, railway staff and volunteers in Bedfordshire who worked so tirelessly and professionally in response to the collision in my constituency. I send my condolences to the family of Shaun Burton, the train driver who tragically lost his life, and wish those who were injured a full and speedy recovery. Some of my constituents still need to travel, particularly to London. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give my constituents who rely on Flitwick and Harlington stations—which, as she knows, are closed at the moment—that the contingency timetables and rail replacement capacity will be sufficient in the days ahead? Has any consideration been given to the possibility that trains on the east coast main line could make additional stops at Arlesey in Bedfordshire to increase capacity during this recovery period?

• 18 Jun 2026 · Stoma: Public Toilet Provision · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd—I wish you a happy birthday. I welcome the Minister to her place. I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) on securing this debate on the provision of public toilets for people living with stomas, which is too often overlooked and too rarely spoken about. He began by saying that although this is not a fashionable debate, the issue needs to be aired, and he was absolutely right about that. He was also right to say that this issue is about dignity and independence, as Members from across the House have said. This debate is important for many people throughout the UK—that is evident from the personal stories that have been shared by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) described the importance of humour to deal emotionally with this difficult and embarrassing condition, including by naming stomas, which is new to me—I did not know that was a thing; every day is a school day. I have to say that my favourite from his catalogue was also Vladimir Poopin, but maybe that reflects our politics more than anything else. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions throughout the debate, particularly in highlighting the human reality of living with a stoma. Around 200,000 people in the UK live with a stoma following surgery for bowel cancer, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, diverticulitis and many other conditions. I do hope that I have pronounced those correctly—there is a reason I am not a medic. On average, in a constituency such as Mid Bedfordshire, around 200 to 250 people are likely to be living with a stoma. With an ageing population and increasing diagnoses of bowel conditions, this need will grow, not diminish, over time. For those people, a toilet is not a convenience but a necessity, as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), said. A stoma bag must be emptied or changed at the moment it is needed. There is quite literally no waiting when it is required. Yet the facilities that most people with a stoma rely on—standard accessible toilets—are frequently not fit for purpose, as my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde eloquently described. Too often, there is no shelf on which to lay out medical supplies, no hook for clothing or a bag, no mirror to help someone change safely, no basin within reach and nowhere hygienic to dispose of used products. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for highlighting the “Boys Need Bins” campaign, which is an absolutely fantastic campaign that we should all get behind. At present, provision depends on good will rather than on standards, which leaves a postcode lottery for something as basic as using a toilet. The result is people changing stoma bags balanced on their knees or on dirty floors. Someone with a stoma often must plan their entire day around whether a usable toilet exists. I come from a rural constituency and acknowledge what a challenge that must be on days out in the countryside. There is a second barrier, which is one of attitude. A stoma is, in the main, an invisible disability, as hon. Members have said. Many people with a stoma or inflammatory bowel disease report being challenged or even abused for using an accessible toilet, or accused of being “not disabled enough” because they do not use a wheelchair. Simple signage and staff awareness can prevent the confrontations that many people with invisible conditions face. Those attitudes are a stain on us, and it is precisely why Crohn’s & Colitis UK’s “Not every disability is visible” campaign and Colostomy UK’s Stoma Aware work matter so much. I am proud that the last Conservative Government understood that dignity in this area is a duty of the state, not an optional extra. When he was Local Government Minister, the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), led the drive to expand Changing Places toilets, with larger facilities with benches, hoists and space for carers, which the most severely disabled people need. He set in motion the change to building regulations that, from 2021, made Changing Places mandatory in large new public buildings in England, including shopping centres, stadiums and arts venues. That was backed by a £2 million fund to install them in more than 100 NHS hospitals, further investment in motorway service stations and funding for a national online map so that families could find them more easily. The public sector could lead by example across councils, hospitals and transport networks. The number of Changing Places has risen from 140 in 2007 to around 1,200. That is a record of practical, compassionate action and I pay tribute to the programme, but—I say this candidly—Changing Places, vital as they are, are designed for the most profoundly disabled. Most people with a stoma are fully mobile. The solutions that they need are cheaper: the simple stoma-friendly standard of a shelf, a hook, a mirror and a bin in ordinary accessible toilets. Some retailers—B&Q was mentioned, but I am sure there are others—have shown that it can be done across an entire estate at a modest cost. The additions required often cost less than a few hundred pounds per facility. This is not major capital infrastructure work; it is a small retrofit that has a huge impact on people’s dignity. The building blocks exist; what is missing is national leadership to join them up. When people cannot rely on basic facilities, they withdraw —from work, from shopping and from social life. That is not just a personal loss; there are wider economic impacts, too. Constituents in Mid Bedfordshire have told me that living with these life-changing conditions can be exhausting, isolating and unpredictable. The hidden nature of their symptoms means that they are often invisible to other people, but they deeply impact the daily lives of the people who have them. It is an honour to represent those people at the Opposition Dispatch Box in such a good debate, in which there is cross-party consensus. I would be grateful if the Minister could address three points. First, what are the Government considering doing to make places more stoma-friendly? Secondly, what meetings have Ministers had with Colostomy UK and Crohn’s & Colitis UK to discuss options? Thirdly, what consideration are the Government giving to local government facilities, recognising the interesting proposal from the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole, for a statutory duty? This is not a party political issue; it is about whether someone can leave their home with confidence. The previous Government opened the door with Changing Places. I urge this Government to walk through it, finish the job and support people with stomas.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Transport: Marston Vale · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for briefly outlining what the £1.3 billion of taxpayers’ money will be spent on. My residents will be relieved to hear that Wixams station is expected to open in time for Universal. The Minister also talked about targeted investment in the local road network. When the detail becomes available, will she commit to writing to me with more information about what public money will be spent and where, and what impact the Government expect it to have?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Transport: Marston Vale · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister talked about bringing together local councils—Central Bedfordshire council and Bedford borough council—and England’s Economic Heartland. One of my asks was that we also bring together Universal UK, O&H, which is a significant developer of 5,000 houses in the area, and East West Rail, to ensure that local infrastructure is integrated. Would she consider my proposal—if she cannot answer directly now, she can take it away—that those stakeholders also get around the table? They are developers of significant infrastructure in the area and I think they also need to be around the table.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Transport: Marston Vale · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. With the scale of the change that we are discussing, particularly in my constituency and also in his, it is vital that the proposals are done with, not done to, the residents of the Marston Vale and Strangford, in order to retain public support. That means proper planning on transport infrastructure that considers the cumulative impact of these nationally significant projects on the local communities they will sit within. At the moment, I am afraid that is not happening, and public support is slipping away. Transport modelling for the various projects has been siloed and has failed to properly take into account the cumulative impact of proposals. For example, outline planning permission for the 5,000 houses at Marston Valley was granted on the basis of transport modelling that does not consider the impact of Universal UK, and Universal UK’s transport modelling does not consider the impact of the 5,000 houses at Marston Valley. East West Rail’s proposals will increase capacity to serve Universal, but they fail to properly plan for the impact that they will have on the local road infrastructure by severing local communities. For example, to increase the number of trains on the line in response to Universal UK, East West Rail plans to close a number of level crossings in the Marston Vale and leave others with significant downtime throughout the day. That will have an enormous impact on local communities, effectively bisecting the Marston Vale along the rail line. One of the level crossings that East West Rail has proposed to close, at Station Lane in Millbrook, is a key local route for the Marston Valley development. It is also a vital link for the Millbrook proving ground, including for the transport of military vehicles. The alternative route would direct enormous volumes of traffic down country lanes even with today’s level of demand, but we are adding thousands more houses and Europe’s biggest theme park. Roads such as Bury Ware in Lidlington are simply not equipped to cope with the volumes of traffic they are expecting. Previous East West Rail proposals have broad local support, but the new proposals, which fail to plan for the cumulative impact of transport pressures in the Marston Vale, now risk eroding that. I urge the Minister to work with East West Rail to reconsider the impacts of its proposals on level crossings in the Marston Vale, in the light of the cumulative development impacts. We cannot allow it to irreparably damage our communities and turn our country lanes into gridlocked rat runs. Plans to deliver a new multi-storey car park in Lidlington have also caused concern that the village could end up as a park and ride for Universal UK, just one stop up the line on East West Rail. That is not nimbyism; it reflects a real local concern that good intentions alone are not plans. We cannot prevent people from parking in Lidlington and hopping on the train to Universal, but we can alleviate residents’ concerns and reduce the risk of it happening by properly planning for and delivering a park and ride elsewhere. The new Ridgmont station just off the M1 is a prime candidate for such a park and ride, but that station’s delivery has been predicated on house building that does not yet have planning permission and is not yet included in any local plans. Disjointed planning and concerns about delivery timetables at Ridgmont leave residents in Lidlington and elsewhere fearing the worst. Another impact of the changing demand for transport in our area is that East West Rail’s plans for Stewartby station are now out of touch with the needs of local residents. Stewartby station is relatively busy. Despite a limited rail service, the station sees around 90,000 passengers a year, almost all of them local and many of them students at Kimberley college, which is located a short walk from the current station. East West Rail’s plans for the station involve removing it from the village entirely and turning it into a gateway station for Universal UK. To be clear, we absolutely need an East West Rail station to serve Universal UK, but very little work seems to have been done on the implications of the new station location for Stewartby residents and students of Kimberley college. If the plan remains to build a new Universal station and axe the Stewartby station entirely, Ministers need to ensure that East West Rail urgently works to produce a detailed plan for transport links between the station, Stewartby village and Kimberley college. That plan should include details on how residents with mobility challenges will be able to get to the station, and it should set out the safeguards that Ministers will put in place to ensure that hundreds of students at Kimberley college will be kept safe when using an extremely busy station and making a much longer journey, likely on foot, from the station to the college. The alternative that I have been calling for would be to keep the current Stewartby station operational in addition to a new station serving Universal UK, with a limited stopping service operating only at peak morning and evening times. More generally, despite a much-publicised announcement on the Government’s infrastructure investment to enable Universal UK earlier this month, neither the Chancellor nor the Transport Secretary has written to me to outline specifically what that investment will deliver in my constituency. Residents in the Marston Vale want and deserve clarity from the Government on what infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, will be delivered to facilitate the arrival of millions of visitors to Europe’s biggest tourist attraction in their backyard. I hope the Minister will be able to offer some further detail in her response. Another good example of transport pressure in our area is junction 13 of the M1, which the Minister knows I am going to mention. The Government have indicated that junction 13 will be upgraded in the early 2030s, for which my constituents are grateful, but the timeframe for upgrades needs to be urgently reviewed. Junction 13 is unsuitable now; it is already acknowledged that it is regularly severely congested. While the Marston Valley development will provide some upgrades to cope with the demand brought by those new houses, it will not consider the volume of additional traffic brought by Universal UK. Junction 13 is a key route for local traffic as well as traffic passing through our community. Given the significant increase in traffic volume, we need that upgrade now. Junction 13 is not the only significant road infrastructure impacted by local development plans. Vehicle traffic will also use the A421 to get to the Universal UK resort from the M1. The Government have acknowledged this with their investment in slip roads from the A421 to Universal UK, but we have recently seen the significant congestion caused, even with the current levels of demand, when the A421 is closed. In September 2024, there was severe flooding on the road, which saw a dip fill with 72 million litres of water after a pumping station was overwhelmed. Work has been done to solve that particular vulnerability, but the traffic chaos that occurred in 2024 demonstrates what happens in the Marston Vale when the A421 is out of commission. That congestion would be many times more significant if the A421 had to be shut for any reason after Universal UK is built. Any respectable transport plan for the Marston Vale must address one key question: what is our contingency plan if the A421 is out of action? We have seen no answer to that question. Junction 13 is not the only project for which timing will be crucial. From the day that the Universal UK resort opens in 2031, millions of visitors will pour through its doors, whether we have built sufficient transport infrastructure or not. But if we have not, they will pour through its doors via gridlocked local roads designed for local traffic, not for the largest theme park in Europe. It is imperative, therefore, that the Marston Vale is home to a national effort to deliver new infrastructure as swiftly as possible. That includes having the new station at Wixams on the midland main line open from day one, it means ensuring that East West Rail between Oxford and Bedford has services running to completed modern stations with step-free access, and it means having a road network, especially junction 13, that can cope with the volume of traffic we are expecting. As I said, I did not come here to play party politics, to bash Ministers or to rail against the march of progress. I came with a specific request. What we see in the Marston Vale is not unique, but it is unusual: several projects of national significance contained within roughly 7.5 miles of Bedfordshire, split across Central Bedfordshire council and Bedford borough council. The myriad challenges are difficult to address because there is no centralised master planning and, as a result, there is no way to mitigate the cumulative impact of the various individual proposals. That is leading to contradictory solutions. Because there is no centralised masterplan and no single body overseeing these projects, it is also much more difficult to leverage funding to ensure that it is spent in the right places. I would like Ministers to commit to working with me, local councillors, local residents and key stakeholders, such as Universal and local developer O&H, to develop a master plan for transport in the Marston Vale. That should set out exactly what communities in the Marston Vale need to manage the various pressures on our area. It should include detail about how to manage transport pressures strategically during construction periods, and it should open a conversation about how we secure the right funding to deliver those projects. The rewards of success are clear: enabling the Marston Vale and its residents to play the fullest part in delivering the Government’s growth agenda, right at the heart of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. But the costs of failure are stark: residents in the Marston Vale waking up in the 2030s to discover that they have suffered all of the downsides of growth in their communities, and that some of the benefits for the country as a whole have been squandered.

• 17 Jun 2026 · Transport: Marston Vale · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered transport requirements in the Marston Vale. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I hope this can be a constructive debate. I am not here to bash the Government or to stand in the way of progress; I am here to open a dialogue with the Minister on behalf of the people I serve in Mid Bedfordshire. The Marston Vale in Mid Bedfordshire contains historical villages such as Cranfield, Marston Moretaine, Lidlington, Stewartby and Brogborough, as well as the new town of Wixams. It also sits at the heart of the Government’s growth agenda. The Universal UK resort will be a £50 billion boost to the UK’s economy, bringing millions of visitors every year to Kempston Hardwick. East West Rail, connecting the intellectual powerhouses of Oxford and Cambridge, will run along the Marston Vale line, stopping at Ridgmont, Lidlington and Stewartby. The merger of Cranfield University with King’s College London will bring further world-class research to the Marston Vale. The Marston Valley development will see 5,000 houses delivered across new villages between Marston Moretaine and Brogborough, and the Stewartby brickworks development will see 1,000 houses delivered on a brownfield site in Stewartby. The new town of Wixams will continue to be built out over the coming years, with thousands more houses and a new train station. The Government’s proposed new town at Milton Keynes and potential developments at Keepers Place and the Aspley Guise triangle could see tens of thousands more houses built in and around the Marston Vale. All in, the roughly 7.5 miles between junction 13 of the M1 and the town of Kempston will soon see two nationally significant infrastructure projects, thousands of new homes and one of the UK’s leading universities, all at the centre of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. That is on top of existing significant sites including the Millbrook proving ground, the community forest of Marston Vale and the Woburn Forest Center Parcs. As I said, I am not here to stand in the way of the growth that our area is set to contribute to the UK. If it is done right, there are immense opportunities for the Marston Vale, with thousands of new jobs, brilliant new transport links and new communities in our area.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  I agree that we have a thriving university sector, and we must maintain it. However, the reality is that many students arriving in the UK are doing so to attend poorly performing universities, and not just the best ones. That is doing long-term harm to our country and our economy. We must close down that route by establishing a minimum academic standard for incoming students and setting a cap on institutions, based on the quality of educational provision. Eligibility for graduate visas should also be linked to academic performance, to keep the best and the brightest while slamming closed this back-door route for low-skilled migrants. Universities should be stripped of their power to assess English language skills for incoming students, which allows them to bypass the official secure English language testing system. Those with a commercial incentive to bring in as many students as possible should not be allowed to mark their own homework. That has created an unacceptable loophole, one that trashes rules designed to ensure that the most basic of requirements is satisfied—that those who come to the UK can speak our language. On English language testing, the Government are acting without sense and rationale. The Home Office is pressing ahead with plans to move official English language testing to a fully remote model, despite serious security concerns. Having initially ruled out remote testing, the Government U-turned after being lobbied by Peter Manderson’s firm, Global Counsel, on behalf of Duolingo. That US tech firm is now expected to win the £816 million contract, after a consortium of leading British firms withdrew from the application process, warning that the proposal exposes the UK’s immigration system to weaker security. Remote tests are extremely vulnerable to organised criminal gangs and cheats who, as I have seen at first hand, can easily overcome safeguards with technological workarounds, some of which use cheap equipment readily available on Amazon. The Government have repeatedly promised to smash the gangs, yet they are opening a new back door to Britain for organised criminals to exploit. In a further insult to the British public, the Government initially denied meeting with Duolingo, yet a recent response to a freedom of information request shows that the Minister for Investment met Duolingo in September 2025 to discuss its offer on English language testing. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that and apologise to the British public. All that raises serious questions about the Government’s seriousness on UK border security. There are also questions to answer about whether the £816 million contract is good value for money. The Department will have received a letter from the Public Accounts Committee, on which I serve, inviting officials to brief the Committee, and I hope the offer will be taken up. It is clear from a YouGov poll that the majority of adults from across every political party, gender and socioeconomic group oppose a move to remote-only testing for an English visa application, so why on earth would the Home Office pursue that course? In answer to my written parliamentary questions, the Minister alluded to the changes delivering a “net positive” financial benefit for the Department. In plain English, that means that the Home Office are looking to trade the security of high-stakes English language testing for cash for the Department. I would appreciate a response from the Minister on that point. What other reason could there be for the Government’s diverging from our Australian and Canadian allies, who have both recently rejected proposals to move testing online? We do not permit remote-only testing for driving theory tests, “Life in the UK” tests or GCSEs, so how can we, with a clear conscience, permit it for the test that decides who makes the UK their home? Has the Home Office consulted the National Cyber Security Centre on the threat model for fully remote testing? The reality is clear for all to see: a fully remote model cannot match the security of in-person supervised testing. Are Ministers so naive that they cannot see the disaster coming down the tracks? I hope that much of my speech will not come as a surprise to the Minister—I have asked him enough questions on this topic, and I have been told that my “Backdoors to Britain” report, which I published in March, has been read. I am grateful for the responses to it that I received from the Department. However, given the inadequacy of the Government’s response so far, I am not satisfied that they have listened to my concerns and those of many in the country. I hope that the Minister’s response will reflect on the seriousness of these issues and demonstrate that the Government understand the problem. The British people do not want a blame game; this problem is too important for point scoring. I recognise that the responsibility for the problems in our visa system lies with both the current and with previous Governments, but the responsibility to act now lies with current Ministers. They need to be ambitious and brave but also thorough and serious. It is crucial that we improve the visa rules and the compliance and enforcement system. More than almost any other system, it defines who we are as a nation and what it means to be part of our community. The conversation about how we get our visa system to work in the national interest must involve all of us, regardless of our politics. I look forward to hearing contributions from colleagues from right across the political divide.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  I thank everyone who has contributed to this wide-ranging and interesting debate. I am afraid that I do not have time to reflect on each contribution, but I thoroughly appreciate Members coming and providing their thoughts on this important subject. I thank the Minister for answering my many written parliamentary questions as I was doing my research, and for considering thoughtfully the recommendations in my report and writing to me with his thoughts. I know that he had limited time, but I was disappointed that he did not pick up on the move to remote-only English language testing, which is a very important topic to both me and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). I want to emphasise that it is important that there is confidence in the system before the Home Office goes ahead, and I encourage the Minister to encourage his officials to accept the invitation to brief the Public Accounts Committee on that. Fixing our visa system, closing the loopholes and putting the British people and their Government back in control of who our neighbours are should not be controversial. It is the norm throughout the world, and we need to make it the norm here in Great Britain. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system.

• 3 Jun 2026 · Improving the UK Visa System · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the matter of improving the UK visa system. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. Immigration is one of the defining policy challenges of our time. It determines who our neighbours are and with whom we share our country, our culture, our values, our communities and our public services. Britain is operating an immigration system based on a high level of trust that the gangs who ruthlessly tear through our borders in the English channel will stop before thinking to exploit loopholes in our visa system. As a consequence, Britain is now an outlier in the world of self-interest, and our immigration system must reflect that. It must be robust enough to attract the best and the brightest from around the world, who can enrich our communities and boost our economy, but it must slam shut the back door to migrants who do not benefit our country and who burden our public services. The simple truth is that immigration has been unsustainable for a long time. In a little under two years, more than 1.3 million people have come to live, work and study in the UK. That is more than the total population of Birmingham, leading to strain on our public services, competition for jobs and increasing pressure in our housing market. Although some migrants will have brought talent and experience, far too many have not. This has been facilitated by a visa system that is too generous and too vulnerable to exploitation. It cannot continue. Last year I began researching the UK’s visa system, and what my team and I found was shocking. Glaring loopholes in compliance must be closed—for example, by requiring visa holders to provide an up-to-date home address during the visa period and not just at renewal or settlement, and by matching national insurance records with visa status so that illegal working can be identified and enforced in near to real time. This is legal compliance 101, and there is no excuse to keep the back doors to Britain open. Around 140,000 organisations are eligible to sponsor work visas. The vast majority are small and medium-sized enterprises, and some of them are tiny. Nearly 17,000 have five or fewer employees. More than 3,000 have just one employee, with so-called skilled workers sponsored to work in vape shops, convenience stores and takeaways. To those looking to exploit the UK visa system, Britain is sending an open invitation to set up a bogus company and sell pretend jobs that give people the right to live in the UK. None of this is hypothetical. During my research, I read an investigative report by The Times that uncovered visa agents selling fake jobs with companies that hold Home Office sponsorship licences. It is a lucrative business model for fraudsters who cheat our visa system, and for migrants who are desperate enough to do the same. Back in January, I asked the Minister on the Floor of the House how we could be sure that tiny companies sponsoring visas were not bogus. He promised to look at it and come back to me. He responded to me only yesterday, presumably as he was preparing for today’s debate. That is not good enough, because these are serious and urgent issues for all our constituents. We must draw a line at the smallest of organisations being able to sponsor visas, and we must set clear limits on the proportion of an organisation’s workforce that can be made up of people on work visas. For that to be possible, the Home Office must publish the relevant data, rather than fobbing off MPs by saying that it can only be collected at a disproportionate cost. The real cost is in turning a blind eye to loopholes in our visa system. Inspections need to be regular and transparent, so that the British public can see the system working for them. The Home Office has claimed that it regularly reviews the organisations eligible to sponsor visas, but just a cursory check finds organisations that are long defunct. The former Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy remains on the list, despite being abolished in February 2023. If Government are not joined up enough to remove historical Departments, how can there be any faith in the adequacy of checks on tens of thousands of smaller organisations across the country? Employees who break the rules get a slap on the wrist, and repeat offenders are allowed to get back their licence to sponsor visas in as little as two years. We must be tougher. Bans on sponsoring visas should be incurred after one failed action plan following a B rating. Those bans should be permanent, with penalties for directors to stop them moving on to sponsor visas at their next rogue outfit. In addition, too many public bodies have come to rely on immigration to fill job roles. That is ludicrous at a time when 1.1 million young British people are not in employment, education or training. The public sector should lead from the front and only sponsor visas in cases where candidates bring genuinely world-class expertise. Astonishingly, thousands of visas are also being issued for religious and charity work to those who meet pathetically low financial requirements. Would you believe that £2,270 in the bank is enough for a religious minister to bring in a family of five for three years? A robust visa system would scrap those routes entirely. The hard truth is that they are being used to take advantage of Britain’s good will, and that must stop. Work is not the only area where there is a problem. If someone has a high-paid, skilled job in the UK and their passport is from all but one country, they can bring their non-British spouse to the UK on a five-year dependent visa for around £1,500 in application fees. However, if a British citizen is bringing their non-British spouse to the UK for five years, that will set them back over £3,200 in fees and require two family visas. That is madness. What possible justification can there be for it to be more expensive and more difficult for British citizens to bring a non-British spouse to the UK? Even the family visa is not exclusive to citizens. Settled individuals have the same right to sponsor family visas that British citizens do. That is not fair to British citizens. On student visas, our universities have a commercial incentive to fill lecture halls with international students, and the UK’s visa policy hands international student graduates the right to live and work in any job they like through the graduate visa. As a result, the UK takes the second largest number of international students of any country in the world—750,000 in the past couple of years. Far from attracting the best and the brightest, the visa system fails to distinguish between the quality of students.

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Given the scale and significance of the Mandelson files due to be released, why does the Minister not accept that the review of those files over the Whitsun recess would be a good use of everyone’s time, with questions to Ministers being put after 1 June when we return? Is it because Ministers intend to limit scrutiny by this House? That is exactly what it looks like to me and to my constituents.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Victims and Courts Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to Lords amendments 5C and 6B. Before I do so, may I thank the Minister for working in a collaborative and cross-party way on this issue? I congratulate hon. Members who spoke before me so passionately on behalf of their constituents. I pay tribute to my constituent Tracey Hanson, who is watching this debate from the Gallery. Tracey’s son, Josh Hanson, was tragically murdered in an unprovoked knife attack in October 2015 at the age of just 21. Tracey has been on an 11-year journey of immense pain, and she has channelled that pain into trying to improve the rights and experiences of victims who must deal with the criminal justice system. Tracey has campaigned tirelessly to reform the unduly lenient sentence scheme. The campaign is driven by a simple demand: victims and bereaved families should be properly informed of their rights, and those rights should have parity with offenders’ rights under the scheme—something that hon. Members have spoken about this afternoon. Tracey’s campaign was born from personal injustice. She was never informed of her right to challenge the sentence imposed on Josh’s killer. When she discovered the scheme and submitted an appeal on the final day, it was rejected, because it arrived outside of office hours. That is totally unacceptable. I therefore welcome the introduction of Lords amendment 6B, which will place a clear duty on authorities to notify victims and bereaved families of their right to appeal a sentence under the unduly lenient sentence scheme. That change is a direct result of Tracey’s work with academics, campaigners and legislators, and her determination to improve the legislation through the introduction of Josh’s law. Other families who are unfortunate enough to find themselves in such tragic situations will benefit from Tracey’s work, and the work of all campaigners. It is because of that work that I and many others in this House have been educated about the problems with the ULS scheme. I welcome Lords amendment 5C, which will extend the period within which an appeal can be considered from 28 days from the date of sentence to six months from the date of the sentence, where that is in the interests of justice. That is a significant step forward for victims’ rights, but, while I welcome it, true justice requires absolute parity between the rights of offenders and the rights of victims to appeal sentences. Hon. Members from across the House have made that point today, and I hope that the Government have heard it. Despite the positive step forward in this Bill, I know that Tracey will continue her fight for full equality for victims in the eyes of the law. On that note, may I thank Ministers for agreeing to meet Tracey later this year to discuss the Law Commission’s review of criminal appeals? In the Minister’s summing-up speech, I would appreciate it if she could confirm that Tracey would be welcome at that meeting. I also mention my constituents’ disappointment that the Government have decided not to give these legislative changes the name “Josh’s law”. I have already spoken of the undeniable role that Tracey’s campaign has played in bringing about these changes. That sentiment is reflected in the fact that many Members across this House already recognise it as Josh’s law, noting Tracey’s years of campaigning for these changes in Josh’s memory. Baroness Levitt KC, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice, said in the other place last week that this Government listen and want to get things right. I truly welcome the fact that Ministers have listened to Tracey, and have introduced amendments for which she has campaigned for more than seven years, but they have not got this completely right. In the eyes of my constituents, to truly honour Tracey’s work—not only her determination to deliver meaningful legislative reform, but the tireless support that she has provided to victims through her charity—this change in legislation should be called Josh’s law. I understand the Government’s position is that “this decision reflects a wider shift away from the Government naming legislation or amendments after individuals”. However, that is inconsistent with other recently passed legislation. I will refer to just one example. Last week, a Minister referred to “Benedict’s law” at the Dispatch Box. That legislation was passed only last month. That highlights that the move away from naming legislation after individuals is not being applied consistently. I ask the Minister to reflect on that at the Dispatch Box. Together, Lords amendments 5C and 6B represent a positive shift in the way that the criminal justice system in England and Wales approaches victims. I hope that Tracey is incredibly proud of the fact that, by channelling the immense pain of her loss into concrete action, she has helped to shift more focus back to the impact on, and rights of, victims. For that reason, and in Josh Hanson’s memory, I encourage colleagues from across the House to support Lords amendments 5C and 6B.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Rail Prices: Contactless Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for securing this very important debate. There are issues with people who rely on super off-peak tickets, particularly at the weekends. Contactless has been introduced to Harlington in Mid Bedfordshire. It is valuable for commuters, but there are families who rely on the super off-peak fares, particularly at the weekends, who are now paying more for their travel at a time when they are hearing from the Government that rail fares are being frozen. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful for the Government to reconsider the technology that they are using to allow more flexibility in ticketing through the contactless system?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Leasehold Reform: Integrated Retirement Communities · Hansard source

  More

  7. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of planned reforms to leasehold on integrated retirement communities.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Leasehold Reform: Integrated Retirement Communities · Hansard source

  More

  Wixams retirement village in Mid Bedfordshire is a wonderful, integrated retirement community, but I understand from the sector and the industry that that business model is under threat from the Government’s leasehold reforms. Given the important role that these communities can play in reducing social care costs for our local authorities, and the fantastic option they represent for older constituents, will the Minister commit to look again at the specific impacts of leasehold reform on the integrated retirement sector, particularly to give stability and predictability to investors so that they can invest in future schemes?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Is it worth emphasising that the Conservatives froze fuel duty for 14 years, which took £100 billion off the cost of driving? That is an example of taxes that we cut over those 14 years. In contrast, this Government have increased taxes by £66 billion in the past two years. Is it not outrageous?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I thought I would intervene to give the hon. Gentleman a little more time. Is he arguing for an amnesty here in the UK? What does he think British citizens would think of such an amnesty? Does he believe that that would be fair or unfair?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree more. That is clearly a back door to Britain, and we need to close it. Our public sector is dependent on a huge number of worker visas, while we debate—even today, in the Chamber —record youth unemployment. As my right hon. Friend said earlier, we need to get those young people into work rather than relying on importing labour. Perhaps more worrying are the huge gaps in fairly basic compliance data that I uncovered through my questions to the Home Office. Responses to many of my questions indicate that there is a lack of robust data in the Home Office, or that data might be available but producing an answer is simply too expensive. In either case, without robust and easily accessible data in the Home Office, I and my constituents are concerned that our legal migration system is effectively unenforceable. Britain’s immigration system is not working for the British people. It is time that changed. As we continue to shape a new immigration system over the coming months and years, I hope the Minister will consider the recommendations in my report, which I have shared with Members and might well be in his inbox. I am more than happy to meet him to go through the recommendations if that would be of any use to the Government. My constituents want this Government—any Government, in fact—to end the loopholes, close the back doors to Britain and build an immigration system that works for British citizens.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing this important debate. Immigration is one of the defining issues of contemporary politics. Polls regularly show that it is one of the most important issues for the public. Much like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), I am told by my constituents that they are fed up with a system that seems to work for absolutely nobody. I send surveys to villages on a monthly basis, and regularly more than 80% of those who return the surveys tell me that this issue is important to them and we need to fix the immigration system. The Government’s attempts to reform the system are welcome. I encourage them to be ambitious. This is not about chasing Reform, as has been suggested by Members today; it is about focusing on an issue that matters deeply, certainly to my constituents. Earlier this month, I published a short report, “Backdoors to Britain”, which sets out 30 recommendations for strengthening our legal migration system. It comes after months of work and hundreds of written questions to the Home Office—I must apologise for pestering Home Office Ministers with them—which uncovered some alarming truths. Nearly 17,000 micro-companies with five or fewer employees are eligible to sponsor visas, but there seems to be no data on how many people they have sponsored. There is a clear commercial incentive for our universities to undercut our legal migration system in exercising their power to conduct their own English language testing at the start of study. Completion of a degree, regardless of what it is in or where the individual has come from, itself acts as proof of English language competency for future applications to the Home Office. Thousands of visa holders come through hard-to-enforce routes with minimal financial requirements. Two examples that I focused on in the report are religious and charity visa routes. We are operating a system where it is easier for someone to bring their non-British spouse to the UK if they are an immigrant than if they are a British citizen. I do not think that is fair to hard-working British citizens who want to bring their non-British spouse to the UK.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank Ministers for inviting me to a meeting yesterday on unduly lenient sentences. My constituent, Tracey Hanson, and other campaigners like her continue to raise powerful points on the need for victims to have parity with offenders on rights and support. Will the Minister assure the House that the Government intend to achieve that parity during this Parliament?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Social Cohesion Action Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said: “There is a direct link between declining high streets and a sense that the country is going backwards.” I agree with those sentiments. Will he therefore consider encouraging the Chancellor to reduce taxation on high street businesses to support job creation and help them to thrive?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Consular Assistance · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his statement. I have a constituent who has a 16-year-old daughter in Dubai seeking repatriation to the UK. May I put on the record my thanks to the officials for all the work they are doing? I have heard the Minister today say that the advice now is not to travel by land from Dubai to Oman, but my constituent, as of this morning, is very concerned for the safety of her daughter, who has been told to travel the 400 km to Oman to catch a repatriation flight without consular assistance. It sounds like the advice may have changed recently. Please can the Minister look into this, particularly to ensure that UK minors who are trapped in the region are provided with the right consular support, so that they can transit safely to Oman to catch those repatriation flights?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Civil Service Visa Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  8. What guidance his Department issues on civil service sponsorship of visas.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Civil Service Visa Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  Hundreds of public sector bodies, including a number of Departments and arm’s length bodies, are registered to sponsored visas, as the Minister will know. Does she agree that the public sector should lead from the front and sponsor visas by exception only in the cases of hiring truly world-class talent? Can she confirm whether all Departments and arm’s length bodies are complying with the guidance issued by the Cabinet Office?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. I do join my hon Friend in asking the Minister to respond to that specific point in summing up. I know many MPs who represent rural communities have concerns about the fairer funding formula. In fact, it is not fair, particularly for rural communities. It would be helpful if the Minister were to reflect on that in his speech. I would like the Minister to give serious consideration to amending the Government’s plans on neighbourhoods. Neighbourhoods in urban communities can likely afford to be larger. The relative impact of that in many urban communities will be minimal. However, in rural areas, we need neighbourhoods in the region of 10,000 not 50,000, so that people living in small rural towns such as Flitwick and Ampthill in my constituency do not have to leave their towns to access “neighbourhood health services” and so that people living in villages large and small only have to travel to the next village over and not to a big town many miles away. My concern over the Government’s plans for healthcare in rural areas does not end there. In Bedfordshire, we have recently seen our integrated care board—initially serving Milton Keynes, Luton, Bedford and central Bedfordshire—absorbed into a huge conglomerate ICB covering Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Peterborough and Milton Keynes. That is an area of around 3.5 million people. It is hard to see that the new ICB will be able to give the level of attention to people in our rural communities that they need and deserve. In Wixams, a new town being built in my constituency, a GP surgery has long been promised. It was promised when shovels first went into the ground in 2007, and it has been promised ever since, but the empty field remains, waiting for a building and some doctors. Wixams now has roughly 5,000 residents, and it made up about 0.4% of the population of the previous ICB area. It needs its promised GP surgery, but residents have found it incredibly difficult to get action from the ICB. Under the Government’s new ICB arrangements, Wixams’ residents represent just 0.1% of the ICB’s population. It seems obvious to me that an already small but growing community that needs healthcare services will find that this centralisation of leadership structures will make it even harder for them to get the healthcare they need. To give credit where credit is due, the new ICB leadership have been very responsive to my representations on Wixams. After nearly two decades of delay, it feels like we are finally making some progress, together with the Mayor of Bedford and the hard work and commitment of local councillors Graeme Coombes, Marc Frost and Andrea Spice—all of whom I thank for their hard work. However, the point remains the same: when the area covered by ICBs is made bigger, the influence of our smaller rural communities and their healthcare needs becomes smaller. What the Government are doing in Bedfordshire is in no way an isolated incident. I understand that the 42 ICBs that existed before will be reduced to just 26 super-ICBs once the Government’s process finishes. That means thousands of rural communities across England will have less control over their local healthcare overnight, and it was confirmed almost in the same breath as the Government’s plans to bring healthcare closer to communities. That is particularly short-sighted when put against the Government’s plans for mayors. The Government have previously spoken of their desire to line up the boundaries of mayoral areas and integrated boards. Even as part of the 10-year health plan, they stated that their aim is that: “integrated care boards should be coterminous with strategic authorities wherever feasibly possible.” What a fantastic idea. Doing so would give proper political accountability to integrated care boards. It would mean that the rural village has a proper elected voice at the table when decisions about the future of healthcare are being made, and a representative that they could hold accountable at the ballot box if their local healthcare needs were left wanting. That is exactly what rural communities need to ensure they get the healthcare they deserve. The proposals, like so many others, seem to have been put back on the shelf and watered down. Now ICBs will be coterminous with lots of strategic authorities. In Bedfordshire, we are to be forced to have a mayor covering Bedford, Luton, Milton Keynes and central Bedfordshire. Our new ICB would therefore be covered by three mayors, including a mayor for Hertfordshire and a mayor for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. That dilutes the political pressure our mayor can bring and the impact that rural Bedfordshire communities covered by that mayor can reasonably have. If the Government change course back to the sensible idea of having an ICB and a strategic authority be coterminous, that will have been a whole lot of money wasted in two needless restructurings that could have gone into more doctors and nurses. It makes absolutely no sense—we need more doctors and nurses. In Bedfordshire, in the decade since 2016, we now have 18% more patients per fully qualified GP. That reflects the reality that in that same decade, our rural communities have been targeted for more and more development—a point made by the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller). In central Bedfordshire alone, more than 20,000 houses have been built in that period, with many more in Luton, Milton Keynes and Bedford, including significant build-out in Wixams, as I mentioned earlier. There is barely a village in Mid Bedfordshire that has not been expanded significantly over the past decade. We expect to see many thousands more built in the coming years, including potential new towns at Tempsford and expansions east of Milton Keynes. The old argument for healthcare with development no longer works. The argument would go, “Build a large development or new settlement. Give up a bit of what makes your rural community special, and in return you’ll get the new GP surgery or healthcare hub. You’ll get the infrastructure your community needs”. That just does not happen anymore. Now we get the houses, but the field where the GP surgery was promised remains empty, just as it has for two decades in Wixams. The same argument has been made for the Government’s flagship new towns: build a big new town from scratch and it will come with the right infrastructure. However, the Department of Health and Social Care has not been able to confirm to me that additional funding will be provided for GP surgeries, and there does not appear to be future funding provided from the Treasury. That leaves open the prospect that GP surgeries in new towns will be funded at the expense of new GP surgeries in areas such as Wixams and other rural communities across the country, which have been waiting far too long. I would be grateful if the Minister could assure me on that point specifically. The overall point is clear: where rural communities see development, they need infrastructure to cope with it. That is common sense; it is simple, and it is what our constituents want to see. They need to see that infrastructure arrive before the houses are occupied, and not for the burden on overstretched existing infrastructure to be relieved at some indeterminate point in the future. It has been proposed a few times in this Session, but I fundamentally believe something must be done to allow councils and ICBs to benefit from developer contributions from the day that planning permission is granted, not as development is happening. That could be achieved by something as simple as the Government providing funding up front and reclaiming it from the developer via section 106. This is one of the biggest issues facing my residents. When the wait to see a GP soars because of a new housing estate next door, nobody wins. I know this is not confined solely to rural areas, but it is in rural areas where existing infrastructure is strained to capacity, and where a good proportion of the Government’s 1.5 million homes are expected to be built. I will bring my remarks to a close, and I look forward to hearing the views of others in this debate. There are particular challenges for rural communities in accessing healthcare. For too long the approach has been to centralise care in larger and larger towns, and in doing so take it away from villages and small towns. The Government’s move to centralise local healthcare decision making over much bigger areas risks leaving rural residents further behind. The planned shift to a neighbourhood health service is welcome, but it must be a truly neighbourhood-based service. While a neighbourhood of 50,000 people might make sense in our big towns and cities, it risks leaving our rural small towns and villages out in the cold, served only as a bit on the edge of a larger urban area. Equally, as services move more and more online, consideration must be given to the challenges in rural communities that cannot get good broadband or wi-fi, for reasons beyond their control. Finally, we must ensure that development in rural areas comes with the local healthcare infrastructure that we know communities need. For too long, that has not happened, and communities such as mine in Mid Bedfordshire have paid the price.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Healthcare in Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady front-runs entirely a point I will make later, and I thank her for doing so. Unfortunately, that early optimism about neighbourhood healthcare was somewhat tempered by a response I received to a written question, indicating that the Government expect neighbourhoods to have a geography of around 50,000 people. I am afraid that that will do nothing for people in Mid Bedfordshire. It will mean either that rural communities on the edge of urban catchments will be split up and served by “neighbourhood” health hubs in nearby major settlements, which will likely be Hitchin, Bedford, Luton or Milton Keynes, or that one rural “neighbourhood” will cover the vast majority of rural communities, meaning that constituents will have to travel to a central location to access the services that they need. In either case, that is what already happens now. People in rural communities can only get to healthcare services in big towns that are often a distance away. They deserve better than to be viewed as the hinterland of larger urban areas. They deserve a neighbourhood health service designed not as a one-size-fits-all solution, but as genuinely local to their needs. I appreciate that funding is not unlimited and that tough choices need to be made, but those tough choices always seem to result in rural communities losing out when it comes to access to healthcare.