Blake Stephenson
MP for Mid Bedfordshire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills also mentioned the fact that 30.7% of 16 to 17-year-olds are now unemployed and are not learning the skills we have just agreed are important for enabling young people to grow into strong, resilient adults.”
“We in this House should be creating the conditions for economic growth and allowing businesses to get on with what they do best, and then we should get out of the way. Of course, this Government are doing the absolute opposite. They are meddling, getting in the way and wrapping businesses up in red tape.”
“The regulatory burdens throughout our economy are absolutely incredible. We have failed to properly recognise that it is businesses that grow the economy, not Governments. Over the past two years, the Government have missed an opportunity.”
“My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for drilling in the North sea—a case that he made very successfully in the by-election in Aberdeen South. I congratulate him on that, and welcome him to the House of Commons.”
“The impact, unfortunately, is felt most acutely by our young constituents. In particular, as a result of the Government’s interventions over the past two years, the Saturday job is disappearing. That is absolutely tragic. Hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have spoken passionately about their first job.”
“I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I started our lives sweeping floors; that is something that we have in common. Of course, resilience is a really important skill in life and it is learned best when we are young. I remember those early days on my bike, cycling in the cold with my knuckles freezing.”
The complete record
Every one of 494 lines we hold for Blake Stephenson, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 10.
“I will address the importance of new clauses 3 and 4, two sensible amendments tabled by the shadow Foreign Secretary to strengthen oversight of the marine protected area. The region of the Indian ocean that hosts the unique and remarkable Chagos Islands is of critical importance to wildlife. The archipelago is a biodiversity hotspot. The 640,000 sq km marine protected area, which has been monitored by the UK for the past 15 years, has kept the surrounding waters in near-pristine condition. The coral reefs in the untouched marine protected area are some of the healthiest in the world. They are a sanctuary for marine life, including endangered species such as hawksbill turtles, green turtles and reef sharks, and they are located along hugely significant migratory routes for species of tuna, whales and seabirds.”
“Since this House first learned of the disastrous terms of the Chagos surrender deal, there has been significant focus on the spiralling cost and on the defence and security implications—we have heard many such arguments today. The Government’s weakness has compromised our national security. They are surrendering British territory to an ally of China and paying £35 billion—or perhaps as much as £50 billion—for the privilege. Their failure to defend the British national interest is shameful. Equally shameful is the Government’s failure to consider the impact that the deal will have on environmental protections for marine areas. Members from across the House have reflected on that today, but it is a shame that so few Labour Members came to stand up for our environmental protections in the Indian Ocean Territories.”
“A simple change of Government in Mauritius, or even just a change of heart, would render the UK powerless to stop Chinese trawlers turning up and devastating the marine environment. Given the evidence of China plundering the high seas, for example in the south Atlantic, just outside the Falkland Islands zone of economic interest, it absolutely will do the same in that territory.”
“When answering questions before the Foreign Affairs Committee in June, the Minister would not give any clear assurances or guarantees on the future of the marine protected area. Within his obfuscation about separate agreements with Mauritius, which hope we can “share objectives and values”, he admitted that we can only “take it on trust that there will be a Marine Protected Area” after sovereignty has been surrendered. We absolutely do not need to take that on trust. The Government have failed to secure any meaningful safeguards or guarantees, and are instead hoping—merely hoping—that a memorandum of understanding will somehow protect that pristine ecosystem. How on earth can we have any confidence in that at all?”
“There is a difference between talking with other countries and doing a deal. I know that those on the Opposition Front Bench who formed part of the previous Government were not going to do this deal. They may have been talking, but as we have heard, there was going to be no agreement. I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and reflecting that I was not part of the previous Government, but he knows full well that this agreement would not have been made under these terms if the Conservatives were in government now. The marine protected area is one of the largest untouched marine ecosystems, and it is globally significant. As such, instead of heedlessly driving this hopeless surrender deal through Parliament, the Government should have been ensuring that protections for wildlife and the marine environment were watertight.”
“In the first year, the money paid to Mauritius could deliver a new GP surgery in 30 communities —communities such as Wixams and Wootton in my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, which are still waiting for improved access to local healthcare. This was all a choice—a choice to prioritise ideological surrender over our communities, over our security, and over marine protections. It is shameful, and I encourage hon. Members across the House to support new clauses 3 and 4.”
“Does the Minister agree with those concerns, and therefore agree that the ecological status of this extraordinary environment must remain on the British Government’s agenda, and will he reflect on that in his summing up of the debate? Will he now accept that, as well as costing British taxpayers £35 billion, betraying British Chagossians and undermining our security, without better protections secured in the treaty, the Government’s Chagos surrender deal will harm the marine environment? All of this at a time when the Government argued that the state of public finances required tough choices—choices that punished pensioners, family farmers, and taxed education for the very first time. The annual cost of the surrender of the Chagos islands could pay for 3,068 new teachers, 3,253 new nurses or 1,975 police officers.”
“When the Minister sums up the debate, will he say whether he shares my concerns over new fishing and trawler licences? New clause 3 would require that any written instrument on the establishment and management of the marine protected area be subject to the approval of this House to ensure that it is fit for purpose. Will the Minister say what progress has been made with developing the “separate…instrument”, referenced in article 5.2 of the treaty? Will it be in place before Mauritius assumes sovereignty? Any agreement on the Chagos MPA must be scrutinised like a treaty and presented to Parliament. New clause 4 would require the Secretary of State regularly to report on the status of the marine protected area. Reports from Committees in the Lords have raised concerns about Mauritius’s track record on environmental protections.”
“I absolutely agree, and I note that the right hon. Gentleman and I are the only Members in the Chamber from the Environmental Audit Committee, which I think is a damning indictment on those Members in this House who are here to protect our environment and hold the Government to account on environmental protections. Will the Minister now explain what will happen to the MPA in future, and say whether the Government will commit resources to support the protection of the MPA? If so, where will those resources come from? With the fisheries Minister of Mauritius talking of issuing fishing and trawler licences, it is more important than ever that we have lasting confidence in marine protections before British territory is surrendered to Mauritius.”
“The people of Mid Bedfordshire, in response to my survey, said that they do not want digital ID, and nor do I. Does the Secretary of State agree that the individual freedoms of British people are an unacceptable price to pay for failures to enforce existing laws, protect our borders and stop illegal working? Will she please answer how much this will cost? If she does not know at this moment in time, is it responsible of her to be pushing it?”
“The Minister knows that I have a keen interest in NHS reorganisation and the impact on frontline services, particularly in Mid Bedfordshire. Given the failures of NHSBSA, has consideration been given to reorganising that authority? I also repeat the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild): given the failures, will the Minister rule out bonuses for the NHSBSA’s leadership?”
“Q7. Government plans for English devolution and NHS reform suggest that integrated care boards should align with new strategic authorities. The Government’s plan for Bedfordshire will not currently achieve that, so what assurances can the Prime Minister provide that local NHS reorganisation will be good value for money, improve local accountability and deliver the healthcare services that are needed to serve my constituents in rural Mid Bedfordshire, including the much-needed GP surgery in Wixams?”
“T7. The latest central estimate from the Office for Budget Responsibility puts the cost of achieving net zero by 2050 at £803 billion, with half that cost attributed to lost fuel duties. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government will need to increase duties elsewhere, including on renewables, which could push bills up further?”
“With thousands signing on to incapacity benefit every day, it is clear that we must get serious and take control of welfare spending. We cannot become a welfare state with an economy attached. I will always stand up for those in Mid Bedfordshire who need vital support. The two-child limit is an important safeguard in our welfare system, striking a balance between supporting families and helping parents into work, and ensuring fairness for working families who do not see their incomes grow as their families grow. Working families across the country are having to make difficult decisions about the size of their family.”
“We must have a fair welfare system—one that provides vital support to those who need it but does not create a barrier to finding work. We need a financially sustainable system that delivers fairness for the taxpayer and does not entrench dependency. The Government’s Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill—which I think has now been shortened to the Universal Credit Bill—barely saves any money. In fact, I think we heard from the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), that it will cost more money, and it will make no impact on helping people back to work. That highlights the Government’s complete failure to reform our welfare system. The welfare bill continues to rise, and economic growth is being strangled as a result.”
“I am sympathetic to the point, but I will get on to how unjust and unfair it is to expect other families to pay for those situations, and the fiscal stability and security we need as a country.”
“Projections from the Child Poverty Action Group and the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimate that removing the cap would create an additional £1 billion annual cost to the public finances. As we grapple with considerable economic pressures, such a policy shift is simply not affordable. Removing the cap would force the Government to raise taxes further, borrow even more money—when borrowing is already out of control—or divert public funding away from other stretched public services. The Government have lost control of the public finances, and working families cannot afford to take another hit.”
“I absolutely agree. It is important that we get people into work so that they can look after their families and make the right decisions for them. Shifting the financial responsibility of children on to the state risks not only entrenching inequality, but opening the floodgates to unsustainable dependency, encouraging parents to have children beyond their means under the assumption that the state will bear the cost. It is neither equitable nor responsible for the state to incentivise larger families through an open-ended benefits system. That is especially true as the cost of our welfare bill and its burden on the taxpayer continues to rise. The fiscal reality must not be ignored.”
“I certainly accept that there are many ways to raise taxes, but my constituents and businesses in my constituency are paying far too much tax as it is. We cannot continue to squeeze corporations, businesses and hard-working people further to achieve the hon. Gentleman’s aims. The Government have lost control of public finances. Working families cannot afford to take another hit. I recognise the sensitivity of the debate. It is crucial that we support those in genuine need, and we must work towards ending child poverty. The state, however, simply cannot afford to subsidise unlimited family expansion on the backs of working people.”
“I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Part of the Government’s plan for local government reform is to align the ICBs with new mayoralties, as he just mentioned. Does he share my concern that the plan to merge Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB with Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Milton Keynes, despite there being no plans for a mayoralty to cover that area, is a complete waste of time and money that could be better spent fixing local healthcare gaps and patient care?”
“I welcome the commitment to deliver East West Rail. Sticking with the railways, will the Secretary of State provide assurance to my constituents that she is committed to delivering step-free access—in particular, at Harlington and Flitwick stations? On roads, junction 13 of the M1 is desperately in need of remodelling to cope with a growing population and to ease traffic flows. What assessment has been made of the benefits of remodelling that junction?”
“T3. Does the Home Secretary agree with Labour police and crime commissioners that the money allocated by the Chancellor at the spending review is insufficient to deliver the Government’s policing priorities?”
“Turning to the sustainability of UK pensions, I would welcome further clarity from Ministers on their proposals for powers to pay a surplus to an employer. How confident is the Minister that the thresholds set for the release of surplus are sufficient to protect member benefits? That is particularly important, given that scheme surpluses have emerged only recently. Does the Minister plan to specify the authorised uses for surplus return? For example, will surplus be protected from being paid to overseas parent companies? I welcome the Government’s desire to ensure that our pensions system is sustainable and contributes to UK economic growth. I am just not as enthusiastic about some of the Government’s instincts to deliver Government-led investment, at the expense of market-led growth.”
“Has any consideration been given to such safe harbours in the Bill? It is not clear why these reforms are necessary. In his closing remarks, will the Minister say why, given that policies such as the value-for-money tests and small pots consolidation are already in progress, he feels that these additional requirements are needed? I am also concerned to find that Ministers propose making it a statutory requirement for schemes to follow a specific route when considering transferring into a superfund. Trustees have a fiduciary duty to their members—we have heard a lot about that in the debate—and this direction from Ministers runs counter to that duty. Will the Minister provide assurance to the House on those points?”
“Rather than seeking to support free enterprise and entrepreneurship in order to grow our economy, the Government seek state-led interventions, and want to direct funding to Government-approved investments. That is the wrong approach, as many hon. Members have said this evening. On scale and asset allocation reforms, I am concerned that the Government seem to believe that they, and regulators, should direct how pension funds invest, rather than schemes acting in the best interests of their members—a matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse). Trustees who are directed to invest in assets by the Government or regulators may need to be protected by safe harbour provisions in the event that their investments perform less well than alternatives that they may have chosen.”
“We all share in the ambition to ensure the sustainability of pensions, and to provide the best possible income for all our constituents in retirement. Given the time, I will keep my comments reasonably short, but having come to this place from the City—though I did not work in the pensions industry—and as an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for pensions and growth, I look forward to providing more detailed scrutiny of the Bill as it progresses through the House. I rise to share concerns about the Bill, some of which have been shared with me by City institutions. First, I am concerned that this Bill demonstrates a broader problem with this Government’s approach to the economy.”
“From responses to my written parliamentary questions, we know that the median earner can expect to pay £273 more in tax this year under Labour. When the Chancellor sat on the Opposition Benches, she described freezing tax thresholds as “picking the pockets” of working people. Does the Chancellor accept that she is now the one picking the pockets of working people?”
“T4. At the Foreign Affairs Committee yesterday, the Minister for the overseas territories, the hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), was unable to give clear guarantees about the future of the Chagos marine protected area once the sovereignty of the Chagos islands is surrendered to Mauritius. Does the Foreign Secretary accept that his Chagos surrender deal does not currently secure the marine environment, and that a future environmental protection agreement may result in the UK paying even more money to Mauritius?”
“It would build on recent Government announcements on build-out rates and give planning authorities the ability to reject future planning applications from developers on the basis of past failures to deliver or maintain sustainable drainage infrastructure. We must do better for the hard-working people in our communities who want to return from work to a warm, dry home. That is the least they deserve, and I present this Bill for them. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Blake Stephenson, David Simmonds, Nick Timothy, Mr Gagan Mohindra, Dr Ben Spencer, Sarah Bool, Alison Griffiths, Jack Rankin, Rebecca Paul, Lewis Cocking and Paul Holmes present the Bill. Blake Stephenson accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed (Bill 270).”
“This Bill will also ensure that planning authorities give appropriate weight to flood risk in the planning system and prevent developers avoiding their obligations to build liveable homes rather than just their own profits. It will introduce a simple presumption against development where the lead local flood authority, the Environment Agency and/or the internal drainage board, considers that the development would increase flood risk for existing properties when taking into account sustainable drainage infrastructure and flood mitigation measures. The Bill would require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance, prepared by a panel of experts, for planning authorities and lead local authorities on the minimum expected standards for drainage and maintenance in new developments.”
“It will also ensure that we take the politics out of protecting people from flooding by ensuring that the Secretary of State may remove internal drainage boards as a statutory consultee only if they replace them with an alternative body, which should provide advice on flooding risk. The Environment Agency already acts as a statutory consultee on planning matters that impact on flood plains, but it lacks the resources to effectively and efficiently identify flooding risk more broadly. That is why internal drainage boards, where they exist, should be brought into the planning process to complement its role and ensure that proper consideration is being given to the flooding implications of developments for current and future residents.”
“That is what this Bill will try to fix, starting by ensuring that where we have an internal drainage board—experts on flooding and flood management—we take advantage of their expertise and make them a statutory consultee on development that is likely to have an impact on flood risk in the broad area they cover. Many internal drainage boards are already contributing to that work by making representations on planning applications, but putting them on a statutory footing would ensure that their advice is given the consideration it deserves and would cost us nothing. This Bill will make a simple amendment to schedule 4 to the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 to insert internal drainage boards as a statutory consultee in the planning system.”
“It is not the people who worked hard to get their new-build home in Maulden, only to discover the planning system let them down and allowed developers to get away without building the right protections for their homes from flooding. It is not the Government, who are left puzzled as to why all these people are opposing their plans to build thousands more homes in our communities. The only people who gain are the big box developers who have thrown up the houses with minimal restrictions and mitigations, and taken their profits whilst our communities pay the price. Maulden is just one example, but there are many places in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country where our planning system has failed the people who need it most—the people we serve.”
“That upslope development has caused a huge increase in flooding in Maulden, to the point that homes that have stood for centuries with minimal flooding have now been reclassified by the Environment Agency as being within flood plain. Are the developers stopping there? Of course not. Another 40 hectares of land has been put forward for development around Maulden as part of the call for sites for the next central Bedfordshire local plan. Who gains from planning like this? It certainly is not the hard-working people who already live in Maulden, who saved up to buy the house that they had been dreaming about and wish to be able to peacefully enjoy it, without having to worry about getting sandbags out every time grey clouds form overhead.”
“It means that many communities in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country who have done the right thing, and taken the houses that the Government want them to take, now find themselves with a higher flood risk, while developers have got away high and dry with their profits. When they stand ankle-deep in water in their once dry living rooms and desperately attempt to stop the next bad development making their situation worse, the Prime Minister calls them blockers. We are letting them down. This is not a hypothetical situation—it is happening in our communities in Mid Bedfordshire right now. Take the village of Maulden, historically developed as a linear settlement running along the greensand ridge, where developers saw an opportunity to develop up the slope of the ridge.”
“They are hard-working people, but rather than listen to their concerns, the Government have sought to bash them at every turn. One of the biggest problems in the planning system is the total failure of many local authorities—as a councillor, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—to properly understand and consider flood risk in new developments. Policy that the Government think ought to be sufficient to prevent development on floodplains in all but exceptional circumstances, for example, is being circumvented by developers. Due to lack of suitable expertise in planning, we see such developments often going ahead without suitable drainage infrastructure to protect our communities from flooding. What does this all mean?”
“I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the consideration of flooding risk in the planning process; to make internal drainage boards statutory consultees for certain planning decisions; and for connected purposes. During this Parliament, we have heard a lot about the problems in the planning system. In particular, the Government have spoken about the blockers—those who, for reasons that the Government seem not to understand, oppose developments they see as bad for their communities. This Bill intends to go some way to fix the Government’s problem. In reality, the reason that many people in our communities become blockers is that they have no faith that the planning system will deliver houses that make their lives better.”
“It was reported today that the Treasury may be planning to siphon money off from the water restoration fund for “unrelated purposes”. What assurance can the Secretary of State provide that money in the restoration fund will be used to clean up our waterways, not to cover rising Government debt interest?”
“The Attorney General has recently been forced to apologise for his comments about those who believe the European convention on human rights is impeding efforts to tackle illegal migration. Does that not call into question the credibility of any advice given by the Attorney General and whether we can take the Government’s plans to stop the boats seriously?”
“The Government’s English devolution plans are intended to simplify local accountability. The reforms could be critical to improving democratic accountability for our integrated care boards and unlocking the delivery of much-needed healthcare facilities, such as a GP surgery in Wixams in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House make time for a Minister to update the House on why integrated care boards covering Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Milton Keynes, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough are being merged, despite there being no plans at all for a mayor to cover the area and hold that body to account?”
“East West Rail is due to travel through my constituency, on the historic Marston Vale line. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the mistakes made on HS2—we have heard some shocking stories today—will not also be made on East West Rail? I am afraid that there is very little confidence in the East West Rail Company. It is important that my communities are listened to, that we deliver this infrastructure faster and at lower cost, and that people who are impacted are properly compensated.”
“The Secretary of State will know that my local ICB in Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes is set to merge with Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The new ICB will cover a population of about 3 million people. Given the difficulties we have had securing a GP surgery in Wixams, will the Secretary of State set out how supersizing that quango will help rural mid-Beds to get the local healthcare it needs?”
“Reflecting on the fact that the costs of the Bill come on top of the increase to air passenger duty in the autumn Budget, will the Minister provide an assurance that the Bill will not clobber our hard-working constituents with yet higher prices when they jet off on their family holiday?”
“As we all know, times are tight for many of our constituents. UK air passenger duty is the world’s highest tax levied on airline passengers, and following the autumn Budget, the OBR forecasts that it will increase 9% a year on average to a whopping £6.5 billion in 2029-30. On top of that, it is estimated that the impact of the Bill through the levy and administration costs will raise the cost of a ticket to travel. I know Ministers say that it is a modest increase, but that is why some may prefer the Government to use an alternative funding mechanism, such as the industry’s contribution to the UK emissions trading scheme. I am not saying that the Government should take that approach, but it would be worthwhile for them to explain why they have taken the approach they have.”
“Taking waste that was heading to landfill and instead using it to power us into the sky would seem to be a simple way forward, although whether there is enough of it is another matter. I declare my interest as a Central Bedfordshire councillor, but will the Minister consider the merits of including, in this Bill or elsewhere, a requirement for the Secretary of State to provide local authorities with guidance on how they can take advantage of this opportunity to help in the national effort to scale up production? Unless it is financially prohibitive for them to do so, would it not be sensible and pragmatic to let them use our household waste in this way, rather than let it head to landfill or local incinerators? Finally, I have a few questions for the Minister on the costs of aviation travel.”
“Doing more to stimulate the development of sustainable aviation fuels is an obvious route to economic growth, so will the Minister reflect on our global market position, explain how the mechanism compares with other approaches, and give an assurance that the measures in the Bill will be enough to avoid the UK aviation industry needing to import SAF from abroad? It would be a huge missed opportunity to later find that this mechanism and related policies have not been ambitious enough, leaving foreign countries to benefit from domestic mandates. One thing that strikes me immediately as worthy of more thought—the Minister may wish to comment—is black bin waste.”
“In my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire, Cranfield University and local industry are already working at the cutting edge of developing new technologies in this area. I have heard from them and other experts about the potential of British-made sustainable aviation fuels. I have even learned about second-generation SAF—not something that I thought I would get into this time last year—which turns the waste we all put in our black bins every week into the fuel that powers us to adventures abroad. That is a remarkable thing, and I am glad to have learned about it since coming into the House. If we get sustainable aviation fuels right, we can create and support thousands of highly skilled jobs in places such as Cranfield.”
“But just as it is important to support the growth of airports such as Luton, it is important that expansion happens as sustainably as possible to ensure that we get as many of the benefits, and as few of the harms, as possible. This is the subject of a current Environmental Audit Committee inquiry, which I was pleased to secure, investigating how the Government can deliver airport expansion while meeting their legally binding climate targets. Some, such as the Climate Change Committee, say that it is not possible, and the Government need to square that circle. With around 7% of greenhouse gases derived from aviation in the UK, we should not underestimate the challenge, but it is clear to me that sustainable aviation fuels are an important piece of the jigsaw.”
“The UK has a real opportunity to lead the world in the production of sustainable aviation fuels, and this Bill aims to provide the investment certainty needed to scale up domestic SAF production and achieve just that. My constituency is located a stone’s throw from London Luton airport. It is a rapidly expanding regional airport, and that expansion will bring with it huge economic benefits, including jobs for thousands of my constituents and better connections for business and leisure. Indeed, airport expansion will help to bring millions of people to the Universal UK theme park—which I have to mention every time I stand up—and play a key role in driving local economic growth.”
“Global tech giants such as Microsoft and Amazon have announced plans to use SMRs to power their data centres, so they have trust in SMRs. I happen to believe that they should be the future of nuclear in this country. I have a couple of questions for the Secretary of State. The announcement states that a new public company, GB Energy Nuclear, will be set up. Will he set out why a new company is required, how much it will cost the public purse, and why it is based in Warrington? I have nothing against Warrington, of course, but why has the decision been made to place the company there? Will he outline when he expects meaningful deployment of the modular reactors?”