Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Commons Chamber

The right hon. Member for Kenilworth and Southam, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

7. What assessment the Local Government Boundary Commission for England has made of the potential impact of the pause of local government reorganisation on boundary reviews in the areas involved.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)]

The Local Government Boundary Commission paused boundary reviews in areas affected by local government reorganisation proposals in February of last year, so the Government’s recent review of those proposals has not had any immediate practical impact. The commission will return to those boundary reviews when the reorganisation proposals are resolved.

[Blake Stephenson]

The Government’s management of local government reorganisation must have cost the taxpayer millions of pounds. Can my right hon. and learned Friend advise, if not on the Floor of the House, in writing, whether there is also a financial cost to the Local Government Boundary Commission?

[Sir Jeremy Wright]

I will write to my hon. Friend if there is anything to add to what I am about to say, but as he will appreciate, the delay will have a practical impact because all those waiting for such a review will have to wait rather longer. The boundary review can only review proposals for change when a new authority is legally established, which has not yet happened.

Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Adrian Ramsay]

Yes, of course I share that frustration. I am pleased to see many Members, from lots of parties, in the Chamber for this debate. We need to increase those numbers and rebuild the national consensus we had on climate. I hope we can have such a consensus on nature restoration and climate adaptation. We all need to tackle the myths and make this debate less fractious and more about bringing people together than driving culture-war wedges. We can do that with how we put forward the solutions that are needed.

Nowhere in this debate are the threats clearer than with regard to food security. This year, water scarcity and drought threaten food production. As all of us representing rural constituencies will be aware, the UK’s agricultural sector has suffered three of the five worst harvests in the past decade, and this year will almost certainly add to that record.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I will. I am being generous with interventions, which will mean we wait longer before we get to more speeches, but I trust that those intervening are conscious of that.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous, and I thank him for that. On food security, like many hon. Members with rural constituencies, I met farmers over the summer. Many told me that they want to build their own reservoirs and extract water dynamically from rivers so they can use that water when it is needed. Does he agree that that is a very simple regulatory change that the Government could make, which would support our farmers in adapting to climate change challenges?

[Adrian Ramsay]

I agree with the hon. Member; that is something that farmers in my constituency have raised with me frequently. There must be solutions to the growing problem of far too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times. The solution he outlines is part of how we seriously step up our water management work.

The UK imports around 40% of its food from overseas. Our over-reliance on global markets for food and fertiliser exposes the UK to supply shocks that could make the cost of living crisis much worse. Food security is not simply about producing more food; it is about the resilience of the entire system of agricultural production, including soils, water, fertiliser, feeds, distribution, international markets and the natural systems upon which they all depend. We also depend on international food markets, global supply chains and a stable international system, so protecting critical systems abroad is not simply an act of environmental justice; it is an investment in our own food security. [Interruption.] I hear you, Sir Desmond, but I have been very generous in the number of interventions I have taken. Had I not been so, there would be a much longer list of speeches for later, so I will persist for now.

There is still hope. The Joint Intelligence Committee assessment does not simply describe the threat; it identifies remedies, as it recognises that nature recovery strengthens resilience. Nature restoration and reducing human pressures on nature are both essential. We need to approach nature not as an environmental policy sitting outside national security policy, but as delivering national security benefits and integrated into all areas of policy.

The Government have levers to begin this wide-scale transformation, including fully funding the national tree plan; expanding the sustainable farming incentive; investing in natural flood management schemes such as river renaturalisation and wetland restoration; regenerating soil health to boost resilience for food production; restoring rivers and wetlands to rehabilitate freshwater habitat, flood protection and drought resilience; restoring peatlands for carbon storage and natural flood management; establishing more broadleaf woodland to enhance habitat for biodiversity and landscape-scale resilience; and converting to nature-friendly and climate-resilient farming. All those measures will contribute to maintaining the ecological functions on which we depend.

We need a stronger institutional approach to treating critical natural systems as national infrastructure and to establishing mechanisms to strengthen resilience and adaptation. That means recognising that healthy, natural systems are themselves a form of critical infrastructure.

On the question of transparency, Parliament should have full, unredacted access to the national security assessment as a matter of urgency, to scrutinise the evidence and ensure that our response as a nation is commensurate with the threats. If the Government want the public to become more resilient, the public must be trusted with the facts.

Historians will write about our decisions and future generations will judge us for them. They will recount how we knowingly gambled with global stability, the health of the natural world and the safety of human life and called it a growth agenda. As nature decline is a top-tier threat against the economy, weakening statutory protections and falling short of international obligations directly harms our economy and risks future prosperity. There is a temptation in politics to address environmental policy as an optional extra. The Government no longer have the luxury of time, and it would be a dereliction of duty by everyone in the House to disregard these warnings.

We need a Minister responsible for co-ordinating resilience to move from a managed decline approach to proactively investing in safeguarding for the future, because this is a cross-Government issue that needs to be addressed at scale. The Prime Minister has created a No. 10 for the north, but we need a No. 10 for the future, in the form of a dedicated climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office to drive the scale and pace of work required to restore nature and protect the public. Nature security is national security, and protecting the natural foundations of our country and our planet is ultimately protecting the security of life itself.

Woodland Creation

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 11th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. It is also a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer).

I congratulate another constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis), on securing this important debate on woodland creation. As he knows, my Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which he mentioned, is home to the community forest of Marston Vale, which is one of a handful created in the 1990s to help to establish and enhance woodlands. The forest has had a tremendously positive impact on the environment in Bedfordshire, with 16.9% tree coverage across the forest area, up from only 3.6% in 1991, and nearly 3 million trees, shrubs and hedgerows planted. That has transformed a Bedfordshire countryside scarred by our historic brickmaking industry into a beautiful place to spend time, yet Bedfordshire is still in a nature and biodiversity crisis.

Our countryside, particularly our ancient woodland, is under significant threat from development, due to both the increasing numbers of people roaming our area as a result of population growth, which brings its own challenges to local nature, and development proposals, including that at Keepers Place, with which the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North will be familiar as it straddles the boundary between our constituencies. That is just one development among the thousands of houses proposed to be built across the area of the forest of Marston Vale in coming decades.

Our ancient woodlands are at their best when surrounded by nature. The community forest has done fantastic work introducing reafforesting and sustainable woodland management practices across Mid Bedfordshire, but we cannot support our woodlands through reafforesting alone. That is why I hope that the Minister will set out, in her response, how this Government plan to ensure that our ancient and newly created woodlands alike will be protected over the short and long term. I endorse the Woodland Trust’s recommendation that the Government should ensure that our ancient woodlands are protected, including through designation as sites of special scientific interest. I would be interested in the Minister’s comments on that.

I conclude with a request to the Government on a topic about which hon. Members have already spoken. I welcome the Government’s ambition to create a new national forest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. Mid Bedfordshire sits at the heart of that corridor, alongside the constituencies of the hon. Members for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard and for Milton Keynes North. Mid Bedfordshire has the forest of Marston Vale at its centre, and has the expertise to deliver a new national forest that can be enjoyed across the growth corridor. I have made a number of representations to Ministers already, and I believe that the new national forest should be built on the forest of Marston Vale by expanding southwards through my constituency. It would be of value to people right across the region, would provide a lasting benefit to the growth corridor and would help to support the continued restoration of one of Britain’s most nature-depleted landscapes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Creagh]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised that subject, which I was coming on to. Native wild deer are an important component of our landscape, and they play a role in healthy forest ecosystems. However, excessive browsing, foraging and trampling by deer put pressure on woodland ground flora, damage trees, and inhibit the natural regeneration of existing woodland and, crucially, the growth of new trees through natural colonisation. Trees will get on and do it themselves if we just leave them, but they cannot do it if they are constantly being yanked up by deer or grey squirrel populations.

We have to manage the impact of deer and grey squirrel populations, and it is our intention to outline plans to do that. We published our squirrel strategy last week, and the deer plan is imminent. We provide grants for capital items such as fencing and for the management of deer by lethal control. That is done through countryside stewardship grant funding where the land manager has been advised by a Forestry Commission deer officer that such action is needed.

We are funding projects relating to reducing deer impacts, and I am particularly concerned about the muntjac deer and the Chinese water deer, which are a particular feature of the east of England. They are alien, invasive species, so there are risks about hybridisation with our own native deer. One of the two—I cannot remember which one, but I think it is the muntjac—can breed three times a year, so it is constant breeding. Covid has had a very bad impact on deer management. We do not really have research on deer numbers, but anecdotally they are high, so we need to take action. I am particularly anxious about the east of England, and the steps needed there.

I want to say something about the British quality wild venison standard. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) may not have shot a deer, but I have certainly eaten quite a lot of venison. That wild, organic meat is really healthy and plays a part in creating that ecosystem. Some charities, such as the Country Food Trust, are doing really good work in that area.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) mentioned the potential introduction of the lynx as an apex predator, but active deer management is already under way in my constituency through culling. Do the Government have a preference on culling versus introducing an apex predator, or a combination of the two? What thought are the Government giving to deer management?

[Mary Creagh]

We have given some consideration to the question of introducing the lynx. At the moment, they are classed as a dangerous wild animal under the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976, and all dangerous wild animals have to be kept in a fenced enclosure. A massive fenced enclosure would be needed for a lynx. At the moment, the policy in the legislation makes it challenging. We need to balance that and work with stakeholders. Like beavers, they are animals that need a range, a habitat and the ability to roam around and breed. The question is: what happens when they breed and produce offspring? One pair of lynxes could end up being eight or 16. What is the management plan going forward? There are certainly some policy wrinkles in that—I will come back to deer, but that would need to be in very large forests with a lot of room to roam.

To go back to Kew Gardens, I had the pleasure of spending an hour with Kevin Martin, who is the head of tree collections at Kew. He has been going over to Kazakhstan in central Asia to collect tree seeds and do research on the seeds of the future and what our changing landscape will mean as we have hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters. I also went out with somebody to look at trees, and we looked at this amazing lime tree with all its heavy nectar. He said to me, “For bees, that is like having a meadow in the sky.” Our city trees and the lime trees that grow along the embankment might be a bit of a nightmare from an allergy and pollen point of view, but for the bees of our capital city, and all our great cities, they are meadows in the sky.

Independent Water Commission: Final Report

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy, on my first outing on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing this important debate, and I join Members who have welcomed the work of Sir Jon Cunliffe. I thank local action groups across England that are campaigning hard and cleaning up our waterways, and the employees in our water industry working hard, day in, day out, to make a difference within the framework that they operate in.

I took note of the rivers that were mentioned during the debate: the River Lim in West Dorset, plus two chalk streams that I am afraid I missed; the Rivers Wharfe and Aire in Shipley; the River Wye in North Herefordshire; and the Rivers Ouse and Foss in York. We are all agreed that they need to be cleaned up. Ensuring that we have a plentiful supply of clean water and waterways across England matters to us all, including my constituents in Mid Bedfordshire. Like many places across England, Mid Bedfordshire is having to adapt to a growing population, dry summers and increasingly wet winters, all with ageing infrastructure.

Having grown up spending many an hour playing in my local river, a tributary of the River Test in Hampshire, I enjoyed a childhood that many simply cannot enjoy today, with the latest assessments showing that no rivers in England are in good or high overall health. Nature is also in grave danger. Freshwater habitats cover less than 1% of the earth’s surface but support more than 10% of global species. Since the 1970s, freshwater species have declined by 85%, far outpacing declines in terrestrial and marine systems.

England’s globally significant chalk streams, which make up 85% of the world’s total, are among the habitats most affected by pollution and abstraction, and I was pleased to hear many passionate advocates for our chalk streams in this debate. But what did this Government do when Opposition Members tabled amendments to the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 to restore and protect those habitats? The amendments were ignored, citing care for our environment and countryside as blockers against so-called progressive builders. That all illustrates, in the first 18 months in government, a level of arrogance that will do absolutely nothing to secure our future and clean up our waterways.

The problems with the water sector have been known for a long time and are well reported. The Environmental Audit Committee’s report, “Water quality in rivers” dating back to January 2022 provides a clear picture of the concerns, and the previous Government went on to help to identify the scale of the problem. When Labour left power in 2010, only 7% of storm overflows were being monitored; by 2023 it was 100%. That unveiled the severity of the situation facing the water industry, with water company storm overflows spilling into England’s rivers, lakes and seas for a record 3.61 million hours in 2024—although I take the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) about us needing to understand the volume, not just the hours. There is much more to do.

The previous Government’s plan for water introduced the water restoration fund, which channelled environmental fines and penalties into projects that improve the water environment. Ministers in the previous Government also took action to ban water company bosses’ bonuses for illegal action. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s independent review was a serious undertaking, running to 460 pages and 88 recommendations, much of which His Majesty’s official Opposition have cautiously welcomed. For example, we know that, as it stands, the regulators are not working as they should, and that creating a single joined-up regulator is a sensible recommendation. However, I am concerned at both the speed at which the Government are moving and some of the proposals in their White Paper, which may see bills rise for families. Can the Minister confirm how many of Sir Jon’s 88 recommendations were accepted by the Government and included in the water White Paper?

On water bills, what assessment has the Minister made of how smart metering may impact the average family’s water bills? Secondly, after the benefits of water metering, what additional hit to disposable income does the Minister expect that increasing bills will have on families, coming, as it will, on the back of record tax rises by this Government? Thirdly, can the Minister tell us how much taxpayer and bill-payer money has been allocated to their White Paper, and over what timeframe those taxes and bills will be used to pay for the work in it?

To reduce the root causes of pollution, the Government have announced that they intend to implement pre-pipe solutions—which have been discussed in this debate—but have not yet provided any examples of how those will be implemented. Can the Minister provide further details on the implementation, and particularly how it will be integrated into the planning system? The Minister knows that since being elected, I have been calling for schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 to be enacted, first in my Adjournment debate on flooding in Bedfordshire, and also through the Environmental Audit Committee, which recently recommended doing so. The Minister at first seemed sympathetic to the arguments, but now seems to consider that there are other ways to achieve the same outcome. Could the Minister highlight what those other ways are?

Our infrastructure is ageing and needs investment. That is abundantly clear to communities in the south-east now suffering repeated and unacceptable supply disruptions. How will the Minister make sure that the infrastructure is upgraded to ensure that those catastrophic failures, such as those seen under South East Water in the last two months, do not happen again? A glaring gap in the Government’s rhetoric on water is conserving and ensuring water security. That means improving supply. How and when will the Government improve water security?

It is important that in the efforts to reform the water sector, all stakeholders are engaged in the process. That includes farmers, and I was pleased to hear hon. Members today talk about the importance of engaging with farmers. Early last year those farmers had the rug pulled from under their feet when the Government suddenly halted applications to the sustainable farming incentive scheme. The SFI scheme rewarded farmers for adapting land management practices to reduce pollution, manage water flow and improve water quality. We are almost a year on from the closure of the SFI, and the Government—despite promising details on a new scheme last summer—only announced in January this year that a new scheme would open in June. Does the Minister not appreciate that farming is an occupation that requires long-term planning and certainty, particularly when so many other aspects, such as the weather, are left to chance?

In another potential blow to farmers, the Government have confirmed that they are considering whether environmental permitting should be extended to cattle farming, when this was not included as a direct recommendation in the independent review. As National Farmers Union vice-president Rachel Hallos said:

“Such a change would have a direct impact on farm business growth”.

The beef sector is already struggling with increasing costs and higher taxes imposed on them by the Chancellor, so how does the Minister intend to ensure that it does not face another new cost pressure? Is she engaging with it to listen to its concerns?

Many of my constituents care deeply about water quality and security. They are quite simply fed up that their water bills are increasing while water companies are failing to clear up their waterways. Given the Government’s habit of missing their own deadlines in the first 18 months of this Parliament, will the Minister give an iron-clad commitment that the transition plan will be published in parliamentary time this year? Will she clarify how long the transition will take? As she knows, and may well repeat to me, people voted for change and expect it, especially in our water sector. They demand that the Government move faster.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Zeichner]

The UK flour sector is really important. I very much welcome the work that that sector does for us. It is right to raise the point about trade deals. We are determined to make sure that we do nothing to undermine a very successful sector that helps keep food security at high levels in this country.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

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?

[Emma Hardy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. I do not recognise that report. The money from the restoration fund is being used now to fund projects up and down the country. As I have mentioned, the future money from fines will be ringfenced for environmental projects up and down the country as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member raises an important issue, and I will make sure that Home Office colleagues have heard the concerns he raises. Ministers have raised concerns of that nature with the authorities, including in Hong Kong and Beijing, and I want to be very clear: we will not tolerate any attempts by foreign Governments to harass or harm their critics on British soil.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

3. Whether the Attorney General has provided the Government with legal advice on immigration matters.

[The Solicitor General]

The hon. Member will be aware that the Law Officers’ convention prevents me from disclosing whether advice has been sought from the Law Officers, whether advice has been given and, indeed, the content of any advice.

[Blake Stephenson]

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 Solicitor General]

As I said, the Law Officers’ convention prevents me from disclosing whether Lord Hermer advised on this issue or indeed any other. It does not, however, prevent me from saying that I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants to talk about illegal migration, given the abject mess the Conservatives left the country in.

Flooding: Planning and Developer Responsibilities

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) for securing this important debate.

I wish to speak about the effect on the residents of South West Hertfordshire. In the five and half years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have been distressed by how many residents come to me about this issue. A problem that starts as a trickle very quickly has a massive impact on their life. Flooding now has real, lived effects; it is not just a remote risk. Residents face home damage, traffic disruption, economic loss and, increasingly, mental health impacts.

Rickmansworth lies at the confluence of three rivers: the Colne, the Chess and the Gade. It has a historic canal network, including the Grand Union and Batchworth canals, and surrounding waterways. In recent years, we have increasingly seen the overtopping of canals and a fast-rising water table during heavy rainfall. Problem hotspots include Church Street, the aquadrome and Ebury Road in Rickmansworth. Surface water flooding is worsened by urban development, inadequate historical infrastructure and bad planning. Unfortunately, we do not have an up-to-date local plan, so design guidance is not yet being adhered to by developers, because there is no requirement to do so.

Planning must begin with flood resilience. Bad planning does not just affect us; some of the structures we build today will last for decades, if not hundreds of years. If we get it wrong now, it is very difficult to retrofit and correct with a developer, who typically makes a profit and leaves.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In places such as Maulden in Mid Bedfordshire, we too often see inappropriate or poorly maintained sustainable drainage, which contributes to worsening flooding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s plans for 1.5 million homes can be considered a success only if they can tackle such problems so that everyone can live in a dry home?

[Mr Mohindra]

I agree 100%.

I commend my parish councillors, the volunteer flood wardens and the residents of Croxley Green, Rickmansworth and Batchworth who step up during these difficult times. Flooding is now a structural challenge, not an anomaly. We must act now by embedding resilience in planning, forcing developer responsibilities and investing in essential infrastructure.

Farmland Flooding

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew]

The hon. Lady is right in concept, in that where there is uninsured loss of productive farmland caused by flooding, the last Government was right to create the farming recovery fund to compensate, at least in part, for those losses. As for flooding by agreement, if I can describe it as that, that happens on the Somerset levels as part of the landscape recovery agreement there—it is called the Adapting the Levels project. That needs to come with sufficient funding under the environmental land management scheme, and I will address wider funding concerns later.

Farms can have a role in minimising flooding, and they can do that in-farm as well as further down the watercourse. But the Government must continue to work with the Conservatives and with the environmental land management scheme, which the previous Government set up, to recognise and support this.

We start at the top of the watercourse. Where available, there is upland peatland restoration. Peat bogs, when they are in good condition, are essentially like giant sponges, not just for water but for carbon storage. When they are in poor condition, the cycle goes into reverse, both for water and for carbon emission. Riparian buffers, which can be planted and maintained next to watercourses, slow the flow of water off the land and absorb a percentage of it.

More importantly and more interestingly—I was about to say for farmers like me, but I am not a farmer—for people involved in farming, there are the in-field developments, which are becoming increasingly mainstream and have developed from the regenerative agricultural movement. They are based around soil management. We always used to describe this as the heavy metal approach—that does not refer to our taste in music, but is instead about plough, drill and till, which has been the “traditional” method of agriculture since the second world war, where the inputs come out of a sack and horsepower is relied on to manipulate the soil.

The problem with that, apart from its very significant impact on biodiversity—that is a debate in its own right—is that this leads to collapsed soil structures and then we need to go into subsoiling. The more metal we use, the more heavy metal we need to use, and that destroys or very substantially limits the ability of the soil to absorb and then retain water. That has the short-term impact of increasing run-off, leading to flash flooding in a way that did not happen when I was a boy. It also has a knock-on impact in the summer. If there is a soil structure that is not capable of absorbing and retaining water in the winter, it becomes water-hungry in the spring and summer, and there is parching in a way that affects yield and costs money in irrigation to compensate for that.

There is a movement called the regenerative or min-till movement, where that approach has been challenged. By minimising the impact on soil—the disturbance of soil through metal—the soil structure can be increased, retained and developed. That creates spaces in the soil in which to absorb water, but it also has a secondary impact, which is the mycorrhizal interaction of live roots. That secures carbon and improves the sponginess of the soil.

All those things are great because as absorption is increased, the speed at which that water is emitted back into the watercourse is reduced. Allied to that is the use of cover crops during the winter. Having live roots in the water and a structure that prevents run-off and soil erosion in the winter is enormously important. There is also contour ploughing—that is, ploughing along the contour, not up and down it, as a matter of course. That is basic physics, but it helps to retain water on the land and slows its emission down into the watercourse. These are all things that the farm can do in-field to help its cause, and also to retain water for lower down the watercourse.

A second option, suitable for less valuable land that is not the best quality or the most fertile, is to accept seasonal water, along the lines followed by a traditional water meadow. Watercourses can be re-wiggled—I am not sure if that is a technical term—to slow down the flow of water in appropriate areas. By accepting floodwater, farmers are able to re-establish traditional meadows, but they need to be compensated because they are giving up productive land, albeit less productive land, to provide a social good. The whole concept of the environmental land management scheme was public money for public good.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Farmers in the Flit valley in Mid Bedfordshire are concerned that repeated flooding and waterlogging has left large areas of farmland unfit for agricultural purposes. Our farmers are prepared to do the hard yards to put in place nature-based solutions, but does my hon. Friend agree that they need support and certainty from the Government to achieve that?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The basis behind my seeking this debate is to highlight the need for continued, not new, Government support. ELMs is a Brexit dividend. It would be a crying shame if the Government failed to build on the very good work of the last Government, as I will come to in a minute.

ELMs is the flagship scheme. The last Government honoured their commitment to provide £2.4 billion every year, from 2019 onwards, to support the transition from area-based payments to public money for public good. The sustainable farming incentive supports soil quality, water quality, hedgerows, tree planting and riparian buffers. There are also the countryside stewardship scheme, and the landscape recovery scheme which I have already mentioned. Other schemes include the England woodland creation offer and the nature for climate fund. All those schemes back up the transition to nature-based solutions, and allow farmers to recognise and mitigate for changes in rain distribution and intensity. They provide funding for the changes necessary for biodiversity and food production.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Hardy]

Dredging used to be commonplace, but some evidence shows that it can speed up flow and potentially increase the risk of flooding downstream. There are currently no plans for any further dredging in Boston and Skegness, but I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and the EA area manager to discuss this further.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential merits of safeguarding high-grade agricultural land.

[The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)]

We all know that food security is national security, and most of us also recognise that the impacts of climate change and nature loss pose a significant risk to domestic production, so it is very important that we use our land carefully. Consequently, the Government will be introducing a land use framework to ensure that we protect our most productive agricultural land.

[Blake Stephenson]

High-grade agricultural land in Mid Bedfordshire has been farmed for generations, and it is critical for our food security and our freedom, but it is under extreme pressure. We have talked this morning about climate change and flooding, and also about the Government’s family farm tax. What has not been mentioned so much is urban sprawl, which is a major threat to high-grade agricultural land. We live in an uncertain world and we need our country to feed itself. Considering the threat, will the Minister guarantee that high-grade agricultural land will be protected by this Government?

[Daniel Zeichner]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his points and refer him to my earlier comments: we see more and more pressure, and there are so many things we need to do on our land to house and feed people, so it is important that we have a proper structure in place. It is widely acknowledged that the current planning system does not necessarily do that. The previous Government promised a land use framework; we will actually deliver it.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome many of the measures in the Bill and will focus in the time available on the real action our constituents need from Government to bring our sewage network up to date.

Too often and for too long, our constituents have paid the price for a failure of forward planning by the water industry. In September, my constituency was the victim of exceptional flooding. In the aftermath, as we sought to learn lessons, many stories involved raw sewage coming up into people’s homes and gardens and flowing down their streets in places such as Harlington, Barton-le-Clay and Greenfield, as excess surface water overwhelmed the sewage system. No one, be they in Mid Bedfordshire or anywhere else in our country, should see a storm cloud overhead and fear that they will end up ankle deep in sewage—not in the 21st century.

I say this is a problem of forward planning because a shocking example of industry neglect during the flooding came from new town Wixams. The town is still being built out, with construction beginning this century, and yet the flooding overwhelmed the wastewater and sewage infrastructure, which could not cope with the amount of water being discharged into it. Thousands more homes will be built in Wixams and across Mid Bedfordshire over the coming years. We must do more to force the water industry to ensure that those homes are served by infrastructure that is fit for purpose and climate resilient.

The previous Government recognised that we have a Victorian sewage network, and they stepped up requirements for water companies to invest in improving our infrastructure. This Government must be similarly ambitious. I welcome clause 4, which talks of the importance of nature-based solutions in drainage and sewage management plans, building on the previous Government’s work in their plan for water.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

In 2023, Chichester experienced 990 spills lasting over 17,000 hours. It is an environmental scandal and a public health crisis. As the Secretary of State said in his opening comments, it is time to clean up our water once and for all, and I welcome the Bill. Does the hon. Member agree that nature-based solutions, such as wetlands, will play a vital role in reducing spills and can be brought in quickly, but only if the regulation allows?

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree on the importance of nature-based solutions, and those solutions are talked about frequently in my community and, I am sure, in communities across the country. They were not necessarily spoken about five or 10 years ago, but we have a real opportunity to make a difference if we focus and deliver on nature-based solutions.

We must go much further in this area to ensure that all our towns and cities are built to absorb water. On implementing sustainable urban drainage systems, I mentioned this previously to the Minister for Water, and I will keep banging on about it. We must bring into force schedule 3 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010—I recognise that the Act is from 2010 and a lot has happened since then—and take much stronger action to ensure that drains do not become blocked.

One way we could tackle the problem of abstraction and, indeed, flooding is by backing projects like the Bedford to Milton Keynes waterway park, which would run through the Marston Vale in Mid Bedfordshire and help channel water to where it is most needed. I hope the Government will give that project the support it needs.

Rural Affairs

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Rural communities form the backbone of our country. They grow the food that feeds British families, they are the custodians of our beautiful countryside, and they are home to fantastic village pubs such as the Knife & Cleaver in Houghton Conquest, the Crown in Shillington and the Anchor in Aspley Guise—a shameless plug for three of my fantastic pubs. We all know that fantastic British pubs are the heart of our villages, but I am concerned that they will now struggle to stand still, never mind invest and give youngsters the opportunity of their first job, given the Government’s choice to tax jobs and working people. Pubs across my constituency have told me of their concerns, and I told them that I would raise them today on the Floor of the House.

The problems that we face in rural communities are a world away from those faced by hon. Friends in urban areas. We suffer from similar crimes to urban areas, with particular problems around fly-tipping, wildlife crime and rural theft. Members throughout the House have spoken about those issues at length. I urge the Government to ensure that rural communities are not overlooked in favour of urban areas when they allocate police funding. That is certainly a concern of my constituents, who see police resources soaked up by the high demand in neighbouring large towns.

In parts of my constituency, the benefits of working from home are limited by poor-quality broadband, which limits the growth prospects of some of our brilliant local entrepreneurs and family businesses. Project Gigabit must be delivered at pace, and I will support any measures and efforts to do that.

Bus services are often infrequent and unreliable, and unfortunately under this Government they are getting more expensive. Inequalities extend beyond transport; access to healthcare is challenging, particularly if people cannot or do not drive. I am keen to ensure that my communities have better access to local healthcare, which is an ambition of the Government. We need to do more in this Parliament to ensure that primary care reaches into our villages and hamlets, and that no one is left without the healthcare they need because of where they live.

As the Government consider their plans to build the communities of the future, I hope they will learn from our villages. Decades—centuries, even—of sympathetic development have created communities: places that people want to live and spend time in. We must ensure that the legacy we leave for future generations includes sustainable and beautiful homes, with the right services and good access to the countryside.

[Sir John Hayes]

Such is my hon. Friend’s insight that he has drawn together two fundamental issues. Over-development in rural areas places immense pressure on infrastructure such as healthcare provision, as he described. Does he agree that development should be incremental, so that no community changes beyond recognition, or can no longer be served by the kind of public services that are critical to wellbeing?

[Blake Stephenson]

I entirely agree. A lot is said about sustainable development in planning rules. I know from my community that lots of people feel quite aggrieved by large new developments being built on the edge of villages, fundamentally changing their character. There is more work to do to ensure that our villages grow slowly and sustainably, alongside infrastructure. Lessons should be learned from the many decades of mistakes.

That brings me to another point. We must ensure that our villages are not overwhelmed by suburban dormitories. I am afraid that even though they are rural, some of my communities have been turned into dormitories by house building. People sleep there but head elsewhere to work, so they do not contribute to our local communities as they would have done in the past.

Often, at the heart of our rural communities is a group of unsung people—although they have been much mentioned today—who look after our countryside, employ local people and ensure that every single person in this country has food on their table. They are, of course, our farmers. British farmers might not always seek the spotlight—although sometimes they have shows on Amazon Prime—but without them we would be a much poorer country and our rural communities would be significantly worse off.

We should do all we can to support British farmers and nurture the next generation of them, but instead the Government are regrettably levying a spiteful family farm tax on them. I met farmers in Mid Bedfordshire recently. It is clear that the attack on family farms will force many families to sell up to developers or big international farming corporations, ripping the soul out of our rural communities. For the long-term sustainability of rural communities up and down the country, I urge the Government to reconsider the damaging family farm tax.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Before I call the next speaker, I inform the House that I am now imposing a four-minute time limit.