Local Government Reorganisation

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I remind the hon. Lady that these postponements, which are at the request of councils, affect only those councils that will shortly be abolished anyway. They are happening so that we can more quickly have elections to the new councils that will replace them. I respectfully suggest to her, as I did to the shadow Secretary of State, that her argument is actually with those Liberal Democrat councils and Liberal Democrat council leaders who have requested postponement so that the reorganisation can go ahead on schedule. I have imposed nothing; I am merely responding to them. I suggest that she go away and perhaps have a cup of tea with some of them, so that they can explain to her how what they have requested does not damage democracy.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I should make it clear that local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes and that I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant, hard-working Labour councillors locally. One of the reasons for delaying the elections is the time it is taking to go through the local government reorganisation process. That affects elections, but it also affects the creation of the new combined authorities, which is happening in parallel. Given the delays, will the Department look at the fast-track programme for the combined authorities, and at whether it is worth adding areas that do not face the reorganisation challenges, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes?

[Steve Reed]

This is the biggest reorganisation in a generation, and it is very important that it be delivered with as much speed as we can muster, because of the benefits to local residents, who will see more money available to spend on things like fixing potholes and caring for older people—rather than paying for two sets of councillors, two sets of chief execs and two sets of finance directors, which the Conservative party was happy to see continue for all the 14 years it was in power. Of course, I will listen to my hon. Friend and others if they have suggestions about how we can further speed up the process and renew local democracy across the country.

Local Elections: Cancellation

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

We have made progress on the reorganisation and I anticipate us making strong progress this year. I hear the points that the right hon. Gentleman makes about his own views. Those will be taken account of, alongside other views expressed.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

Local elections will be going forward in full in Milton Keynes this year, and I look forward to continuing to work with my brilliant hard-working Labour councillors. The ongoing process of reorganisation is delaying elections, but it is also delaying the creation of new combined authorities across many parts of the country. Given that, will the Department look again at the fast-track process, and whether places that have already gone through reorganisation and are fully unitarised, such as Bedfordshire and Milton Keynes, should be added to that programme, and that the creation of new combined authorities should be sped up in those places, given that it has taken some time in others?

New Towns

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (Katrina Murray) not just for securing this debate, but for her passionate and moving speech.

I will start by building on some of the comments made by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) about his constituents’ experiences of what is potentially the beginning of a new town process. It reminded me of a conversation I had after returning from the Labour party conference two and a half years ago, when we were in opposition. We had announced that if we won the election, we would move forward with the new towns programme. I got back to Milton Keynes—maybe slightly worse for wear—and popped into the family home to see my then 92-year-old grandmother with her friend Georgie in the living room.

My grandmother had grown up in a small farmhouse in Wollaston, a village of about 300 people. It has since been consumed into what is now Milton Keynes. They were talking, as they often did, about how things used to be: the roads they knew by name, the rivalry between the cricket teams, and the local pubs in that small village. They also spoke of their fears at the time—I am sure that similar conversations are happening now in Tempsford—about how the new towns programme would change the tight-knit community they had grown up in and were used to, and their many concerns about what it would mean for local culture and infrastructure. It is easy for us, as politicians, just to stop there in our conversations with local constituents, but this conversation went further. My grandmother talked about how she lived long enough to see what a difference the community built in Milton Keynes—my home town—made to the lives of her daughter and her grandchildren.

I am the first MP to have been born and to have grown up in the new town of Milton Keynes, and I owe almost everything to the fantastic start in life that Milton Keynes gave me. It meant that my parents could afford decent and affordable housing. It meant that there were good and decent jobs available because of what the development corporation did. It meant that public services were there when we needed them.

Just like Tempsford, Milton Keynes was built on a floodplain—the River Ouzel floodplain—which I know is often a concern for people. The development corporation solution for that was to build balancing lakes. My grandmother and Georgie were pretty opposed to the balancing lake at the time. It was fields next to the farm she grew up on. There were massive diggers and slurry everywhere coming in. She used to call it “that daft puddle”. Today, because of what the development corporation was able to achieve—it was a pretty significant infrastructure project—not only does the balancing lake provide flood protection and alleviation to tens of thousands of homes, which allowed the city I call home to be built; it also means that my city has 5,000 acres of beautiful blue and green spaces that are enjoyed by thousands of people.

The lake is also where my parents met, when my dad was teaching my mum—not particularly well—to sail. The city was determined to ensure that recreational activities were available to people whatever their background. I lost my grandmother just before Labour party conference last year, and the hospice that looked after her in the last weeks of her life looked out over that very same lake.

I mention that because I owe so much to the vision, confidence and level of ambition that was shown to build somewhere truly special—Milton Keynes—in the 1960s and 1970s. It is the story of my life; it is the reason I am here. It is only with that same level of confidence and ambition that we can hope that people talk as positively about the work we are doing now as I can talk about the work that was done by the Milton Keynes development corporation in the 1960s and 1970s.

I will mention a few points with the potential to make me nervous about whether we will fulfil that ambition, some of which were mentioned by the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. These projects will not come cheap to the Government. We obviously need to maximise the financing options that we can use. We also need to look at maximising the amount of land value capture. Milton Keynes was given 700 million quid in the 1960s—about £14 billion in today’s money—which came back to the Government multiple times over because of the economic value generated by building the city. I do not think anybody has that level of ambition for a new town project, but we are going to have to see money—not just capital money and direction to the pots of money available for capital, but revenue spending in order to set up the development corporation. We have not seen enough from the Department about that approach yet.

I also have a fear about death by consultation. The process to come up with a list of new towns was a very good piece of work by Sir Michael Lyons, and we should all pay tribute to him for it. However, the Government response is taking further months, and there will be a consultation on that. If development corporations are set up, there will be further consultation on that. We need to look at how we can streamline the process and get these projects going as quickly as possible.

I will raise one final concern now. Following conversations with local councils, it seems to me that the approach from the team working on this is to go back to that kind of begging-bowl culture: to go back to the sites that have been selected, of which Milton Keynes is one, and to convince them—even though Sir Michael Lyons did the work on why these 12 sites were the correct ones—that they should get the resources required to deliver what the Government are saying needs to be delivered. That will not lead to success.

A big part of the report talked about the importance of building communities that are not dependent on the car and that have good public transport options. My area is very car dependent, but if we are going to continue to grow, we cannot be; we will need support from the Department for Transport in order to do so. DFT’s approach has been, “Why do you need this money? Your roads aren’t congested yet.” That is completely out of line with the Government’s ambition and the new towns approach. We need to change the culture of how the Government is approaching the new town programme so that, in decades to come, somebody can stand in this Chamber talking about being the first MP for the new town of Tempsford and about how much of a success this programme has been.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

I will come on to talk about financing in more detail, in particular the options that we are considering, but I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will, again, have to wait for the publication of the SEA report and the programme that will go out to consultation. He and other hon. Members, as well as their communities and the neighbouring communities to the sites proposed for adoption, will then be able to feed into that process more widely. Long-term funding is available in this spending review period and going forward, because many of these propositions are for new, large-scale communities that will have to be built out over decades, in some cases.

I will touch on two or three other issues. Most importantly, several hon. Members raised the theme of public engagement. What the taskforce heard through its call for evidence and engagement with local leaders and local areas—the Government were kept up to date with that, as Sir Michael Lyons reported to me regularly on the taskforce’s work, as the House would expect—was that there is a huge appetite for new new towns to come forward. There are lots of parts of the country that would desperately welcome a new town.

I recognise, however, that in other areas, particularly in small villages such as Tempsford, there is trepidation about what may come and there are questions that residents want answered. In some cases—my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) has been forthright and honest about this—there is outright hostility and objection to the proposed locations. We have met and had several conversations about his particular case, and I assure him that I recognise the strength of feeling in his community. His residents can be in no doubt that he has conveyed the strength of feeling about that location very forcefully to me.

The taskforce’s report is clear that existing communities should be a key part of any new town development; community engagement is one of its core recommended place-making principles. The Government are working closely with local leaders as part of the scoping process of the programme and building our evidence base to understand the impacts of potential new town locations. As I have said, we will carry out the appropriate assessments and public consultations before any final decisions are made about locations. I must stress—we have been candid about this fact from the outset—that ultimately, decisions on new town locations will be made in the national interest.

[Chris Curtis]

I thank the Minister for being generous with his time and for reinforcing the Government’s strategic direction, which I think most of us agree with. As we move on to the next stage, many of the local council leaders who he has spoken about feel like there is friction and frustration in the communication between them and the Department, with the Department making it feel like they are bidding for the money. Will he meet local council leaders to reset that relationship so that it can be more constructive in the next stage of the process?

[Matthew Pennycook]

My hon. Friend made the same points when I appeared before the Select Committee earlier this week. I have taken them on board and I am happy to look at what the Department can do to ensure that there is a constructive relationship in each instance where the Government are seeking to build the evidence base. I certainly do not recognise, however, that it is the Government’s intention to go out to local areas and ask them to bid in to the programme. We want to work with local communities and local leaders to better understand and assess the proposition in each case.

I want to address two further issues. First, on financing, all the lessons suggest that once development is under way on new town sites, the long-term increase in the value of land can be captured and reinvested. Several hon. Members made that point forcefully, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington is correct that the three waves of new towns programmes each repaid the investment that was ploughed into them up front. We know that, and the taskforce recommended that we should explore a range of options, including taxation, in the financing model—for example, we are exploring the role that tax increment financing might play in the new towns programme, as was mentioned by the Select Committee Chair.

Lastly, I want to address the important theme of stewardship, which several hon. Members raised. We welcome all the taskforce’s recommendations on place-making and other issues that will be pertinent in the years ahead as we take the programme forward. On stewardship, the taskforce recommended, rightly in my view, that a long-term stewardship model should be in place from the outset and that it should include clear governance and funding structures to manage and maintain communal assets. In that way, we can learn the lessons from the earlier waves of new towns and get things right for this new programme.

To conclude, the Government’s new town programme, in the Government’s view, provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to fundamentally reshape the delivery of large-scale new communities and, by delivering them, to boost economic growth and productivity, and make a significant contribution to meeting housing need in England over the coming decades. The Government remain resolute in their determination to bring forward the next generation of new towns. We will work tirelessly across Government and with delivery partners and local communities to ensure that they are, in the words of the taskforce, not just places to live, but places to live well, and places for people.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch for securing and opening the debate, and to other hon. Members for taking part. I know that hon. Members will take me at my word when I say that I look forward to further engagement with Members across the House as we advance the programme in the months and years ahead.

Planning Reform

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Matthew Pennycook]

I have a lot of time for the hon. Gentleman, but again, I think he misrepresents what is in this new framework, with regard to local involvement and local engagement. He seeks to give the impression that there are no safeguards on development in the new framework, and that is not true. The new permanent presumption provides significant backing for development—absolutely. We want to introduce clear, rules-based policies, both for plans and for decision making, but development still has to comply with the wider policies in the NPPF, and decisions on individual applications still have to be taken.

The hon. Gentleman raised a point about local standards. Our proposals support our overall aim of making policy more rules-based to streamline the content of development plans. The framework still allows some local standards, where it makes sense to set them locally—for example, on design, parking and open space—but where we have national standards in building regulations, including in the forthcoming future homes and future building standards, which raise our ambition in this area, it does not make sense to allow duplication and variation across local areas.

Lastly, the hon. Gentleman mentioned chalk streams, and again I want to push back. We have included explicit recognition of chalk streams as a feature of high environmental value, as I committed to doing during consideration of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Local plans will, as a result, have to identify and manage the impacts of development on these sensitive areas, such as by creating buffer zones or green corridors. We have set clearer expectations that development proposals will assess and mitigate adverse impacts on water quality, including in relation to chalk streams.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for the statement, and for the support for getting our housing market going again, particularly when it comes to brownfield sites; proposals for many of them are still being held up right across the country. He says that he will not at this stage make NDMPs statutory. Many people across the sector would like him to do so, because of the extra certainty it would provide. When he talks about the risk and uncertainty of taking that approach, what does he mean? If he will revisit this question, when might he do so? What will he be looking at when he potentially makes the decision to revisit that question?

[Matthew Pennycook]

I do not have the time to go into incredible amounts of detail on why we did not choose to take a statutory approach to national development management policies. Suffice it to say that the approach carried considerable uncertainty and risks. There has been a long debate—I can see Members who served on the Bill Committee—about what a conflict between statutory NDMPs and a local development plan would mean in practice. We were concerned about the chilling effect that might have on the system as a whole, so we have decided to proceed, as I have said, with agile changes to national policy. I remind hon. Members—Opposition Members often complain about this—that national planning policy carries significant weight. Since our December reforms, an unprecedented 80% of major residential appeals relating to grey-belt land have been approved. That is the power of national policy in action, but we will keep the matter under review.

Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) on securing this debate. The limited time means that I will not focus too heavily on the importance of the region, which has been covered by my colleagues, but as the first MP proud to have been born and grown up in the new town of Milton Keynes I want to remind everyone that it is the largest and most economically significant city in the corridor.

Our economy is roughly the same size as Oxford and Cambridge combined. In fact, Milton Keynes is now the seventh largest city economy in England outside London, and we are on track to continue climbing that league table. One in three jobs in Milton Keynes is already in the technology sector, generating £3.4 billion a year. We are now home to national security engineering at His Majesty’s Government Communications Centre, global firms such as Santander UK and Red Bull Racing and hundreds of cutting-edge small and medium enterprises. Over 12,000 businesses call our city home.

I set that out because, from time to time, it has been frustrating that the conversation about the corridor has been dominated by either end, with not enough focus on the middle. I can quietly live with Milton Keynes being dropped from the name—the National Infrastructure Commission first described the corridor as the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford arc in 2016—although I do feel it is a little odd to remove the largest economy from the title. It is a bit like renaming J. K. Rowling’s books “Hermione Granger and Ron Weasley”. I will allow my hon. Friends to decide which is which.

It is not just about branding; even since the relaunch of the project, there are concrete examples of how that policy skew has played out in practice. Take the Chancellor’s announcement in Oxford last year on the new plans for the growth corridor: the press release that followed mentioned Cambridge 39 times, Oxford 25 times and Milton Keynes just four times. Two of those references were about how the Government would make it quicker for people to get from Milton Keynes to Oxford or Cambridge, despite the fact that far more people commute into my city than out of it every day.

The recently released investment prospectus for the corridor barely mentioned any projects outside Oxford and Cambridge. My council submitted several high-impact Milton Keynes projects for inclusion—all of them were cut from the final draft. In the run-up to the Budget, the only corridor-related investments were for Oxford and Cambridge. Let me be clear: investment in those cities is welcome and necessary. They are world-class centres of research, talent and innovation. However, that skew is frustrating.

The easiest way to correct that skew is through devolution. We had an oven-ready devolution deal across Bedfordshire, Luton and Milton Keynes—a deal that would have supercharged growth across our region and allowed us to get the many national infrastructure projects already planned delivered quickly. Will the Department work with us to get the BLMK devolution deal across the line as quickly as possible?

Building Safety Regulator

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of the Building Safety Regulator.

It is an unrivalled pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate and colleagues from four different parties for adding their names to the application. Since being elected last year, I have been searching for something that the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) and I can agree on, and I am thankful that we finally managed to find it. The breadth of support demonstrates the shared determination across the House to make the system work better. I also thank those from across the industry for their tireless campaigning on the issue, as well as for the constructive way they have worked to ensure that we can get safer buildings across the housing system and provide the supply that is so desperately needed.

Across the construction and development sectors, there is rightly a growing frustration about how the new building safety regime operates in practice. Everybody supports the principle of safer buildings, but there is increasing concern that the system as it stands is holding back progress on building the new homes that are so desperately needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and I sought this debate because of the growing concern across industry that the Building Safety Regulator, while well intentioned, is becoming a real barrier to hitting the 1.5 million homes target that we promised at the general election and that it is so important we achieve.

We should be absolutely clear that this debate is not an attack on the principle of building safety—very far from it. Seventy-two people lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire on 14 June 2017—72 lives needlessly and tragically lost. It remains a stain on our national conscience that it took such a disaster to ensure that we have proper accountability and testing in the building industry.

The Building Safety Regulator is a vital part of ensuring that nothing like Grenfell ever happens again, but it has to work. Time and again, developers and councils tell me exactly the same story: that schemes are stuck in the system and that, although the regulator is supposed to process applications within 12 weeks, tens of thousands of homes are still stuck to this day. The latest figures suggest that 22,000 homes are waiting for a remediation decision and that 33,000 new homes are waiting for approval. The cost of that is severe: according to the Centre for Policy Studies, there has been a 73% drop in housing starts in London over the past year, with the regulator one of the biggest causes. It is good to see today’s Government announcement on the ways we are going further to get the London housing market moving again, but the industry will still say the Building Safety Regulator is one of the biggest obstacles.

Perhaps the biggest travesty is that if we do not build new safer homes, more people in this city and across the rest of the country are stuck in more dangerous and older properties. That is before we even start to consider the thousands who are stuck in temporary accommodation —one child in every classroom—or those who are paying extortionate rents because this country has failed for decades to build the homes that are needed.

We now see a growing backlog in the BSR because telecoms infrastructure is being caught up in the new regulations for high-risk buildings—I say this in a building where I still cannot seem to get good phone signal, because we are not building the mobile phone infrastructure that is required across the city. That is causing real practical problems. It threatens to seriously impact the delivery of new buildings, particularly when rooftop installations are involved. If that is not addressed quickly, it could slow down construction and digital roll-out at exactly the point when this country needs to be improving both.

The delays affect not just developers but people: the families living in buildings that are still awaiting remediation and the people who know that their homes are not yet deemed fully safe. The stress that causes day after day is unimaginable. When we talk today about process, paper- work and delays, we must remember the human beings at the heart of this issue.

The economic impact is also huge: rising insurance costs, development finance drying up and higher up-front fees—all before a single brick gets laid. It has a real effect on the viability of building, particularly in our bigger cities. Peter John, the former head of Southwark council put it bluntly:

“The greatest single burden developers have faced over the last five years has been the introduction of the Building Safety Regulator. The unintended consequence of improving building safety cannot be to cut off the supply of new homes.”

He is right.

Melanie Leech of the British Property Federation told the Select Committee that BSR delays are holding back two thirds of the build-to-rent pipeline. As we are rightly reforming the Renters’ Rights Bill, which was considered in the Commons again yesterday, we need to ensure that new build-to-rent properties are built, in order to keep the system unclogged. Fewer new rental properties obviously means higher rental prices for everyone else. The Home Builders Federation says exactly the same: the delivery of high-rise developments has “ground to a halt”.

Earlier this week, the Government held their regional investment summit, and the message could not have been clearer: the UK is open for business, full of opportunity and led by a Government determined to drive growth. But investors also reminded us about the hard truth that investment is global, and if it takes too long or if it is too difficult to see a return here, capital will simply go elsewhere. We must pull down the barriers to investment and make it easier for growth to happen right here in the UK. If we are serious about growth, we need to back the builders, not the blockers.

The good news is that fixing this does not require a huge amount of money from the Treasury—given how difficult it is to get money out of the Treasury—and it is not primarily about huge amounts of new spending. But it does mean investing in the right people: the experts who can process complex applications quickly and accurately. Will the Minister confirm whether the BSR will have the flexibility to offer market rates to attract those people, rather than being constrained by standard civil service pay bands?

Secondly, it is about culture. Too many developers tell me they face a “computer says no” approach—an invalid application is simply rejected, forcing the whole process to restart. That would be frustrating enough over 12 weeks, but over nine months or more it is a killer for confidence. One of the most frustrating stories I have heard in all this is from a developer who was asked by someone at the Building Safety Regulator to slow down the speed at which they were making applications, to stop the BSR from becoming overwhelmed. At a time when this Government are rightly determined to speed up house building, it is frustrating to see an arm of government trying to slow the process down.

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and the Backbench Business Committee on this debate. My hon. Friend talks about the frustration of a nine-month delay, but the BSR is supposed to work to a 12-week turnaround. Is he aware that 338 council homes at the Bermondsey biscuit factory have already been held up for 54 weeks? When approached, the BSR asked for another 12 weeks to complete the application decision.

[Chris Curtis]

I thank my hon. Friend for those comments, which show exactly the kind of consequences we are facing because of what has been happening to the Building Safety Regulator. If we are not building new social homes, we have to ask where they are going to be instead. Quite often, children aged one or two are stuck in temporary accommodation, not learning to walk or crawl properly and having their life chances curtailed because this city and this country have failed to build the homes to give them a proper life chance. It is important that we stand up to the blockers who stand in the way of that.

Could we move to a more collaborative approach, in which BSR staff can work iteratively with applications to resolve issues as they arise, rather than starting from scratch each time? I have heard worrying reports of inconsistency, with different teams taking different decisions on similar cases. What is being done to ensure greater transparency and consistency? Has the Department assessed whether further guidance is needed for both applications and the regulator itself?

The BSR has said that it hopes to clear the gateway 2 backlog before Christmas. I welcome that level of ambition, but will the Minister confirm what support the Government are providing to make it happen and whether new applications submitted after that point will be turned around within 12 weeks? Once gateway 2 approvals start to come through, we will start hitting the gateway 3 process, which is the sign-off after construction and before occupation. What preparation is being made to ensure that that process does not simply become the new bottleneck?

I will finish with a slightly wider point. Grenfell was a national tragedy caused by unforgiveable negligence, and it was right that the state responded, but when we design new regulations or regulators, we must remember the cost of getting it wrong. In this case, the cost is stalled projects, families waiting longer in unsafe homes, tens of thousands of children waking up this morning in temporary accommodation, and families paying unaffordable rents. The intent was sound; the implementation has been a catastrophic failure.

The lesson is clear: future systems must be built with feedback loops from day one, clear service standards, real-time data on performance, and consistent guidance. If the first version falls short, as it will from time to time, we need rapid reform, not months of drift while the consequences stack up. That is not about weakening safety; it is how we deliver better and faster. It is how we honour the lives of the 72 people we lost at Grenfell—not only by saying, “Never again,” but by building more of the safe, modern homes that this country needs, with a regulator worthy of the trust we place in it.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis]

I will be as quick as I can. I welcome the Minister to her place and thank her for her response. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for bringing their experience from industry and talking about some of the things they believe we need to do to address these problems.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who has had experience of homelessness and therefore knows personally the importance of getting this right. Finally, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell), who reminds us of the backstory and the tragedy that made it so important for us to set up the Building Safety Regulator and get this right.

My first debate in this House was about building safety, and I talked about my brother, who is one of the brave local firefighters in Milton Keynes. If there were an incident in a high-rise flat, he would be one of the people risking his life to fix it, so it is important that we get building safety right. He will be one of those going into unremediated buildings unless we have a Building Safety Regulator that can act quickly enough to enable remediations, and he will be one of those going into older and unsafe buildings if we cannot move residents into safer buildings because we cannot build them in the first place.

We cannot forget the human cost of getting this wrong. I hope we are not back here in a year’s time still talking about a regulator that is not moving quickly enough and a country that is not building enough homes.

Question put and agreed to. 

Resolved,

That this House has considered the performance of the Building Safety Regulator.

Indefinite Leave to Remain

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Monday 8th September 2025 Westminster Hall

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I will not speak for too long, given that most of the debate’s key points have already been made, so hopefully that will help with the average speaking time that you are aiming for.

I, too, thank the Petitions Committee for this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for his opening speech. I think it is important to add my voice to the many voices that we have heard expressing concern about the changes to BNO visas, particularly when it comes to the timelines for indefinite leave to remain.

I have received emails from many constituents across Milton Keynes, and I can see my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes Central (Emily Darlington), who I know has received many more. I recently met Yvonne from 852 CIC, a fantastic organisation that represents and looks to integrate Hongkongers into the community in Milton Keynes. It has shared its concerns with me about the changes that it fears may be coming under the immigration White Paper.

[Emily Darlington]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Hong Kong community’s contribution to Milton Keynes, to our diversity and strength as an economic powerhouse in the UK, should not go unseen by the Minister and this Government? The reality is that we made the Hongkongers a promise, and we should keep it.

[Chris Curtis]

I completely agree. Diversity is at the heart of Milton Keynes. We are a proud city that shows how people from many backgrounds can come together to enrich and strengthen our community. We have seen at first hand how the many people who have come to our city from Hong Kong have added to our local economy. The previous Government and this Government made a deal, a commitment, that was in keeping with our human rights commitments and our commitment to doing the right thing. It is important that we keep to that commitment.

Like most people, I welcome the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to ensure that those who come to Britain are able to integrate and contribute to our society, rather than simply filling gaps left by uncertainty and under-investment in skills and training—changing the deal for BNO visa holders is not the way to do that.

I do not think the Government intentionally aim to create uncertainty for the people who came here, but unfortunately that uncertainty has now been created, and everybody in this room sees it in our inboxes. I hope that today the Minister will be able to clarify the situation and provide certainty, so that those who came here seeking safety, freedom and opportunity know that this Government still stand with them and will not change the rules, and that the five-year journey committed to by the previous Government will remain in place even after the immigration White Paper goes through.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

The hon. Gentleman is as good as his word.

Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for calling this important debate. Let me start with what I think should be seen as positive news and welcomed across the Chamber: the once-in-a-generation increase in funding for social housing. We in the Select Committee have heard about some of the dire consequences of the housing crisis that was left to this Government, especially its effect on the thousands of children growing up in temporary accommodation. The extra funding will mean that, finally, the dial will start to move.

I hope that I am not breaking any confidences in saying that the Committee Chair and I were at a dinner with many representatives of the industry on the evening that the spending review was announced. It is, I think, very rare in politics to sit in a room with people who are pretty unconditionally happy with a policy that has been announced—and, in this instance, happy about not just the extra money but the 10-year funding settlement, which I do not think has been mentioned yet, and also the access to remediation funds, which will make a real difference to the number of homes that are built.

This is important for the entire housing sector. The model that we have for building homes in Britain nowadays means that housing funded by section 106 contributions is struggling to be purchased, because the amount provided for social housing has not been good enough. There is real confidence that this funding will start to fix that problem and move us closer to the 1.5 million target, but, while the money is good, I think it important to urge the Government to go as far and as fast as possible with planning reform, and not to row back on the commitments we have made to ensure that the money is spent effectively and efficiently and we can unlock the homes that the country needs. It is also important for us to start to have a conversation about the Building Safety Regulator, which is clearly not working at present and is holding up projects. We will hear back from the new towns taskforce shortly; I hope that the Government will put the necessary funds behind that programme.

It is great news that we have the extra money in the multi-year funding settlement, but most councils will acknowledge that they are still concerned about stretched resources, and, again, it is important for us to go as far and as fast as possible in reforming special educational needs and social care services to ensure that they are fit for the future.

Let me end by saying—because the Minister for Local Government and English Devolution is present—that it is notable that the spending review provides for an increase in the funding pots that are available specifically to combined authorities. We in Milton Keynes feel that the Department has acted rather like Lucy pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown, so please will the Department redouble its efforts to create combined authorities, not just in Milton Keynes but across the country, so that areas that currently do not have them are not left behind?

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Chris Curtis Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our constituents expect to have their voice heard on a local planning committee? Provided that councils are well-trained, the system that we have is working quite well.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

Oh, is it?

[Paul Holmes]

The hon. Gentleman says, “Is it?” from a sedentary position, but I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Very few planning applications are refused by planning committees, and very few planning applications do not go through because of the actions of planning committees. We on the Opposition Benches happen to trust our locally elected councillors and local leaders to make decisions for our constituents. It is quite clear that Government Members do not trust them, as they are vesting more power into the hands of the Minister and the Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alberto Costa]

I would welcome that. The Government need to take into account Lutterworth East and to ask themselves why a Labour parliamentarian and a Conservative parliamentarian have had to go begging to the Government to look into the matter. The Government purport to want to see more social housing, more affordable housing and more accessible housing, but with Lutterworth East they have had the opportunity to look into that and have chosen not to rectify the issue. In concluding—I am aware that others wish to speak—I simply ask the Government whether they are willing to have a meeting with me and the Labour parliamentarian in question to discuss what they could do on this matter, given that the developer, incredibly, is none other than a county council.

[Chris Curtis]

May we please start by acknowledging something that still has not been acknowledged enough: the current planning system is broken? Nowhere is that clearer than in our environmental and habitats regulation, which part 3 of the Bill is hoping to fix, and which many amendments—amendment 69 in particular—would make significantly worse.

Let us start with a couple of clear examples. First, we have the lower Thames crossing. Some £250 million was spent on a planning application spanning over 350,000 pages. That is more than 250 times the length of “War and Peace” at a cost that is more than Norway paid to build the world’s longest road tunnel. Fifteen years on, not a single spade is in the ground.

Secondly, we are currently building the most expensive nuclear power station in the history of the human race at Hinkley Point. Why? For the last eight years, EDF has been stuck in regulatory wrangling over—I kid you not—a fish disco: an acoustic system designed to guide fish away from water intakes. Millions spent and still not a single resolution.

My personal favourite is the infamous bat tunnel, where £120 million of taxpayers’ money was wasted on a tunnel that might save a handful of bats from a nearby forest, though many experts argue it will more likely put them in harm’s way. That is not planning; it is parody. While we argue about newts and bat tunnels, what is really happening in Britain is that 150,000 children or more are growing up in temporary accommodation, with all the consequences mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi).

[Rachel Blake]

My hon. Friend said we have not confronted how the planning system is broken. Does he agree that we have not heard enough about how many children are homeless this evening and will be in the months ahead because we are not grappling with the housing crisis, and that we cannot do that until we address the infrastructure crisis?

[Chris Curtis]

Hundreds of thousands of children will wake up tomorrow morning in temporary accommodation as a consequence of this, and millions of families will continue paying some of the highest energy bills in the western world. When Russian tanks rolled into Europe, we were dangerously reliant on foreign oil and gas because our planning system consistently blocked the clean, home-grown energy generation that we so desperately need. I see some Liberal Democrat Members laughing. I note that, in many cases, it was their councils that blocked that energy infrastructure from being built.

[Gideon Amos]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Curtis]

In one of the wettest countries in Europe, we could face summer water shortages because we have not built a single major reservoir in over 30 years. Here is the real kick in the teeth: we have paid all those prices for rules that have failed even on their own terms. We have created endless hoops to jump through and poured public money into bizarre mitigation schemes while Britain has become one of the most nature-depleted countries on Earth. We have lost over half our ancient woodland and one in six species are at risk of extinction. We have got fewer birds, fewer butterflies and fewer mammals, and yet more paperwork than ever before.

We should ask this: if these rules are not helping people and they are not helping nature, who on earth are they for? We throw money at scattergun mitigation—fish discos and bat tunnels—while failing to invest in strategic, landscape-scale restoration that actually works. We force every project to fit every issue on site, even when that is more expensive, less effective and totally irrational. That means tens of thousands of individual site-by-site protections, which are bureaucratic, inconsistent and scientifically out of date, and all despite the fact that modern ecological science is clear that nature recovery depends on scale and connectivity, not isolated microprojects.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Middleton South) (Lab)]

When I was building the second runway at Manchester airport, I had similar rants to my hon. Friend’s. I came to hate great crested newts, which were getting in the way of building that second runway. Surely there has to be a solution with balance, one that does not cost a quarter of a billion pounds for looking at the land around the lower Thames crossing, but allows Government and local government to put things such as swift bricks into housing. There has to be balance.

[Chris Curtis]

I start by appreciating the description of a rant—I will keep ranting on this point until I do not have to speak to my constituents waking up in temporary accommodation because of this country’s failure to build. I note that there is a middle ground; in fact, it is even better than a middle ground, because through this Bill and the changes we are proposing we can improve the situation for nature and improve the situation for building, including incentivising developers—for example through the biodiversity net gain process—to put swift bricks in place.

What we currently have is not a conservation system, but a cargo cult, mimicking the symbols of protection while the reality on the ground gets worse. Contrast that with what protecting nature actually looks like, from this Government: a strategic land use framework that supports farmers to deliver climate and nature benefits across 1.6 million hectares of land—more than half the size of Wales; banning bee-killing pesticides; backing a transition to regenerative farming and planting forests on double the amount of land that will be needed to build the 1.5 million homes.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?

[Chris Curtis]

I will make some progress.

Now we have a Bill that will finally move us towards environmental delivery plans that take a far more strategic approach to improving nature and increasing the building that this country so desperately needs. I want these changes to go further. We need to look at the culture within our regulators, especially Natural England, which has become too much of a blocker to building, but this Bill is a step forward, and the amendments proposed would be a step backwards.

I end with this plea, especially to hon. Members on my own Benches who seem to find themselves defending this broken status quo: “Before you vote tonight, talk to the people who will still be here after you’ve gone home. Speak to the person cleaning your office this evening, and ask them what it is like when rent swallows up over half your salary because we have failed to build our way out of this housing crisis. Speak to the person who cooked your lunch in the Tea Room, and ask what it is like to raise kids in a country with sky-high energy bills because we failed to build home-grown energy generation. Ask yourself who you are here to serve: the broken spreadsheets or the people who sent us here?” If we keep putting more and more barriers into our planning system, it is hard-working families across this country who will pay the price. Let us fix our planning system and get Britain building again.

[Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)]

I thank the Minister and the members of the Bill Committee for their hard work on this legislation. I regret, however, that the Minister has been so resistant to amendments from my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and from others on the Liberal Democrat Benches, which I now rise to support. My constituents in Bicester and Woodstock want to see a planning system that delivers decent, affordable homes for those excluded from housing, that recognises that investment in infrastructure must come before housing development and that does not create a false distinction between development and protecting nature.

Linda and Gary live in my constituency. Gary has complex needs and Linda is his carer. Their property is not suitable; Gary cannot shower or get to the garden by himself. Linda and Gary have been bidding to West Oxfordshire district council for a property suitable to meet Gary’s needs for more than a year, but they have been continually unsuccessful. As many hon. Members have stated, we have a crisis of social housing in this country. That is why Liberal Democrats want to see an additional 150,000 social homes built every year through amendment 15, and why new clause 112 is so important, preventing developers from ducking the delivery of social homes.

We also need developers to develop the buildings that have been consented. In Cherwell district council in my constituency, more than 8,000 homes have been consented but not built. That has led to a crisis, with villages such as Ambrosden and Launton at the mercy of opportunist developers who have hoovered up sites not contained in the local plan. New clause 3 would put an end to the land banking of consented sites, forcing developers to use them or lose them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will come to the point my hon. Friend raises in a second.

If the amendment were adopted, the homes that have been blocked to date would continue to be blocked, and vast numbers would face unacceptable delays or, indeed, never be built. What would happen under the amendment, as we can interpret it, is that we would first have to wait for the EDP to be drafted, for the relevant funding to be secured and for the funding to be distributed to the relevant farmers or others who can help with the mitigation. The works would then have to take place; the impact of the mitigation would have to be monitored; and the monitoring would then have to conclude that it had been a success before any new homes in an area could be built where nutrient neutrality is a concern.

[Chris Curtis]

Does the hon. Member agree that what he has just described would lead to more delays in the system, which would mean that more planning permissions were held up—something that Opposition Members have complained about? If the amendment were passed, the requirement would also add a lot more expense to the system, which would mean more viability problems and fewer social homes being built.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree with those points. It would also make it virtually impossible to meet our manifesto commitment, on which we were elected, to build the 1.5 million homes that we need over this Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Pennycook]

A significant number of amendments have been spoken to in the course of the debate and the House will appreciate that I do not have the time to address the vast majority of them. I will therefore focus on addressing as many of the key amendments and points of contention as I can. I have been extremely generous in giving way in opening the debate, but I hope that hon. Members will now appreciate that to get through as many points as possible I will not be taking further interventions.

The debate this evening has evidenced support from across the House for nature and for ensuring we get the nature restoration fund right. I spoke in detail about the Government’s position in opening the debate. As I repeatedly made clear in the Bill Committee and will reiterate this evening, we are listening to the concerns raised by hon. Members and stakeholders. We are clear that this is the right model to take us forward.

We are of course open to ways to improve the legislation, however, and on that basis, and to emphasise the point I made earlier in the debate, we are giving serious consideration to ways in which we might instil further confidence that part 3 will deliver the outcomes we believe it will, such as providing greater confidence in the rigour of the overall improvement test, as raised by the OEP and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).

We are also giving due consideration to how we can provide for greater certainty in the timescale for delivering conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), as well as seeking to clarify the evidential basis and environmental rationale for strategic conservation measures, as raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins). The status quo is not working. The case for moving to a more strategic approach is compelling and I look forward to further consideration of part 3 in the other place.

Turning to the important issue of children’s play areas and playing fields, I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington for tabling new clause 16 and my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) for tabling new clauses 82. I particularly commend my hon. Friend on all that he is doing to make the case for high-quality, accessible and inclusive areas for play. The Government agree that access to play space is vital, which is why strong protections are already in place.

The national planning policy framework is clear that local planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the need for open space, sport and recreation facilities, and opportunities for new provision, including places for children’s play. In December, we strengthened the strong protections already in place in the NPPF by adding explicit reference to safeguarding “formal play spaces”. That means that those facilities can be lost only where they are no longer needed, or where there is a justified and appropriate alternative

Given the existing policy expectations, safeguards and sources of support, we do not believe that it is necessary to add the sort of legislative requirements the amendments would entail. However, I recognise the importance of what the amendments seek to achieve, and the provision of play space is one of the areas we are considering as we prepare a new set of national planning policies for decision making, on which we will consult this year. I commit to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East to writing to my counterparts at the Department for Education and at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that we are acting across Government to increase spaces for play. I will work with him to broker the necessary ministerial meetings that he seeks. With those assurances, I hope that he and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington will feel able to withdraw their amendments.

Turning to swift bricks, which were mentioned several times during the debate, we recognise that they are a vital means of arresting the long-term decline of the breeding swift population. While swift brick coverage is increasing, with nearly 30 house builders having made a voluntary commitment to install one for every new home built, the Government want to do more to drive up swift brick installation. However, there is a principled difference of opinion as to the best way to achieve that objective. Although I understand why many are attracted to the argument that the only way to make a significant difference to swift numbers and other red-listed species is to mandate the incorporation of swift bricks into all new-build properties, through building regulations or free-standing legislation, I take a different view.

In all sincerity, I do not believe that amending building regulations is the most appropriate way to secure the outcome that the House as a whole seeks. As building regulations are mandatory, going down that route would compel developers to install swift bricks in all new buildings, irrespective of what they are or where they are located.

[Chris Curtis]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Pennycook]

No, I will not.

Contrary to what hon. Members might assume, amending building regulations is not a quick fix. It can take years for changes to feed through into building design and we do not think that swifts can afford to wait that long. For those and other reasons, I remain of the view that changing national planning policy is the more effective route to securing swift bricks as a standard feature of the vast majority of new buildings.

As the House will be aware, the revised NPPF published in December expects developments to incorporate features that support priority or threatened species such as swifts, bats and hedgehogs. However, as I have made clear to many hon. Members over recent months, we have always intended to go further. We are specifically giving consideration to using a new suite of national policies for decision making to require swift bricks to be incorporated into new buildings, unless there are compelling reasons that preclude their use or that would make them ineffective. That would significantly strengthen the planning policy expectations already in place, so that, for example, we would expect to see at least one swift brick in all new brick-built houses.

I believe that is the best way we can achieve the objective of seeing swift bricks used as widely as possible, as the use and placement of swift bricks can be integrated into the planning process and become a standard expectation in the design of new developments. We will be consulting on a new set of national policies for decision making later this year. So that no one can be in any doubt about our intentions here, the Government have today published new planning practice guidance setting out how swift bricks are expected to be used in new developments, as an interim step ahead of the planned consultation.

We also heard from several hon. Members who want to see stronger protections put in place for chalk streams. The measures in the Bill will not weaken existing protections for those valuable areas for nature, but the Government continue to give careful consideration to this matter in the context of ongoing reform to national planning policy and I am more than happy to engage with hon. Members from across the House on it.

I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, which would have the effect of preventing the Government from implementing a national scheme of delegation for planning committees. Put simply, it is a wrecking amendment, and the Government cannot accept it for the following reasons. Planning is principally a local activity, and the Government recognise the vital role that planning committees play. However, we must ensure that they operate as effectively as possible. At present, every council has its own scheme of delegation, and 96% of planning decisions in England are already made by planning officers. However, there is significant variation across the country, which creates risk and uncertainty in the system. As such, we believe that there is a robust case for introducing a national scheme of delegation.

Since Committee stage, when we debated these issues at length, the Government have published a technical consultation setting out our detailed plans for reform in this area. I encourage hon. Members to read that consultation, in which we propose splitting planning applications into two tiers, providing certainty about what decisions will be delegated to expert officers and at the same time ensuring that councillors can continue to focus on the most significant proposals for housing and commercial developments to allow for effective local and democratic oversight of the most controversial applications where warranted. I believe that if Members engage with the detail of that conversation, they will recognise that what is being proposed is not an attempt to ride roughshod over local democracy, but a sensible and proportionate change designed to improve certainty and decision making in the planning system. However, on the fundamental point of whether we should introduce a national scheme of delegation, the Government’s position is an unequivocal yes. For that reason, I cannot accept the new clause in question.

I turn briefly to the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington relating to the Bill’s new reflective amendment procedure for national policy statements. I reassure the House that our changes are not about eroding parliamentary scrutiny, but about ensuring that scrutiny is proportionate to the changes being made, and we absolutely recognise the value that such scrutiny brings to getting important changes right.

As I have discussed with my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, several safeguards are in place that will ensure parliamentary oversight is protected; I will happily restate them for the record. Where we intend to make a reflective amendment, a statement will be laid in Parliament announcing a review and we will write to the relevant Select Committee. Ministers will make themselves available to speak to that Committee as far as is practicable, and we will take into account the views of any Select Committee report published during the consultation period.

Let me be very clear in response: the Government recognise the importance of Ministers attending Committee to explain the proposed changes, and I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that the Deputy Prime Minister and I will write to colleagues to ensure that is fully and clearly understood. Importantly, the NPPS as amended must be laid in Parliament for 21 days, during which time this House may resolve that the amendment should not be proceeded with. Parliament retains the ultimate say over whether a change should be enacted. I hope that clarifies the process and reassures my hon. Friend and the House more widely.

Finally, I will address some of the amendments about provision of affordable and social housing, including new clauses 32 and 50, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and for Vauxhall and Camberwell Green (Florence Eshalomi). The Government are committed to the biggest generational uplift in social and affordable housing, and in our first 10 months in office we have put our money where our mouth is. We have announced new £800 million in-year funding to top up the 2021-26 affordable homes programme, and we announced in the spring statement an immediate injection of £2 billion in new capital investment to act as a bridge to the future grant programme, which is to be announced this week in the spending review.

To date, we have not chosen to define a target for social and affordable housing, and there is good reason why that is the case, including the fact that the sector has faced significant financial constraints and needs regulatory certainty. That was made worse by many of the completely irresponsible and unacceptable decisions made by the Opposition when they were in government over the past 14 years. It would not be appropriate to set a target until after the sector is stabilised, knows what is required and, importantly, is clear on what investment will be available to support delivery, which will become apparent only after the spending review. A range of complex factors contribute to the numbers of affordable houses coming forward in this country and impact on the sector’s ability to build more homes, but we will of course keep that matter under review.

I will very briefly mention the green belt and the protection of villages. As the House will be aware, we recently published guidance in relation to the green belt. None of the long-standing green-belt purposes are touched by those changes, including the purpose of precluding the merging of towns. The guidance does not remove those appropriate and relevant protections from land around villages, and any green-belt land—including land in, or near, villages—that conflicts with the relevant purposes would not be identified as grey belt.

To conclude, I once again thank all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate for their contributions. The Government will continue to reflect on the arguments that have been made. I urge the House to support the targeted amendments to this Bill that the Government have proposed, to ensure we can realise its full potential.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 69 accordingly read a Second time.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Chris Curtis Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said, there is no question but that there are underlying problems in the marketplace. We delivered 1 million homes, which was our target, in the last Parliament, but of course we agree that supply and demand is part of the equation. It is not the only part, so we support the ambition to deliver more homes. We had a similar commitment in our manifesto, and there is a context for that within the overall framework for a higher target.

The Government must reflect on the fact that although the construction sector is an important part of the economy, it represents only around 6% of GDP. Growth in the other 94% has been killed stone dead by the twin human wrecking balls who are the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. Having inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor proceeded to trash talk the economy recklessly for six months, before hitting it with £70 billion per annum of tax and borrowing. If that was not bad enough, the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the Employment Rights Bill—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Wonderful. All Labour Members’ union supporters will applaud them for it. It will kill tens if not thousands of businesses, and potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout our country.

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

We have already heard comments from Conservative Members about cases where planning permission has been granted, but nothing has been built. Almost every developer I have spoken to during this Parliament has said that that has one cause. It took so long to get planning permission—the Bill is designed to fix that—and while developers sought it, Liz Truss crashed the economy. Consequently, we had an inflation crisis and costs skyrocketed. Before the hon. Gentleman comments on our economic record, will he apologise for his?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is absolute nonsense.

Talking of confidence, according to a monthly survey by the Institute of Directors, business confidence in this country has collapsed since Labour took over. A high of plus 5 in July last year has collapsed to a covid-level low of minus 65. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Government inflicted that on this country.

There is a complete absence of business experience in the Cabinet. Having killed economic growth in most of the productive economy, the Government now resemble a clueless gambler at the end of a disastrous night in the casino—they are staking everything on a last-gasp gamble on the property market.

From 2013 to 2023, we saw the highest sustained level of new home formations in the past 50 years, surpassing even the levels in the 1970s. Since 2010, we have delivered 2.5 million new homes and 750,000 affordable homes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

We shall put that to the test later.

We welcome the provisions that allow compulsory acquisition—where there is a compelling case in the public interest, such as to build social housing—to go ahead on the basis of existing use value, not what the owner hopes will be the value in the future, to the detriment of the public purse. That could make a big difference. It would allow councils to assemble land more affordably, and to deliver more social homes. However, councils need to be resourced to carry out such projects. To that end, I am delighted that the proposal to abolish the cap on planning application fees that my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) brought forward in her Bill in 2023 is included in this Bill.

[Chris Curtis]

Would the hon. Member like to take this moment to congratulate the absolute heroes in his party who forced it to change its policy at conference last year in favour of building homes? Many of those who sit on the Benches alongside him were calling out the members of his party for trying to get it to do so, one of whom, a former leader, called them Thatcherite. Does he agree with me that building new homes is not Thatcherite, but is the pro-development future that this country needs and that this Chamber should be supporting?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)]

I thank the people across Government and from the Department who have worked so hard to pull this Bill together quite quickly. I also thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for the first shout out to Milton Keynes in the debate. Hon. Members may be about to hear many more.

In politics we all like to talk about our own stories and how they have impacted us. I have sat on these Benches and heard the Education Secretary talk about how her education has helped her in life, and the Health Secretary talk about how his interactions with the NHS during his cancer diagnosis drive him to fix our health service. What is important to my life—I believe this is true of most young people’s lives—is having a decent home surrounded by a decent community.

Milton Keynes, my home town, was founded the last time an Act of Parliament was passed to make this country build 300,000 homes a year. Its pioneers pushed hard to get the place built, which meant that my parents were able to bring up my brother and me in a spacious home with our own back garden, giving us the security and stability needed for the best start in life. It meant that I could play safely in green spaces, I had access to excellent local amenities and my family could live affordably with a good quality of life. That is the kind of opportunity that every child in Britain deserves, so it is great to see legislation that will finally begin to remove the barriers to building the new homes that this country so desperately needs.

With the changes to development corporations and CPOs, we may also see the new towns that this country so desperately needs. The proposals for planning committees will play a key role in ensuring that much-needed developments do not get stuck in unnecessary bureaucracy and political gridlock.

[Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that local people will still have a role in developing local plans and in many of the more complicated planning applications? Some of what we have heard today around local input has been scaremongering.

[Chris Curtis]

That is true. Certainty is incredibly important to enable the housing sector to invest in the skills, development and modern methods of construction that will enable us to alleviate the country’s housing crisis.

Beyond housing, we must recognise that our failure to build vital infrastructure in Britain is leaving our country vulnerable. Our energy security—the foundation of our national security—depends on having infrastructure to support a modern, productive economy. We have failed to build the transport links that are needed to get goods and people moving efficiently. We have failed to build the energy infrastructure that is needed to reduce our dependence on volatile foreign oil and gas, and we have not built a single reservoir in decades, meaning that we lack the water security that is required in the face of climate change.

[Paul Holmes]

Labour Members keep using the suggestion that reservoirs have not been built in recent times as an example of why the Government are proceeding with the Bill. However, under current guidelines and legislation, a reservoir is being built down the road in my constituency, so it is not a great example to use, is it?

[Chris Curtis]

I note the length of time that that reservoir has taken to be built. It would be nice if someone on the Conservative Benches started by acknowledging their Government’s lack of ability to build the infrastructure that this country so desperately needed for decades. The barriers that they constantly put in the way of building it are one reason why we are in this situation.

Our national security is only ever as strong as our economic security. Sure, we should be investing in defence, but we can do so only if we have a strong economy. One of the biggest reasons why we have not had a growing economy or economic security is because it has become too difficult to build in Britain. I am proud to support a Bill that will get Britain building again.

I will talk briefly about the nature restoration fund, which in principle is a policy masterstroke. What is most shameful about our current nature legislation set-up, including the habitats regulations, is not just that it stops us from building the homes and infrastructure that our country needs and that it damages our economy in the meantime, but that it does not even work on its own terms. As was mentioned earlier, Britain is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world; I am told that it is second only to Singapore. Why is that? Because the money that we force builders to pay for nature projects is not being spent in the most efficient way.

Take for example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) pointed out, the infamous bat tunnel, which cost us more than £120 million to protect a tiny proportion of bats, all while critical infrastructure projects were delayed or cancelled. Imagine what we could have done for nature not just with that money, but with the extra money that would have been provided to our economy by not stalling that project for so long. Although the nature restoration fund is a welcome step forward, we must ensure that it works. It is heavily reliant on Natural England bringing forward workable delivery plans in a timely fashion.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that open green spaces are not always the most biodiverse, and that we need a more joined-up approach to providing investment in those spaces?

[Chris Curtis]

I agree, and I hope that the nature restoration fund can be an opportunity to make those spaces more biodiverse. I am trying to support a wetlands art project in my constituency that would use such money to improve biodiversity. I hope that all the organisations that, like me, care about nature recovery will do the right thing and support these changes—they will be the best thing for nature in decades—rather than trying to defend an indefensible status quo.

Finally, as somebody who owes much of my fantastic upbringing to a development corporation, I turn to the crucial issue of how we will fund development corporations when we start building the new towns. Although the changes introduced by the Bill are promising, at some point we will need to think about that financing. For every pound that was invested in Milton Keynes, many more were given back to the Treasury—somebody said the ratio was 14:1, but I have not found a source for that. Currently, any debt issues by development corporations to private capital must be added to the Government’s balance sheet. However, a simple change to Treasury accounting, to count those corporations in the same way as the banks that fell into public ownership after the financial crash, could unlock huge sums of international private capital to fund these vital homes and projects. That approach is consistent with those taken by many European counterparts, and we should actively explore it as a priority.

I will support the Bill today, but I urge Ministers to be honest that this is not a moment for self-congratulation. We need to continue to go further and faster to build the homes and the infrastructure that this country so desperately needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) in what is a critical and important debate that will affect my constituency in Mid Buckinghamshire very deeply. Back Benchers on both sides of the House have made some sensible suggestions in this debate. I particularly support the points made on the protection of chalk streams, which is important to my constituency as well. But I have deep concerns about the tone of the Bill and some of the rhetoric underneath its defence. I would categorise it as a Bill that does things to communities, particularly rural communities, as opposed to with them.

The Minister can probably predict some of the things I am about to say, as we sat on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill Committee in the last Parliament together over very many weeks and with many, many housing Ministers over that period. I will not apologise, however, for representing my constituents who, time after time, are fed up to the back teeth of losing our rural identity and our rural character due to the constant flow of housing and infrastructure projects that devastate our countryside and the rural identity of Buckinghamshire.

[Chris Curtis]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Greg Smith]

Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I just want to say that we in Buckinghamshire feel that we have probably already done our bit with a new town, as it is now a 250,000-population city called Milton Keynes. With that, I will give way to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis).

[Chris Curtis]

I recently visited my 93-year-old grandmother, who was a constituent living in rural Buckinghamshire back in the 1960s. At that time, she expressed many of the concerns that he has just expressed about a city being built around her rural community, but if you ask her now, she will tell you about the fantastic opportunities that Milton Keynes gave to her children and grandchildren, to the point where one of them is now sitting on these Benches able to make speeches and interventions. Sometimes we need to have change and development, and sometimes we need to support it.

[Greg Smith]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. Milton Keynes is very close to me. I visit Milton Keynes all the time. I have many friends in Milton Keynes. It is a great city. However, a line in the sand has to be drawn as to the amount of our countryside, our farmland and our food-producing land that we allow to be lost to development of whatever kind.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), in his speech earlier, reeled off a list of things that were already happening in his constituency, where they are already playing their part. In my own constituency, while we have had concerns about a lot of it, there has been an enormous list of things. The amount of house building in Buckinghamshire has been extraordinary. The village of Haddenham is unrecognisable from what it was because of the sheer volume of new house building that has gone on there. There are also incinerators, and we are about to get a new prison. Despite our objections, HS2 has ravaged the middle of the constituency. It is not as though Buckinghamshire has not done anything.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)]

Despite the many fine contributions made by Members so far and no doubt many yet to come, planning is quite a dreary subject for many. Indeed, I heard some senior Members of this House privately describe it as such. I can well remember as a young Labour member sitting through constituency party meetings wondering why we were talking about planning for such a long time. Surely, I thought, we should want to focus on education, health and inequality. I am afraid that it took me a long time to realise—until I was one of those dreary people sitting at meetings saying these things—that planning is central not only to each of those issues, but to just about every aspect of Government policy and, indeed, to our daily lives.

Unfortunately, far too often the system and those we task with running it come under attack, including by those who should know better. Planning is attacked for delays, excessive red tape and perceptions of nimbyism. For every 10 planning applications submitted, nine are approved. That is hardly the sign of a system opposed to development. Where the system struggles is with capacity. The time it takes for a decision to be reached has increased significantly over the years, not just for the application but all the subsequent decisions required for development to commence.

[Chris Curtis]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that is why we need significantly more planning officers in our local authorities to ensure that we can unlock a lot of that development?

[Peter Lamb]

My hon. Friend must be reading ahead. The impact on escalating costs and viability as a result of the delays is hard to overstate. The capacity issues do not stem from laziness or as a covert form of development suppression; they stem from one issue and one issue only: the absence of sufficient numbers of planners in the public sector. The rates of pay at local authorities are massively out of kilter with the private sector. The consequence is that an increasingly small number of extremely hard-working people are left trying to keep the system afloat principally out of their public spiritedness. Yet, instead of receiving the thanks they deserve, all too often they have to deal with public rhetoric that regularly denigrates them and the work they do. I hope that I am not the first or the last in this Chamber to thank those public servants for their efforts on behalf of our communities and country.

Much needs to be done to reverse the decline in public sector planner numbers. While the Bill sets out many positive steps forward, I remain of the belief that few areas in the public sector would be better suited to, or would generate better economic returns from, the introduction of AI than planning. It could use decades’ worth of computerised training data to deal with simple applications automatically, freeing up expert human planners to deal with the cases that would genuinely benefit from a human eye.

As a former council leader, I am defensive of the record of local government in planning. However, despite my initial scepticism, I found much that is good in the new national planning policy framework and in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, showing that this Government genuinely listen to voices across the sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

The Minister gets to the nub of the issue in that the nutrient neutrality issue caused an absolute stagnation in housing development. Indeed, the Government want to give Natural England even more powers, which will lead not only to increased stagnation in development but to frustration for those who want development to take place. Many Members from across the House have referred to the £100 million bat tunnel and the development of HS2. Natural England raised that issue, yet the Government want to give that very organisation even more powers, which will lead to increased stagnation in development.

The Government may bring forward a Bill to create an avenue for more development, but this Bill will not achieve that given the environmental protection measures. In the light of the Government’s removal of the moratorium on onshore wind farm development, coupled with the provisions in the Bill, I fear for our protected peatlands, not only in the beautiful uplands of West Yorkshire but right across the county.

Secondly, I fear that the Bill will not create the speedy planning system that the Government hope it will. By placing the design and formulation of environmental development plans in the hands of Natural England, the Government have ceded much of their control over them. As a single-issue public body, Natural England operates with a very different interpretation of “reasonable mitigations” than the rest of the public when it comes to preserving nature—I have already referred to the £100 million HS2bat tunnel.

As developers, Natural England and environmental campaigners barter over the details of environmental development plans and lodge legal challenges against them, how will the Secretary of State speed up our planning system, as she is forced to sit on the sidelines of those negotiations and watch Natural England take a lead? She has created a Bill that hands more power to Natural England, not less, and removes her ability to ensure that infrastructure can be delivered at speed. The Government must be honest and up front about what they value.

Finally, I would like to raise another issue in the Bill which, in my view, moves from naivety to the realm of malice. Compulsory purchase orders are highly controversial at the best of times, but in another blow to our rural communities the Government have decided that landowners should not be paid the value of their land in full.

[Chris Curtis]

I have an essay in front of me, in which it is argued that when the Government pay for new infrastructure, new roads or new developments in order to unlock new housing, the landowner

“has only to sit still and watch complacently his property multiplying in value, sometimes manifold, without either effort or contribution on his part.”

The argument is that the landowner should not get that profit with no effort. That is not from Trotsky; that is from Winston Churchill—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order.