Chris Curtis MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Draft Town and Country Planning (Discharge of Local Planning Authority Functions) (England) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I would like to make a couple of additional points, adding to the really important comments made by the Minister about why these changes are important. It is worth dwelling on the fact that housing in this country is prohibitively expensive for too many people. That is the reason why people are increasingly having to wait so long to get on the housing ladder. Fundamentally, housing is too expensive because, first, there is not enough of it and, secondly, increasingly it is too expensive to build new housing units. If we want to bring the cost of housing down, we have to address those two problems. We have to increase the number of new homes that are built, but also decrease the cost of building them. On the latter, increasing global pressures, from supply chain disruptions to the impact of geopolitical events, are pushing up construction and labour costs. Most of those headwinds are outside our control, but when we have difficult headwinds it is even more important that we do everything we can with the levers that are within our control to bring down the cost of construction. I mention that because one of the most damaging, self-inflicted and unnecessary costs in our current house building system is uncertainty. Right now, there could be companies out there—including developers, housing associations or, as the shadow Minister said, local councils—that are looking to build new homes. They could be doing everything right; they could be putting the land together and coming up with a plan that builds the right amount of affordable housing, gives local planning gains and supports local infrastructure. After putting all that investment and support in, coming up with a plan and designing a project, they could still face the daunting prospect of having that development blocked at the eleventh hour by the whims of a small number of local councillors, who are often responding completely rationally to local political incentives. Obviously, those trade-offs exists. That uncertainty comes at a cost: we either add to the price of a house that constituents are paying for, or we decrease the amount of planning gain that we can make from the developers. By definition, it either means higher housing costs or it means fewer GP surgeries, less road infrastructure or fewer affordable homes being built. That is the cost of having more uncertainty in the system. It is right that we reduce that uncertainty; one way to do that is by having decisions made by officers who are following planning laws, rather than by people who are responding to political incentives.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  Economic policies introduced by the previous Government piled more and more pressure on my generation, adding to intergenerational unfairness, and nowhere is that more clear than with plan 2 student loans; to declare my interest, I still owe more than £40,000. The policy proposed by the Conservative party will not do anything to alleviate the cost of living pressures on young people. Given the better economic outlook that we have seen today, will the Chancellor meet me and other MPs who are concerned about the plan 2 student loan system to talk about how we can make the system fairer and more sustainable?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think I will get the time to say this at the end, so I want to put on the record that the Government should set up a national commission to look at our voting system. Whatever our views on it, we no longer live in a two-party electoral system, and if our electoral system does not acknowledge that fact, we will have even more chaotic and unpredictable election results, as Professor Rob Ford says. I welcome many of the changes introduced by the Bill. Members from across the Chamber have talked about the principles behind democracy. My view is pretty simple: we should make it as easy as possible for as many people as possible in our democracy to vote. Unfortunately, some political actors have moved us away from that basic principle in recent years with some of the measures that they have introduced. There are always trade-offs in supporting the security and integrity of our electoral system, but the introduction of photo ID in our elections was done in a way that placed an unfair burden on people going to vote, while not doing anything to support the integrity of our electoral system. In the 2023 election—the first time voter ID was introduced—a nurse in my constituency was not able to vote because she did not have a valid form of ID. I am sure it is possible for people in this Chamber to argue that at some point between her 12-hour shifts, saving the lives of my constituents, she should have found the time to fill in the proper paperwork. That right to vote was taken away from her to stop a problem that the Electoral Commission consistently said basically did not really exist. There is almost no evidence to show that it ever existed, if only because it would be incredibly inefficient to provide that on a large scale. I acknowledge that there are problems with electoral fraud in our democracy, but there is almost no in-person fraud at the ballot box. The introduction of that law therefore had almost no benefit, and it is right that the Government are increasing the range of supported IDs. In the same vein of making it as easy as possible for people to vote, I would like to support the changes to automatic voter registration, but I acknowledge some of the problems raised by Opposition Members. While I accept that it will not be possible to say that there will be full-coverage automatic voter registration by the time of the next election—that does not, in and of itself, create a problem—it would be good to have reassurance from the Government on two points. First, where there are constituencies that cross multiple local authorities, we must not have a problem whereby half the constituency has automatic voter registration and the other half does not. Secondly, by the time we come to the next boundary review, when it comes to automatic voter registration, there must not be incomplete coverage. Can we please have a commitment to a way of addressing that problem—

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the engagement from the Minister and today’s fantastic announcement, and invite him to come and have a pint at the Dolphin in my constituency, where I used to pull pints. Just down the road is William Cowley, a business that has been in my constituency since 1870. It produces the vellum on which much of the history of this nation has been written, including royal weddings, births and deaths; royal patents; freedoms of the city; and many Acts of Parliament. It is worried about its viability going forward, particularly after the revaluation of business rates. Will the Minister agree to meet me to have a discussion about how we can better support heritage businesses going forward?

• 15 Jan 2026 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the importance of creating abundance in the housing market. Does he therefore think it was wrong for his party and the Prime Minister at the time to come to my constituency during the general election and campaign against the new homes being built there, which this country so desperately needs?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, go on. Last time.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his speech, and for his fight and campaign within his party in favour of abundance and against scarcity. I hope it is a fight that he can win, given the damage done by there not being enough of that attitude when the Conservatives were in power. Given that this debate cannot be isolated from the issue of the supply of housing, I hope that at the next election, I will not see Conservative leaflet after Conservative leaflet against building the new homes that this country so desperately needs. I thank the Opposition for bringing forward this debate, and I will start with a few points on which I hope we can agree. Stamp duty is a dreadful tax. It discourages behaviour that we should want to encourage: people moving out of homes that no longer suit them, and into properties that do. As many others have mentioned, stamp duty deters people from downsizing, which means fewer family homes become available for those who need them. In much of London and the south-east, where housing costs are already painfully high, that makes moving almost prohibitively expensive. When, for various reasons, the demand side of the housing market is struggling, stamp duty is also a barrier to building the homes that this country so desperately needs. When it comes to the drive to campaign against stamp duty, there is a lot to agree with, and we should find a path to removing it. However, I cannot support the motion for two reasons. First, a tax cut of around £9 billion must come with an honest explanation of how it will be paid for, as has been said. If there are apparently tens of billions of pounds-worth of cuts that we could make to the state, we can only conclude that it was pretty negligent of the previous Government not to make them in their 14 years in power. When they were handing out redundancy notices to police officers, why were they not making those cuts instead? Unfunded tax cuts are either a return to Liz Truss or a return to Tory austerity. There is a second, perhaps more important, point. I fear that the motion’s focus on stamp duty alone is too narrow. As was mentioned, we need a wider conversation about property taxes. The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) was wrong in one regard. I used to work in market research, and I know that stamp duty and inheritance tax are not the most unpopular taxes; council tax is consistently the most unpopular.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has asked me to comment on the 14 years of Tory failure—years in which his party failed to grow the British economy and created a number of the problems that the country faces. While the shadow Chancellor made many good remarks in his opening speech, there was a little bit of amnesia about the state of affairs that was left to this Government. However, we do need an honest conversation about tax reform, including reform of property taxes. We have spoken a little about what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said, and the IFS is right. The UK essentially relies on two big but fairly broken property taxes. Council tax does not create the distortions that stamp duty creates, but it is regressive; stamp duty creates distortions, but it is at least progressive, and mitigates some of the regressive elements of council tax. If we look at only one half of the equation and simply cut stamp duty, we will tilt the system further in favour of the wealthiest households, many of them in London and the south-east, while telling lower and middle-income families elsewhere that there is nothing in the system for them. We should consider just how unfair council tax has become. Given that the top band is capped so lightly, the bill for a modest family home in the north or the midlands can be similar to that for a multimillion-pound townhouse in London. Paul Johnson, formerly of the IFS, has already been quoted, but let me read out a tweet from him: “Buckingham Palace, valued at around £1bn, sits in band H and is charged £1,828 by Westminster City Council, less than an average three-bedroom semi in Blackpool...46% of households in England will receive a bigger council-tax bill than the Palace.” That is clearly a broken tax system, and if we ignore that and focus solely on stamp duty, we will only make things worse. Moreover, because successive Governments have not had the bravery to revalue, the tax bands are still based on 1991 values. In 1991, Tim Berners-Lee had just invented the world wide web, Nirvana had just released “Nevermind”, Will Smith was filming the first series of “The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air”, and I had not been born. A lot has changed since then, yet we have still not reformed the way in which we carry out council tax valuations. So yes, I agree that we should set a path to reducing stamp duty and ultimately reform the way in which we deal with it, but that should be part of a broader package that shifts tax away from transactions and towards ongoing occupation of higher-value properties. It could include revaluation and re-banding of council tax, so that bills reflect today’s values. There could be a higher rate or surcharge for the most expensive properties, and targeted reliefs to support downsizers and first-time buyers.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  With respect, I think that I have already taken the debate a little bit away from stamp duty, and I do not want to go into the wider tax system—although, as I have said, it is important to broaden the debate and engage in a wider conversation about property taxes, as I have tried to do. If the Opposition genuinely want to remove stamp duty, I invite them to engage in that wider conversation in good faith. If we want to remove costs at the point of transaction for those buying high-value homes, it is only fair to ask them to contribute more through day-to-day charges. Such a system would be fairer, would support mobility, and would meet the objectives that I think are shared by Members on both sides of the House: a housing market that works, more building, and a tax system that is both pro-growth and fiscally responsible.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Back to scarcity again.

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I will make some comments about the unfairness of the council tax system in a moment. We can have a conversation about tax and spend, and there is a much wider conversation to have, but today’s debate focuses on a very specific cut in a very specific part of property taxation, and there is a problem with having that conversation in isolation, rather than having the bigger, bolder, politically braver conversation that I would like the Opposition to start about wider reforms of our property tax market.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 23 Oct 2025 · Building Safety Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Music Streaming: Label-led Principles · Hansard source

  More

  I start by— [ Interruption. ] Oh, that is a bright tie, Minister. I start by echoing earlier comments thanking the former Member for Cardiff West, the unions and the Ivors Academy for their important campaigning on this issue, and I congratulate the Minister for getting this important deal over the line. The music industry has long suffered with issues of transparency, and I have no doubt that the Minister will want to ensure that these announcements make a real-world difference. Will he therefore tell us a little more about the independent scrutiny that will be in place to ensure that these new measures are implemented, and will he say whether there is a means of auditing what benefit music makers will see from these changes?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  The only way out of the economic doom loop that the previous Government got us into is by growing the British economy again. If the British economy had grown over the past 10 years as quickly as the OECD national average, there would be £40 billion more sitting in the Exchequer without having to touch spending or taxes at all. [ Interruption. ] The Conservatives talk about the fastest growth in the G7—that is like walking the first 26 miles of a marathon and then bragging about jogging over the finish line. Growth was unacceptably slow under the previous Government, so can the Chief Secretary let us know what he is doing to get the British economy growing again, particularly changing the broken planning system so that we can build more homes and energy infrastructure here in the UK?