Luke Murphy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  On the hon. Member’s point about the failure to invest, in Basingstoke South East Water’s failure to invest in the Surrey hills pipeline has resulted in over-abstraction of the Greywell fen, which is destroying our chalk streams, holding up the local plan, which means that homes cannot be built, and risking water scarcity for existing residents. Does the hon. Member agree that investment is at the heart of the failure and that whatever model we choose must deliver investment to deliver change in all those aspects?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is giving his view eloquently on social housing, but in 2010, the then coalition Government cut the affordable housing budget by 60%. Five years later, there was a 97% fall in the building of social rent homes. Would he like to apologise to the House for that record?

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Providers did, however, when the Conservatives were in government, point to the 60% cut in the affordable housing budget, which nearly led to the abolition of social rent under the Conservative Government. There was a 97% reduction in builds between 2010 and 2016; that is the record that the hon. Member’s party stands on.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement. It will be met with some disappointment and frustration locally, not least because many businesses, community groups, charities, councillors and council officers have put an enormous amount of effort into the proposal for a north Hampshire authority. I believe it is still the right course to set up a north Hampshire. Can she reassure those people that their effort has not been in vain, and that she will provide certainty and take a decision on the new proposals as soon as possible?

• 15 Jul 2026 · Estate Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. I particularly want to recognise the points she made about repairs and maintenance. I would welcome her passing on my request to the Housing Minister, and I acknowledge what she said about residential ballots. I fully agree that it is just one part of the process, but it would be a useful mechanism to drive some of the engagement she was referring to. I also thank other Members for their contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) made a point about the value of estate regeneration to both the economy and pride in place. I fully recognise that community needs to be at the heart of any proposals. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made the point that communities are not just a number on a spreadsheet and spoke about the need for a holistic blueprint for renewal. I think that we all agree that there should be a UK-wide approach on that. I heard the pride of my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) in the Alton estate, and I share that pride in representing Buckskin and South Ham. She mentioned a number of things that are also really important locally in Buckskin and South Ham, including the need for a permanent community centre as part of the regeneration and the role of co-design. She also mentioned the way that the residential ballot worked—I was very interested to hear that. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher) made a powerful argument about pride in place and resident action groups, which I would like to speak to him more about. I appreciated the response of the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos), and his agreement with the point about minimum standards and what community consent can help to deliver. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon), for what he said about my speech. However, I am old enough to remember when the Conservative Government cut the budget for affordable housing by two thirds, introduced the unaffordable rent model and decimated the building of social housing, so I might gently disagree with some of the points he made about the Conservatives’ record on housing. I put on record my thanks to the Minister for her response and to all Members for contributing. I am having conversations with the SNG, the Sovereign Hill Partnership and the local council, and I want to work constructively with them. I recognise the need for investment and more homes, and many residents do too, but it has to be done in the right way, with the accountability needed to build trust. I will always be a strong voice for my constituents and the residents in Buckskin and South Ham. Thank you, Dr Murrison, for presiding over the debate. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered estate regeneration.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Estate Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered estate regeneration. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I want to use this debate to talk about the principles of estate regeneration, its real-life impacts and the process through which it should be handled. I will speak specifically about the current regeneration in Buckskin and South Ham in my constituency. First, I want to cover what good regeneration looks like. When done right, good estate regeneration has the power to breathe new life into communities, restore civic pride and improve quality of life through better infrastructure such as schools, GP surgeries and green spaces. In all cases, there is a community that lives there, often close-knit and deeply rooted across generations. Those communities deserve not just respect but full and genuine engagement, shaping and driving the future of their own areas. That is at the heart of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s 2016 guidance on estate regeneration, although I will go on to say that that guidance needs to be refreshed and strengthened. Buckskin and South Ham are proud, strongly knit communities where many have lived for decades and neighbours look out for each other. They were transformed when Basingstoke became a London overspill town post-war. By 1973, more than 3,250 homes had been built in South Ham alone. With new housing came new schools and the associations and religious groups that bind an area into a community, each with its own congregation, and that now run projects such as the community pantry in Buckskin or the street pastors. The Westside Community Association, following the much-mourned closure of its premises, now runs the Ridgeway centre and the Russell Howard pavilion, hubs known across Basingstoke. They have hosted countless birthday parties, christenings and events, including my coffee afternoons, but they are so much more than a space for hire. They house nurseries and run clubs for the over-55s at risk of isolation. I have seen at first hand the work they do, such as the food bank at the Ridgeway centre, which supports people in Buckskin and South Ham when they struggle to make ends meet. Today, both areas contain more than 4,600 households and 10,000 residents. A regeneration proposal was first identified for development in the 2016 local plan. In 2023, Basingstoke and Deane borough council and Sovereign Network Group signed a memorandum of understanding to take forward, in their words, “transformation plans, covering community engagement, master planning, working with Hampshire county council on transport and infrastructure, land assembly, partnerships and funding.” The housing association, Sovereign Network Group, then partnered with the Hill Group to form the Sovereign Hill Partnership to deliver the scheme. There is no doubt that change is needed for parts of Buckskin and South Ham, and the flats in Pinkerton Road have been identified as a particular priority. I and many residents recognise that there are clearly homes and areas in need of investment; that is not in doubt. The Sovereign Hill Partnership says it has held 33 events, knocked on 1,200 doors and received 1,800 survey responses as part of the regeneration process. I know that staff at SNG and the SHP, many based locally, have tried hard to engage with residents; this is not about them. In my surgeries, at the SHP’s own drop-ins and on the doorstep, too many residents remain frustrated, uncertain and anxious about the future. Issues raised with me focus on three key areas: accountability and transparency over finances; uncertainty; and trust linked to performance on repairs and maintenance. First, on accountability and transparency over finances, residents are frustrated with what they see as a lack of accountability in this project. The memorandum of understanding was updated in 2025, in the council’s own words, to “reflect updated ambitions, aims, objectives and working arrangements of the partners.” That means the council and Sovereign Network Group. I am not aware that any version has ever been made widely available, which itself raises questions over transparency. That speaks to a broader issue that residents raise with me time and again. If the council agreed the memorandum of understanding with the Sovereign Network Group, and they are working in partnership together, but the Sovereign Hill Partnership, which is a partnership between the Sovereign Network Group and a private house builder, is delivering the regeneration, who exactly should residents hold to account? Many tell me that they feel left in the dark. Does the Minister agree that accountability for such schemes should be crystal clear? There needs to be clarity on which body is accountable, alongside greater democratic accountability. In London, regeneration projects involving more than 150 dwellings or the demolition of any social homes that seek Greater London Authority funding require a resident ballot demonstrating support. In Basingstoke, even though direct funding is not involved, a partnership with the local authority still exists. The parties should look at measures to introduce greater democratic accountability, including the use of resident ballots, as increasingly is normal practice. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider including resident ballots or similar mechanisms as standard in updated guidance for schemes with or without Government funding. We must also consider the financial model for the regeneration. SNG is a not-for-profit with a social purpose, but it has formed a joint venture with private house builder the Hill Group to help deliver this regeneration. Many residents want greater clarity on how any surplus will be reinvested, and on the details of the financial model underpinning the regeneration. Given the scale of the proposals, it is essential that residents can understand whether the benefits will be retained locally, particularly for housing, affordable housing, infrastructure and community provision. Does the Minister agree that transparency over the financial model is crucial for resident confidence, and will the Department consider updating the national guidance to that effect for all regeneration schemes? My next point is about the significant uncertainty caused to both social and private tenants, as well as to homeowners, by the regeneration proposals. Following nearly two and a half years of consultation, the Sovereign Hill Partnership confirmed in February what it calls the priority areas for redevelopment and refurbishment, as well as areas of limited change, the latter covering around a third of homes—roughly 1,500—in Buckskin and South Ham. That clarity is welcome for those residents, but it leaves nearly 3,000 households in areas of further study with no certainty at all. Residents have told me that they are unclear as to why and how these boundaries were determined—another example of a lack of clarity and transparency over decision making. Does the Minister agree that it is good practice to explain such decisions in an accessible way? On the point about uncertainty, the Sovereign Hill Partnership has acknowledged that wide-scale regeneration would take multiple decades. In the meantime, thousands of my constituents have no idea whether they will be asked to move next year, the year after, in 10 years or not at all. I have spoken to residents unsure whether to redecorate, lay patios, redo gardens and kitchens, or make other home improvements. They do not know whether they will see any return on improvements already made, including significant accessibility works for disabled residents. Those considering selling have also raised concerns about their ability to get a fair price. In short, too many people are having to put big life decisions on hold. Three years on, do residents not deserve clarity and a clear timeline as soon as possible? I urge the SHP to give that clarity quickly. Updated national guidance should set out what a realistic timeline for such schemes looks like, and I would be grateful for the Minister’s view. Perhaps most prominently, many residents are deeply fearful about the potential use of compulsory purchase orders. I do not believe that the widespread use of CPOs is justified, and their potential use only strengthens the case for resident ballots. The third area of concern revolves around a lack of trust, driven in large part by Sovereign Network Group’s performance on housing repairs. Put simply, that is the largest single source of casework in my office. I am afraid that we hear the story all too regularly: complaints ignored, wait times running into months or years, missed appointments, and wrong jobs or poor repairs that mean starting the whole process all over again. Recently, an elderly constituent had scaffolding on their SNG property from November 2025 until this month for a roof repair that never took place. They were unable to open their windows for eight months, including during the recent heatwave. The work has now been cancelled, the scaffolding has been removed, and the problem has been left unsolved. Likewise, a constituent whose depression and anxiety leaves them almost entirely housebound reported a roof leak last November. It remained unresolved until March, despite multiple SNG visits confirming the property was extremely damp and infested with mould and woodlice. These are just samples, but the pattern is borne out in both tenant survey data and the judgment of the Regulator of Social Housing. In the tenant satisfaction measures headline report, published last November, SNG performed worse than the national average across a range of measures, including overall satisfaction, repairs service, time taken to complete repairs, home maintenance, listening to residents and complaints handling. The regulator has found weaknesses in SNG’s delivery of an effective, efficient and timely repairs service, and a related failure to meet complaints handling timescales. I am aware that improvement plans are said to be in place, but the record points to a real issue of trust. Residents tell me repeatedly that they struggle to believe SNG can deliver a regeneration of this scale when it is struggling to deliver day-to-day repairs. Let us remind ourselves that this is one of the largest regenerations in the country. Does the Minister agree that improvement is needed on repairs and maintenance? Does she recognise that the record erodes residents’ trust in SNG’s ability to handle a scheme of this size? Might there be scope to update national guidance on estate regeneration so that minimum standards on repairs must be met? In conclusion, how does the Department monitor adherence to its 2016 guidance, and what plans are there to update it and make it statutory for both local authorities and housing associations? I recognise the role that estate regeneration can play in restoring civic pride, breathing new life into communities and improving quality of life, but it must be done with communities—with them shaping and directing the change, with clear accountability, with trust between all parties, and with the provision of as much certainty as possible. I will continue to fight for the residents of Buckskin and South Ham for as long as is needed. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

• 15 Jul 2026 · Estate Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I completely accept that, as the Minister said, residential ballots are not the answer in and of themselves, but they do drive the behaviour that helps to build community consent. Will she extend my request to the Housing Minister, our hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), to meet me about this issue following this debate?

• 13 Jul 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister confirm that Ministers will be considering representations from councillors and MPs on the interim warding arrangements? There is some concern in Basingstoke and across North Hampshire that urban areas could be disadvantaged by having a smaller number of councillors, as has been proposed.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, I was proud to host members of Basingstoke’s Nepalese community here in Parliament, including a number of Gurkha veterans. One of the issues we discussed was Gurkha pensions, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Alex Baker) for all her work on that—I have been proud to work alongside her. Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that it is time to resolve the long-standing issue of Gurkha pensions, recognising the service and sacrifice of Gurkha veterans to our country?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Third-party brokers will rightly be regulated through the energy independence Bill, but the market is complex, and time-poor business owners still find it hard to find the right deal. Is the Secretary of State willing to explore measures to standardise business energy bills, and will he look at new data rights under smart data powers, so that small and medium-sized enterprise owners can take back control?