Luke Murphy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 May 2025 · Public Sector Productivity: Technology · Hansard source

  More

  7. What progress his Department has made on using technology to help increase levels of productivity in the public sector.

• 14 May 2025 · Public Sector Productivity: Technology · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. The Government are rightly focused on driving public sector reforms through the smarter use of technology, and in Basingstoke we have seen what is possible. ICS.AI has already helped Derby city council to save millions of pounds using AI. GemaSecure, another local firm, is developing home-grown tech to help to protect vital infrastructure from cyber-threats, and TBSC has produced software to reduce costs wasted on unused IT subscriptions by up to 25%. Will the Secretary of State join me in Basingstoke to meet those firms and others to discuss how his Department can work with them to help to achieve our mission of building a more efficient, secure and modern public sector?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a delight to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I welcome these proposals. This is a major reform that will allow the Government to speed up the delivery of vital electric vehicle infrastructure, to deliver on our climate targets and ensure that we can meet the growing demand for electric vehicles. I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington in the words of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley, on the future of electric vehicles. The Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-investment. Electric vehicles are the future, and they are going to create jobs.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his intervention. I do not disagree. Instavolt, one of the largest public electric vehicle rapid charging network providers in my constituency of Basingstoke, fully supports these proposals. The reason why I think the Conservative party’s position is anti-business and anti-jobs is that businesses are crying out for certainty—they want certainty about the transition, not big question marks about the future. I support the removal of the need for a street works licence under section 50, which will cut down on paperwork and costs. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth on accessibility, but I support this proposal, which will allow us to speed ahead and build a world-leading charging network.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, rise to support the measures. The Committee heard evidence from developers that they do not at all mind paying higher fees as long as they get a fast, quality service that delivers quicker and better outcomes for everyone involved. We know that planners are absolutely vital to planning the future of our communities, the places where we will live for years to come, and they cannot do that on a shoestring. For too long, we have seen many local planning authorities unable to cover their costs, which causes delays and cuts and has led to a doom loop in the planning system. It is great that the Government plan to give control to local planning authorities, with the safeguards that the Minister has set out, to set their own fees and ensure that we can have the proactive, effective and fast planning system that we all want.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Will the shadow Minister give way?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Can I withdraw my criticism about the absence of the shadow Minister for Energy?

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to be able to speak briefly on clause 22, which I welcome. This scheme is key to delivering the key Government commitment to ensuring that those who are closest to new electricity infrastructure feel the benefits soonest. Also important is the Government guidance that will be brought forward on how developers will ensure that communities hosting transmission infrastructure can benefit, including through funding for community projects, sports clubs and leisure facilities. I welcome this key commitment. It is disappointing that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, is not here to explain further his comments in the newspapers today. He has moved from saying that he opposes electricity pylons to the issue of scientists themselves, suggesting that climate targets are not, in fact, science-based. It is disappointing that he is not here to defend his amendment, but I very much welcome the Government’s proposal.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I do not need to have encyclopaedic knowledge to read the newspapers this morning, which is where the shadow Secretary of State made those comments.

• 13 May 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise briefly to welcome the clause, which underlines the Government’s commitment both to tackle climate change and to restore and protect nature. As the Minister said, we have seen how Forestry and Land Scotland has been able to make use of its estate to install more than a gigawatt of generating capacity, which has been a major source of revenue for it to continue its conservation, preservation and reforestation mission. Once again, it underlines the Government’s commitment to protect nature while tackling climate change.

• 30 Apr 2025 · Energy Grid Resilience · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s statement and the measured way in which he has approached the situation. As he and other Members have said, these kinds of blackouts happen, whether systems are dominated by fossil fuels or renewables. I particularly welcome the Minister’s rejection of the approach of some Opposition Members, including the honourable Inspector Clouseau, the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), who has already jumped to blaming renewables. Is it not the case that some on the Opposition Benches want to weaponise this situation because of their ideological obsession against clean energy, which will leave my constituents colder and poorer while they enjoy the warm embrace of Vladimir Putin?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Might it not be that the hon. Member for Hamble Valley is embarrassed by his party on net zero? After all, on 17 January he said: “I will conclude—many will be pleased to hear—by reaffirming the Conservative party’s strong commitment to the UK’s target of reaching net zero by 2050” —[ Official Report , 17 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 650.] — only for that to be scrapped by his leader exactly two months later.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I note the hon. Member’s comments about how the Government arrange the witness sessions, but surely she would not dispute the point about the increasing delays in the pre-application process from 14 months to 27 months. That is a serious issue. The Fens reservoir spent more than 1,000 days in pre-application. The National Grid’s application for Bramford to Twinstead spent 717 days in pre-application for just an overhead line and underground cables covering less than 30 km. Hinkley Point C spent three years in pre-app. Sizewell C spent seven and a half years in pre-app. The hon. Member cannot possibly be suggesting that pre-application is not an issue.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is useful to reflect on what Cavendish Consulting said in responding to these proposals: “Removing a lot of the tick box requirements of a statutory consultation opens up an opportunity to be a lot more strategic and insight led in the pre-application communications, moving away from the security of ‘this is how we’ve done it before to get accepted’ to ‘what does this project and this community need’.” The changes being proposed could be much more beneficial in removing the tick-box exercise and focusing on what communities need.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. There is no place I would rather be than following the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe), with his interesting view that the issues of the game are the fault of fans—it was truly enlightening. I am so pleased to speak in this debate on the Football Governance Bill—gifts from colleagues in the form of interventions to extend my speaking time will be gratefully received—not just because the Bill will empower fans, protect clubs and keep them at the heart of their communities, but because it gives me an opportunity, after Basingstoke Town’s final home game of the season, to pay tribute to a wonderful football club and the entire community that surrounds it, supports it and stands by it through thick and thin. It was a delight to see the team get the victory they richly deserved on Saturday by beating the league champions, Merthyr Town, 4-0. The result secured our position in the southern league premier south for another season. The ’Stoke are staying up. More than that, it was just a joy, after a tough season, to see the dedicated team who lead and manage the club, the players, the support staff, the volunteers and our loyal fans celebrating after so much hard work. In his open letter to the fans after Saturday’s game, the manager Dan Brownlie gave “a massive thank you to the staff, volunteers, board and players. It goes way beyond match days. Endless meetings, endless hours behind the scenes trying to create the best experience for supporters. You would not believe the half of it…It is selfless, and it deserves celebrating. From the stewards, the board, the bar staff, the kit room and everyone in between, you are remarkable.” I could not agree more, whether we are talking about Jack Miller, Liz Lockie, Jacquie Meechan, Katie Oliver, Brian and Sarah Parsons, Neil the head steward, Adam Robinson, Aaron Nicholson, or the many volunteers, players and fans, past and present. They are remarkable. For all the money, well-deserved global attention and sporting excellence of the premier league, it is the community and the fans of local football clubs such as Basingstoke Town that make football truly great. Football is more than just a sport; it is a source of civic pride, community identity and economic opportunity, but for too long the governance and financial model of our game has left clubs vulnerable to mismanagement, unscrupulous ownership and, ultimately, financial ruin. A stark example is the case of Basingstoke Town and its much-loved Camrose ground. The Camrose was gifted to the club by Viscount Camrose in the 1940s, and a covenant was placed on the land, restricting its use to football or as a sports ground. For more than 70 years, the Camrose was the heart of our town’s club, and a vital community hub where generations of fans came together to support their team. People of all ages came there to play the sport that so much of our nation holds dear. The covenant on the ground, which should have guaranteed a sports facility to the town for another three decades at least, was and continues to be blatantly and disgracefully disregarded. In 2016, the then chairman of the club sold the freehold of the Camrose to a company that he owned. Following years of under-investment in the stadium, he eventually evicted the newly formed community club from the Camrose in April 2019. The club was forced to relocate to Winchester City’s grounds, over 20 miles away, causing disruption to not only the men’s first team, but the women’s team, the youth academy and an array of vital community projects. A once iconic stadium that brought pride and opportunities to the town was reduced to a distant memory. Our town and club have lost a historic football ground. We have lost a large sports and community facility, and those responsible have been able to escape accountability and to profit handsomely from a disgraceful episode in our town’s history. Basingstoke Town has since transitioned to a 100% fan-owned model, but that example is why I am so passionate about this legislation protecting not just fans of EFL clubs, but supporters of non-league teams like Basingstoke Town. I would like these measures to protect clubs at all levels of English football. I would appreciate any information that the Minister could give on how the Government will work with the FA to support and regulate non-league clubs, in order to protect clubs like Basingstoke.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  It is indeed.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her gift of an intervention, and I wholeheartedly agree with her sentiments about women’s football, which is a basic part of Basingstoke Town football club as well. Stronger governance is vital. We need tougher ownership tests to stop reckless takeovers, better financial oversight to prevent clubs from drowning in debt, and more support for fan-led ownership models. Football belongs to the fans. They pour in their passion, time and money. They deserve a system that protects their clubs and their communities, not one that puts them at risk. The Bill provides that system, and I commend the Government for it; but I want to see just as much attention paid to the grassroots, non-league football, and its fans and volunteers, because as I said, they are what make football truly great.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I thank our witnesses for coming. My question concerns growth and the timeline of the NSIP regime. We know there was a significant deterioration, as the Minister said, between 2012 and 2021, and the time taken to get development consent almost doubled. From 2.6 years in 2012, it rose to 4.2 years. Is there a target timeframe or average we should be getting to that you would like to see? One of the things my constituents will be most focused on is what this will do to growth in the economy. What impact do you think the Bill will have on overall economic growth? Sir John Armitt: There are two things there: what should the target be, and will the Bill deliver it? I think the target clearly should be to try to get back to what we were handling and seeing back in 2010 to 2012. That was just over a two-year period. These projects are getting more complex and getting a lot larger—there are some very big ones coming down the line in the next 10 years—but if we could get back to that sort of level, clearly that would be welcome. Would the Bill deliver that degree of improvement? Frankly, I would be surprised. Robbie Owen: We should not forget the role of national policy statements. They became rapidly yellowed at the edges in the late 2010s, which led to a dramatic increase in judicial review of decisions. The Bill does include a number of valuable proposals to improve how national policy statements are kept up to date. It is really important that they are, because they are the basis for decisions that are then taken on individual projects. As a rule of thumb, we should really, at the very least, be aiming to be getting back to the performance levels in about 2015, which were approximately 12 to 18 months for pre-application and then around 15 to 18 months from application to decision. Obviously, if we could improve on that a little bit, that would be ideal, but if we could get back to that, that would be my rule of thumb.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Very quickly, can you say something about the benefits, in terms of economic growth, of electrifying the economy? Dhara Vyas: I think it links neatly to the last question around demand. The reality is that we need to decarbonise business in a significant way. Right now, what businesses in this country are paying is among the highest of OECD countries, if not the first or second highest in that group. This is a big part of the discussion with the Department for Business and Trade around the industrial strategy. Energy and the price of energy is hugely significant to business users, as well as to households. So while we need to be having conversations about linkage with Europe, we also need to be having significant conversations here about how we can speed up demand and connections for demand—and have that conversation for both homes and businesses. More broadly, we also need to be having a conversation about how we support businesses to consider how they can move off their dependence on gas.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It was not that long ago that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine resulted in a massive income shock because our energy system is not that secure. Building on the Minister’s question earlier, what impact will the Bill have, in terms of expediting connections to the grid, on securing our energy supply in future? Can you also say a bit about what impact it will have on economic growth? Dhara Vyas: I think that the Bill is going to be crucial. It was as true for the previous Government as it is for this Government that clean energy and investment in clean power is seen as the safest and surest way to ensure the UK’s energy security. There is a programme of work for investing in clean power, but there is absolutely nothing to be gained from all of that net investment unless we can move it around the country. That is why this part of the energy industry is so crucial. In terms of the impact on bills, the reality is that, at one point, energy bills were four times what they were in 2019. We are now seeing bill debt of £3.8 billion and growing. It is also important to note, generally speaking, that households are under more pressure now than they have been for well over a decade. I think more than half of households who go to Citizens Advice have a negative budget. Households are really feeling the pressure, and the conversation about energy bills has not really been off the front pages for the last four years. As for being able to expedite the investments in clean power and make sure we are reducing the amount we are spending on curtailment costs, that should mean that in the future, if we experience an energy shock again, we will not spend the £40 billion that was spent in 2022-23 to support people. That is why this is so important.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You both worked for the previous Government in different roles, one in housing and the other in climate and the environment. Are there things in the Bill that you would have argued for then but that did not happen under the previous Government? Are there any areas where you would go further? Does the Bill deliver on the need to build more homes and get the growth that we need while protecting the environment? Sam Richards: For those of you who do not know, Britain Remade is a campaign, and 35,000 people across the country support us building the homes, energy and transport infrastructure that we need. It is worth briefly stepping back and remembering why we desperately need to streamline the planning system. I am going to give you four quick examples. First, the planning application for the lower Thames crossing—I see the relevant Member here—has cost more than £250 million. That is more than it cost Norway to actually build the world’s longest tunnel. That has been all in planning. That is all paperwork—not a single spade in the ground. Secondly, High Speed 2 is the world’s most expensive railway line, in no small part because we are doing things like building a £121 million bat tunnel to protect 300 Bechstein’s bats that live in a nearby wood—not actually the wood that the line goes through, but a nearby wood. I think most people would agree that that is a disproportionate response. Thirdly, we are currently building the world’s most expensive nuclear power plant, at Hinkley. It is the most expensive nuclear power plant ever constructed in the history of the human race. Why is it so expensive? We used to build them more cheaply: 20 years ago, they were half the price; when we built the fleets in the ’50s and ’60s, they were a quarter of the cost of the ones that we are building now. Why is it costing so much more? In no small part, it is to do with the environmental rules that mean that EDF is currently wrangling with regulators, and has been for eight years, about installing an underwater fish disco—an acoustic deterrent to stop the fish from swimming into the exhaust pipes of the power plant. Millions of pounds are currently being spent on that. Fourthly, the planning application for a 3.3-mile railway line between Bristol and Portishead—reopening an existing line that was cut in the Beeching cuts—is 80,000 pages long, with more than 1,000 pages dedicated to bats, on what is an existing line. It is important to make those points, because the ambition of the Bill is absolutely right: we need to make it much easier to build the homes, energy and transport links that we need. In many ways, the Government are delivering on what they are setting out to do, but there is one crucial area where they are going to need to go further, and that is on the changes to the application of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. It is worth saying that while we are failing to build, we are failing to protect nature; all our key biodiversity indicators are in decline. The shift to a strategic approach to environmental protections is absolutely the right one: getting away from this site-by-site approach, which has led to the bat tunnels and the fish discos, is absolutely right. We need to do that both to help us build the stuff quicker and to help us better protect nature. My fear with the way the Bill is currently written and how the environmental delivery plans will be implemented is that, because the habitats rules remain untouched and sit underneath them, if EDPs are not brought in, the habitats rules kick in as they do currently. It relies on Natural England bringing out all these EDPs and, indeed, those EDPs working for species. It is easy to see how they will apply in the case of, say, nutrient neutrality. We have basically already started doing that with the nutrient mitigation schemes that started two years ago. That is all to the good, and that should unlock lots of house building in the south of England. That is brilliant, but I fear that as things stand, the Government have not solved the bat tunnel issue, and they will need to come back to that. Jack Airey : Whether it delivers more homes and infrastructure is almost an unfair question, because legislative reforms to the planning system take so long to have an effect. While a lot of the things in the Bill are very positive and will improve the structure of the planning system, it will take a long time for them to have an effect and for the various bits of regulation to be laid. I worked on the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023. So much of that has not been implemented and probably will not ever be implemented, and I fear we will be in that situation with this Bill, too. The reforms the Government have brought forward in the national planning policy framework are much more radical and impactful, certainly in the short to medium term; ditto forthcoming reforms to the national development management policies, if they are done the right way. Policy changes by the Department have a quicker effect, and I would be looking to that in the short term. In terms of where I would go further, I agree with Sam on that part of the Bill. If I were a Government who wanted to deliver a lot of homes very quickly, I am not sure this is the reform I would have brought forward. I would have looked again at the reform that was put forward by the previous Government, which would have totally disapplied habitats regulations when they related to nutrient neutrality requirements, so there would be no need to produce an EDP or for the developer to pay a levy. That would have been the quickest way to unblock the homes that are currently stalled by this issue.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am grateful to the Ministers to for giving up their time. My question is really about whether there is a trade-off between nature and development. Given what has been said by previous panels, I want to give Matthew the opportunity to answer the suggestion that the Bill is somehow proposing that there is a trade-off. Also, to what degree are the Government listening to nature organisations, some of which we heard from earlier, and their suggestions on strengthening the Bill? Lastly, Richard Benwell specifically raised clause 64 and the viability test. Do you share his concern that subjecting the levy to the viability test could mean that the amount of funds that come from it are not sufficient to at the very least mitigate if not improve? How can we ensure that is not the case, even if it is subject to the viability test?

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Rachel, on the hope value, you used the phrase, “through no fault of their own”. Is that not the point of reforms to hope value? Hope value comes about through the granting of planning permission, which usually comes about because of a public infrastructure investment, such as a tube station or a train station, and that inflates the value of the land. Known left-wingers such as Winston Churchill and Adam Smith advocated these kind of reforms back in the day because it was through no genuine work that the appreciation had come about. Therefore, is there not some merit to reforming it? Rachel Hallos: I think there is merit to reforming it, but it is about making sure that the reforms are done in the right way and are fair to everybody. I think I have already said it, but I have this line: if somebody is going to benefit commercially from that compulsory purchase, the person from whom it is being purchased should also benefit, and it should enable them to have adequate funding to go and continue elsewhere.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am afraid that my questions are also to Richard, so apologies to the other witnesses. I want to go back to your original comment about nature and development not needing to be in conflict, with which I entirely agree. You also pointed out that we are suffering from significant species loss and environmental degradation. As someone who has worked on both housing and protecting the environment for the last 10 years, I support this approach because the current system is not delivering. Do you agree that the current system is not delivering for either nature or development? Notwithstanding the flaws—I think there can be some honest disagreement on what the outcomes might be—do you welcome the fact that a new approach is being proposed, given that the current system is not delivering for either development or nature? Richard Benwell: There is good scientific evidence that the habitats regulations are the most effective site and species protections in the world, but we definitely still need to go further. Some of those strategic solutions, particularly for landscape issues like water pollution, air pollution and water availability, can be improved. You are right. There are loads of places where we could go further. We would love to see things like building regulations for biodiversity in the Bill, to help get nature built into the fabric of development as we go. To suggest that the habitats regulations are not working is wrong, but their implementation can definitely be improved and more use can be made of this kind of strategic approach if it is done well.

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  In January 2017, the then Conservative Foreign Secretary claimed that the UK would be “first in line” for a US trade deal; 2,722 days later, when the Conservatives left office, precisely nothing had been achieved. Incidentally, that is 37 times longer than the 73 days President Trump has been in power for his second term. Does the Business Secretary agree that it is hard to take the Conservative party’s criticisms of our trade approach seriously, given its appalling record on meeting its claims to be able to achieve trade deals? I urge him to continue with his calm approach to this, in the interests of businesses in Basingstoke and across the country, and to take those decisions in the national interest.