Luke Murphy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Apr 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Too many of my constituents are struggling to obtain an appointment with a GP. The GPs are trying their best, but they too are struggling, with capacity issues, outdated buildings and outdated technology, all because the Conservative party broke the front door to the national health service. Can the Prime Minister reassure my constituents that our plan for investment and reform will ensure that they can see a GP when they need one?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Regulators (Growth Objective) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the inclusion of economic growth as an objective for certain statutory regulators; and for connected purposes. For too long, our regulatory system has been tangled, inefficient and disconnected from the mission of economic growth and prosperity. Instead of fostering investment, encouraging innovation and delivering good jobs, regulation has too often acted as a brake on progress: too slow, too risk-averse and too unpredictable. The previous Government hid behind regulators, deferring decisions, creating unnecessary bureaucracy and allowing inefficiencies to flourish. Too many businesses today face an overlapping, complex regulatory environment, with too many regulators, too many conflicting duties and too little co-ordination. It is a system that frustrates ambition and slows down investment. This Government are determined to change that. Under the leadership of the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, and the Business Secretary, the Government are committed to smarter regulation: regulation that is pro-growth, pro-innovation and—yes—pro-worker. We recognise that regulation, when designed and implemented well, is not an obstacle but a tool. It is a tool to unlock private investment, tackle systemic risks, protect the environment, and deliver better outcomes for people and communities. Britain’s businesses, large and small, are ready to drive economic growth, but they can only do so if the regulatory system enables them. There are now more than 100 regulatory bodies, many with overlapping mandates and responsibilities. The 17 key regulators the Prime Minister wrote to in December collectively employ 36,000 staff and spend £5.4 billion a year. That is a significant national investment, but one that too often lacks strategic co-ordination. Instead of working together, many regulators operate in silos duplicating work, slowing decisions, and creating unnecessary costs and confusion for businesses. Their powers and duties have expanded over time, without any overarching framework to keep them aligned. The result is a fragmented, sometimes contradictory system that no longer serves our national economic interest. A clear example is the Payment Systems Regulator. Firms operating payment systems like Mastercard or Faster Payments were forced to engage with three different regulators just to function in the UK. That meant three sets of rules, three sets of processes and three sets of conversations to deliver just one service. For major firms, it was frustrating. For small or scaling businesses, it was a serious obstacle. That is why the Prime Minister announced its abolition, with its core responsibilities to be folded into the Financial Conduct Authority. This is not about deregulation for deregulation’s sake. It is about smart simplification: removing duplication, reducing cost and creating clearer points of accountability. In short, it is about regulating for growth. But let us be clear: one example is not enough. The problem is systemic. The entire regulatory landscape needs to be reviewed, streamlined and refocused around a shared mission of economic growth. That is what the Regulators (Growth Objective) Bill would deliver. The Bill would support the Government’s broader regulating for growth agenda. The Chancellor and the Business Secretary have now published a radical new action plan, backed by businesses, to create a more agile, investment-friendly regulatory environment. As part of that work, the Chancellor secured 60 pledges from regulators that will deliver real, tangible change within the next 12 months. The CBI rightly called it: “a shift towards more proportionate, outcomes-based regulation.” This is practical, pro-growth reform: delivering for businesses, supported by businesses. But we must be clear that regulation can be both pro-growth and pro our other priorities, too. Balanced, purposeful regulation can support growth, and support the environment, strengthen public trust and raise living standards. Take the Government’s new deal for working people. Opposition Members claim that our proposals—to raise the minimum wage and end exploitative zero-hours contracts, introduce day-one rights against unfair dismissal, and expand access to sick pay and parental leave—are somehow misaligned with the Government’s wider approach to regulation. But they fail to recognise that for too long, the UK has operated with a labour market divided between secure, well-paid jobs and a growing share of insecure, low-paid work. The result is a low-wage, low-productivity doom loop. Our new deal for working people is regulation with a purpose, making work more secure, businesses more productive and the economy stronger. These policies are not just good for workers; they are good for business, too. The Government are not tearing up the regulatory rulebook, but rewriting it for a new era. We can and must learn lessons from home and abroad. Take Japan’s Top Runner programme, a pioneering regulatory approach that sets energy efficiency standards based on the best-performing products on the market, pushing industries to innovate and improve. By combining ambitious targets with industrial flexibility, it has successfully driven technological advancement and economic growth, while also reducing energy consumption. Or take the push by UK financial regulators to require major banks to open up their customer data, with consent, to third parties. That has helped to create a globally leading fintech ecosystem, with investment in UK fintech soaring. The Bill would force us to ask: “How we can repeat those successes in other sectors?” For too long, regulators have been left without that kind of strategic guidance, forced to make politically sensitive decisions in a vacuum. That is not fair on them, and it is not good for the country. The Bill gives regulators the direction they have been missing. It does not ask them to stop doing their work; it asks them to do it better, together, and with a shared focus on creating prosperity. Because when regulation drifts, so does the economy. Yet right now, there is no formal mechanism to align regulators with the Government’s growth strategy. The Bill would provide it. It enshrines one simple principle: regulators must not only regulate for risk, they must regulate for growth. That means: every regulator must consider the impact of their decisions on investment, innovation and prosperity; and regulators must work together, ending duplication and aligning around shared national priorities. Growth would become a statutory objective, not an afterthought. This is not theory; it is delivery. Regulation is not confined to the corridors of Whitehall. Its effects are felt in constituencies across our nation. The Bill is a call to action for the Government to bring forward a full review of regulators’ duties and objectives, with the ambition of creating a simpler, smarter framework fit for the modern economy. Too many of our regulators are operating under a patchwork of outdated or overlapping mandates. The result is duplication, drift and decisions that lack co-ordination or clarity. It is confusing for businesses, inefficient for regulators, and a barrier to growth. That is why today I urge the Government to go further and begin the work of legislating for a core set of statutory duties, including growth, across the regulatory landscape: duties that promote long-term growth and investment, protect consumers and the environment, and embed a culture of speed, clarity and accountability in decision making; and a system where regulators remain independent, but the expectations placed on them are consistent, transparent and aligned with our national priorities. We will continue to protect what matters: safety, fairness, the environment and public trust. However, we must also deliver on what moves us forward towards innovation, economic renewal and growth. Growth is not a luxury—it is how we raise living standards, improve public services and restore pride in every part of this country. Let us give regulators a clear foundation. Let us bring forward a new legislative framework that reflects the ambitions of a dynamic, pro-growth Britain. Let us regulate for growth. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Luke Murphy, Mr Luke Charters, Uma Kumaran, Lola McEvoy, Chris Curtis, Sonia Kumar, Gregor Poynton, Kanishka Narayan, Mike Reader, Ms Polly Billington, Rachel Blake and Anneliese Midgley present the Bill. Luke Murphy accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 4 July, and to be printed (Bill 207).

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing and Planning, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook), on bringing this Bill before the House, not least because I really believe it is potentially the most important Bill to be brought forward in this Parliament. As a country, we have not been building enough homes or infrastructure, and our planning system does not deliver for nature. This is about more than just homes, infrastructure and nature: this is one of the root causes of our falling productivity. It has been undermining growth and jobs. However, this is also about the home and the roof over people’s heads: it is fundamentally about people. My parents grew up in council housing. My grandparents spent most of their lives living in council housing—in fact, my nan and grandad on my dad’s side were low-wage cleaners, with my nan working into her 70s and living in a council flat in Battersea for the best part of 50 years. That council flat offered my grandparents the foundation to be able to bring up my dad—the same was true on my mum’s side—and, later on, to provide security and a better life for me and my sister. Too many people in low-wage jobs, wherever they are in the country, can no longer afford to buy or rent a home. That is fundamentally what this Bill is about. To say that we would not start from here is an understatement. In 2010, the then Housing Minister boldly claimed that the Conservative Government would radically improve housing affordability. In my constituency, affordability has massively decreased; when the previous Government came to power, the median house prices to earnings ratio was 6.8, but it was 8.8 by the end of that Government. George Osborne promised a major change in how we build infrastructure in this country. What he failed to mention was that the average consent time for nationally significant infrastructure projects would nearly double.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  There was not a greater cut in the affordable homes budget at any point between 2010 and 2024; the largest cut—nearly 70%—was under the coalition Government.

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  What impact does the hon. Gentleman think the 68% cut to the affordable housing budget under the coalition Government had on the delivery of affordable housing?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The point I was making was about outcomes. The previous Government committed to improving affordability and abjectly failed to do so. Can the hon. Member explain why?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talked about missed targets, and about affordability. In 2010, the first of 16 housing Ministers under the previous Conservative Government boldly claimed, as did many of his successors, that the Government would improve affordability of housing overall. While they were in power, affordability, as measured by the ratio between median house prices and wages, reduced from 6.85 to 7.7. Can he explain that failure to the House?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention —it is no surprise that he is raising the issue of nuclear, for which he is a doughty champion in this Chamber. I very much agree with him about the need to build new nuclear, and I recognise the previous Government’s failure to do so. Fundamentally, this Bill is about building more homes, building infrastructure and protecting nature. My constituency of Basingstoke is a growing town—no change there. We have been a growing town for many years, since the 1960s, as a London overspill town. We have grown significantly, but I want this Bill to bring about a different approach: one that builds the homes that are so desperately needed, but also ensures that they are more affordable, builds the necessary infrastructure alongside them, and protects nature. The previous Government did none of those things. I will mention a few measures in the Bill that I particularly welcome. First, the commitment to cut the timeline for nationally significant infrastructure projects by 50% is incredibly welcome—internationally, this country has become a laughing stock when it comes to our ability to deliver significant infrastructure. The measures to overhaul connections to the grid for the electricity network are also incredibly welcome; in a poll by Cornwall Insight, 75% of those involved in clean power said that the grid connection issue was the biggest barrier to us delivering on our clean power ambitions. The Bill also streamlines and improves our processes for transport infrastructure, as well as improving the roll-out of electric vehicle chargers, a technology that Conservative Members now apparently oppose. I really welcome the changes to planning fees—not just the changes in this Bill, but those announced previously by the Government. One of the key reasons why developments have been gummed up in the planning system is the lack of capacity within that system to deliver on them. The Bill should restore the role of the planner, not just as a tick-box exercise but to genuinely plan the places in which people live. As someone who was a political adviser to the Labour Opposition between 2010 and 2015, I also highly endorse the proposals on development corporations and compulsory purchase. Contrary to what has been said by Conservative Members, CPO reform is essential to delivering the housing that we need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) highlighted, it was backed by Winston Churchill, who recognised that hope value did not belong to the landowner but was the result of Government investment in infrastructure. That was also recognised by known left wingers such as Adam Smith. To go back to where I started, this Bill is fundamentally about delivering affordable homes for people who badly need them, wherever they live. I want to be able to look my constituents in the eyes and say that they are going to have access to an affordable home, just like my grandparents did so many years ago.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Members on the Conservative Benches have said that they do not think Richard Branson should have been receiving the winter fuel payment. They talk about those above £13,000. If the Conservative party had been so concerned about the very poorest pensioners, pension credit would not have been the most underclaimed benefit in the welfare system, with 700,000 people not claiming it. If they really cared about the most vulnerable pensioners, would they not have done more about that?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The motion talks about ensuring that “those eligible for Pension Credit receive it”. To return to the point I made earlier, if Conservative Members were so concerned about vulnerable pensioners, why was there absolutely no movement in the take-up of pension credit under the previous Government? Some 700,000 pensioners are eligible for pension credit, but I do not remember a big campaign on that by the previous Government that made a difference—

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Large-scale Solar Farms · Hansard source

  More

  Now that the Conservative party opposes large-scale solar, net zero and onshore wind, I am tempted to ask the Minister what he makes of that party’s new energy policy, which is to take us back to the past, rub two sticks together and hope for the best. Instead, will he update the House on the progress of Great British Energy in delivering our clean energy mission?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of fact— [ Interruption. ] I am reading from a mobile phone but, talking about quoting, they are important for research. On 19 February 2024, when the right hon. Gentleman was the Minister of State for Schools, a press release issued his Department said: “Mobile phones are set to be prohibited in schools across England”. On the right hon. Member’s website on 29 February, there was an article that said, “This latest article”— by the right hon. Gentleman— “for the Herald and Post follows the decision to ban mobile phones in schools”. I raise that point because, previously, Conservative Members made the argument that they were already banning mobile phones in schools. Is it not the case that they were posturing then, just as they are posturing now?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It was not just any website; it was the right hon. Member’s website, and it was a direct quote. My point—it was not necessarily to do with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne)—was that when the right hon. Gentleman was Minister of State for Schools, he described the move on his website as an outright ban. No if, no buts. It was described by the previous Government as an outright ban. It was posturing then, and it is posturing now.

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Which you described as a ban.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents has endured prolonged financial abuse due to drawn-out divorce financial order proceedings, which largely ignore domestic abuse except in rare cases. Will the Minister commit to reviewing financial settlement proceedings guidance to ensure that the impact of domestic abuse is properly considered, and to prevent the legal system from being used as a tool of continued coercion and control?

• 6 Mar 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A week ago today, Basingstoke sadly lost Graham Robins, a long-serving governor at St Mark’s primary school in my constituency. Graham dedicated over 25 years to supporting the school, Immanuel church and St Mark’s church, playing a pivotal role in the lives of countless pupils and families. Even in his final days, he spoke of his deep love for the school and its community, and he leaves behind a remarkable legacy of kindness, wisdom and service. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Graham, and to the vital role of school governors and the invaluable voluntary service they provide?

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  For too long, the governance and financial model of our game has left clubs vulnerable to mismanagement, unscrupulous ownership and, ultimately, financial ruin. I am fantastically proud of my local club Basingstoke Town FC, with its much-loved Camrose ground, but it is one such example. For over 70 years, the Camrose was the heart of our town’s club. It was a vital community hub where generations of fans came together to support their team, but the covenant on the ground that should have guaranteed a sports facility for 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 he owned, following years of underinvestment in the stadium. He eventually evicted the newly formed community club from the Camrose in April 2019. That stadium now stands in ruins. A once iconic stadium that brought pride and opportunities to our town has been reduced to a distant memory. In that time, it is the fans of the club, including those in the Gallery today, who have fought the injustice that went on and continue to power the club now. One such example is Jack Miller, the chairman, as well as all the volunteers who keep the club going. Basingstoke Town is a non-league club. Those clubs also need protection. Could I ask the Minister to put on record what the Government plan to do about that?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s recent £100 million investment in hospices, including St Michael’s hospice in Basingstoke, will help to modernise facilities, enhance digital services and provide more comfortable spaces for patients and their families. Given the vital role that hospices play in all our communities, will the Treasury continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure the sector’s long-term financial stability?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Defence and Security · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, this Government’s unwavering support for Ukraine and this very necessary decision to increase defence spending. As someone whose close family has served in our armed forces, I know that over the years as a country, we have not always provided our servicemen and women with the equipment and support that they deserve. Can the Prime Minister reassure the House that this funding will be used to ensure that our servicemen and women are provided with that equipment and that support and with respect, given that they are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  For too long, our skills system has not delivered due to policies that simply have not worked. Businesses have struggled to recruit the skilled workers they need, young people do not have the opportunities they deserve and investment in training has gone backwards. The previous Government talked a good game and introduced measures such as the apprenticeship levy with big promises, but in reality their approach was slow, bureaucratic and failed to deliver. It is worth noting, as I said in my interventions on Conservative Members, that I feel their criticism of the Bill today has focused far too much on structures, not outcomes, but since they have done that, I think it is worth reiterating this point. The Standards and Testing Agency sets the statutory assessments for school pupils, and it develops professional skills tests for trainee teachers. It is an Executive agency, just as Skills England will be, and it was formally a non-departmental public body, just as IfATE was. However, the Standards and Testing Agency was set up in October 2011, so I am not sure that criticisms of structures actually hold any merit; rather, they are a distraction from the record of the Conservative party. On its watch, investment in skills fell and apprenticeship starts dropped. Critical sectors are still facing chronic skills shortages, and employers up and down the country have been left navigating a system that just does not work for them. That is why this Bill is so important. It is about fixing what is broken and making sure that our skills system actually works for workers, businesses and the wider economy. To celebrate National Apprenticeship Week, I visited Basingstoke College of Technology to talk to its current class of carpentry and joinery apprentices, and to speak to college leaders. It was a particular privilege for me because my dad was a carpenter. He left school at 15 with no qualifications, but in the trade that he learned on the job he had skill and pride in his craft. He did not have the opportunity that many young people I met last week in Basingstoke have, with the fantastic support structures around apprentices today and more that we are going to build, as well as all the brilliant ways in which apprenticeships can help turbocharge the careers of so many talented and skilled young people. One thing that was made very clear to me from my visit to BCOT alone is that it is massively oversubscribed for many of the apprenticeships it offers. That worries me, because it shows that too many young people are not getting access to the resources they need to learn a trade and are being left behind by more than a decade of failure to deliver. So I am pleased that this Government, through this Bill, are working harder and faster—with their very first education Bill to be introduced—to cut red tape and give people greater opportunities to start apprenticeships. With 1,250 apprentices currently training in Basingstoke, 310 just starting and 110 having just completed their courses, the Labour Government are already making progress, but there is much more to do. I want Basingstoke to be the best place for someone to learn a trade, start a career and build a life for themselves, and I believe this Bill will help to deliver just that, laying the groundwork to establish Skills England and taking a step towards a more joined-up and responsive approach. Skills England will replace the current fragmented system with one that properly assesses national and regional skills needs, which will be absolutely crucial if we are to meet the challenges of the future. That will ensure we are training people for the jobs that actually exist in the places where they are actually needed. This is not just about cutting red tape; it is about making sure that our approach to apprenticeships and technical education is fit for the modern economy. For years, the system has been tied up in rigid, outdated rules that make it harder to respond to the fast-changing needs of industries such as digital, green energy and advanced manufacturing. The changes in this Bill will allow for a more flexible, forward-thinking approach that actually meets the needs of employers and workers alike. A big part of that is replacing the old apprenticeship levy, which has been too restrictive, with a new growth and skills levy, which will give employers the freedom to invest in a wider range of training opportunities. As other Members have said, we must put an end to the snobbery around skills and apprenticeships. For too long, highly skilled and essential trades have not been given the recognition they deserve. Too often they have been seen as somehow less valuable than the careers that require a university degree, despite being just as vital, just as skilled and just as valuable to our economy and society. I am proud that this Government are changing that narrative. We need these skills to drive growth, build the homes and infrastructure that we need and deliver energy security. We have the opportunity here to fix the mistakes of the past and to build something better. I urge colleagues to support the Bill, because a strong skills system is not just good for business and the economy, but good for everyone.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Conservative Members are making quite the noise about IfATE’s independence, but I remind the House that this is a precedented move. The Conservative Government established the Standards and Testing Agency, which is currently the Executive agency and was formerly a non-departmental body. That is exactly the same status as IfATE, which performed very similar functions for many other kinds of qualifications and tests. Why was it okay for the right hon. Gentleman’s Government to do that in 2011? It seems that the Conservatives are more focused on the process point—a process similar to that undertaken by their Government—and not on the outcomes that will deliver for working-class kids interested in learning a trade.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am afraid the hon. Member and the shadow Secretary of State speak as if the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education was an unblemished success. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, apprenticeship starts in England per capita dropped by 16%, so how is it a responsive system? I think the House would be better served if Opposition Members acknowledged that. I understand why he is focused on structures, because that is in part what the Bill focuses on, but surely we should also be focused on outcomes, on which the previous Government were not delivering.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  May I ask the hon. Gentleman a question that I asked some of his colleagues earlier? In 2011 the last Government set up the Standards and Testing Agency, whose predecessor was a non-departmental public body that became an Executive agency, like IfATE. It sets statutory assessments for school pupils and develops professional skills tests for trainee teachers. The last Government did something very similar to this. Why was it okay then, but is not okay now?