Luke Murphy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Dec 2025 · Jane Austen · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that Austen would agree and, as we do not have a sea coast in Steventon, that she may have admired the hon. Gentleman’s area more than most. Local children in Steventon still climb the old lime tree where Jane and her brother once played more than two centuries ago—a living reminder of the world that helped to inspire her enduring works. Equally, we still feel Austen’s influence in Basingstoke today. Across the town there are countless reminders of Austen’s legacy, not least the striking bronze statue outside the Willis Museum, created by the brilliant local artist Adam Roud, who is also in the Public Gallery today. To mark the 250th anniversary of Austen’s birth, Hampshire Cultural Trust is co-ordinating wonderful tours of our area, giving us all the chance to explore the places that shaped her life and work. I am so pleased that Paul and others are here in Parliament today representing the great work that Hampshire Cultural Trust is doing. I also highlight the outstanding work of the Basingstoke Heritage Society, including the research undertaken by Debbie and Joan—who are also in the Public Gallery—into Jane Austen’s life in Basingstoke, which has been vital to preserving and celebrating her legacy in the town. My constituents handed me some helpful maps with points of interest just before the debate, should anyone want to peruse them later. Right now the Willis Museum at the top of the town is hosting a brilliant exhibition, aptly named “Beyond the Bonnets”, on the women behind Jane Austen, shining a light on the often overlooked working women of the Regency period—the women who restored Elizabeth Bennet’s curls and washed her petticoats after that famous three-mile walk to Netherfield Park; the women who cooked for the Dashwoods at Norland Park; and the many other women whose unseen labour made the stories possible, yet so rarely receive any credit. As we mark what would have been Jane Austen’s 250th birthday this week, there has never been a more fitting moment to visit Basingstoke and reflect on its place in her story. My sincere thanks go to Tamsin, who is also here today, and her team at Steventon’s Jane Austen 250 for their dedication to celebrating Austen’s legacy in our area, and for helping us all to discover the many ways our town influenced Jane Austen’s life, worldview and writing. As much as I would like to give Basingstoke full credit as Austen’s muse, her life and literature were of course shaped by so many other places across the UK. Following her father’s retirement, the Austen family relocated to Bath, a setting that inspired “Persuasion” and “Northanger Abbey”. Five years later, after her father’s death, they returned to Hampshire, first to Southampton and then to Chawton. In this period Austen published “Sense and Sensibility”, “Pride and Prejudice”, “Mansfield Park” and “Emma”. Austen spent her final years in Winchester, where she was cared for by Giles Lyford during her illness. She died on 18 July 1817, at the age of 41, and was laid to rest in Winchester cathedral. I am sure the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers) will comment later, but Austen’s influence in Winchester endures to this day, with the city hosting numerous events that celebrate the life and work of this very special Hampshire-born novelist. Put simply, Austen reshaped the English novel. She perfected a narrative style that allowed readers to see the world through her heroines’ eyes, pioneering a realism that influenced writers such as Virginia Woolf and timeless narratives that inspired Helen Fielding’s “Bridget Jones” and, indeed, Heckerling’s “Clueless”, one of my favourite films. At its core, Austen’s style was characterised by her ability to weave her quick wit into her nuanced social commentary. Through interactions between her characters, she displayed the complex class dynamics at play at the time, and “Pride and Prejudice” captures it perfectly. The Bennets may belong to the gentry on paper, but at Netherfield Park they are frequently made to feel as though they do not quite belong alongside Mr Darcy and the Bingleys. The social hierarchies of the period are also evident in the character of Charlotte Lucas from “Pride and Prejudice”—but as a vital means of securing her financial and social future. For many women of the so-called lower classes at the time, marriage was not simply for love; it was a matter of survival. As Austen so aptly reminds us: “A woman is not to marry a man merely because she is asked, or because he is attached to her”, but because he can offer her security in a world that grants her few other options. By reflecting real aspects of Regency-era life back to her readers with her flair and humour, Austen was able to endear readers who saw themselves in her characters and entertain those who did not, swiftly gaining her recognition among her contemporaries. Austen’s novels did more than entertain and enlighten her readers at the time. They also hold up a mirror to us now, revealing much about who we are as a nation today—not least because it is rumoured that the character of Mr Darcy in “Bridget Jones”, Helen Fielding’s modern reimagining of “Pride and Prejudice”, was perhaps inspired by our very own Prime Minister. On a more serious note, Austen’s novels reveal the foundations that our society is built on today. Her contribution to feminist progress has been raised time and again when I have spoken to constituents, friends and colleagues. In her own lifetime she did not experience much of the autonomy that women today enjoy. She lived under strict legal limitations on women’s rights and within a culture that offered little recognition of women as people in their own right. Women’s voices were rarely platformed, and their lives were often tightly policed—so much so that even showing an ankle was considered improper. Women were expected to be seen to bolster their husband’s social status, but were never truly heard, treated as secondary citizens under the law of the time. This manifested in Austen’s own life as she initially had to publish under a masculine pseudonym to be taken seriously by contemporaries. Yet in the world she created on the page, Austen centred female voices that had hardly been acknowledged before, and in her own life she broke quiet but powerful barriers. She chose not to marry, rejecting a system that often defined a woman’s worth by her husband. It is true that Austen did not campaign for women’s suffrage or other forms of reform, but she still did something transformative. Through her stories, she invited her readers to recognise women as full people with ambition, intellect and agency. In doing so, she quietly laid the groundwork for the generations of feminists who would follow. Austen may not have lived to see the freedoms that women now enjoy, but her influence helped to shape them, one honest, courageous sentence at a time. Today, as new barriers to gender equality emerge, including from online radicalisation around the world, her message remains an important reminder to approach politics with a respect for everyone’s humanity. Jane Austen is not only a cornerstone of our national literary heritage, but a global phenomenon. More than two centuries after her death, her novels continue to inspire readers around the world—from the United States to Japan, India and beyond. Global fan societies, reading groups, academic conferences and adaptations for stage and screen all testify to the extraordinary reach of her work. Austen’s characters, wit and insights into human nature transcend time and place, uniting an international community of admirers who find her writing still speaks powerfully to modern life. Beyond the far-reaching cultural impact of her work, Austen’s economic legacy also endures. In Hampshire, we enjoy what the Hampshire Cultural Trust calls the “Jane effect”: every year, we welcome millions of visitors who want to experience the landmarks and areas that shaped her writing. Austen continues to inspire devotion from readers all over the world, which in turn supports our local businesses and regional economy. Most notably, this year alone more than 92,000 copies of her novels were sold in the UK—an increase of a third on last year. Austen’s stories have inspired so many high-grossing films and TV shows spanning decades, helping to sustain a thriving British film industry: de Wilde’s adaptation of “Emma” grossed millions as recently as 2020, and there is a huge buzz around Alderton’s upcoming adaption of “Pride and Prejudice”. To this day, there is still a fierce debate about whether Colin Firth’s or Matthew Macfadyen’s Mr Darcy reigns supreme—

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  The OBR told the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, that the narrative that the Chancellor set out on 4 November was consistent with the forecast at that time. When the OBR made that point, was it right or wrong? Are you questioning what the OBR said?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 3 Dec 2025 · OBR: Resignation of Chair · Hansard source

  More

  I echo fellow members of the Treasury Committee in commending Richard Hughes for his work and for taking responsibility for what the OBR itself acknowledged is the worst failure in its 15-year history. The shadow Chancellor failed to mention that Professor Miles stated in his testimony to the Committee yesterday that the Chancellor’s remarks on 4 November were entirely consistent with the forecast set out by the OBR at the time, in which the fiscal picture was not as rosy as the Opposition, bizarrely, now claim it was. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  Having spent the past 18 months arguing that this Government have mismanaged the public finances, the Conservatives have now come to the House to argue that the public finances are fine after all. Their position is patently absurd. Due to the OBR’s productivity downgrade, which was a direct result of the Conservative Government’s decisions, the headroom available to the Government had been cut by 57%. Does the Minister agree that the Conservatives are right to be angry about the state of the public finances, but that they are on the Opposition Benches because they are responsible for it? The Chancellor is on our Benches, making decisions in the national interest.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Driving Test Availability: South-east · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  22. What steps he is taking to help tackle court backlogs.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Court Backlogs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her answer. I have heard, from several constituents who are victims of domestic abuse, how the delays in the family court that were inherited from the previous Government, particularly for financial settlement orders, have compounded the traumatic experience and included ongoing financial harm and detriment. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to reduce those delays and, in particular, to support victims of domestic abuse through our courts system?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  1. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.

• 15 Oct 2025 · Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his answer and for his remarks in yesterday’s statement about the professionalism, bravery and sacrifice of our armed forces and veterans, including those who live in my constituency of Basingstoke, in their roles in Northern Ireland, across the UK and abroad. What discussions has he had with veterans, the Defence Secretary and the Minister for Veterans and People on the new provisions and protections in the new legislation?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to add my voice and the calls of my constituents for that issue to be addressed and tackled. I have been contacted by several constituents, one of whom has lost up to 70% of the value of their occupational pension. I add my voice to those calling for the Government to do what they can to address this issue, which I know the Minister recognises is having a huge impact on many people’s lives. Roger Sainsbury, among others, raised the issue in the evidence session. He said that he had confidence that the Government would come up to the mark and find a way through the perceived difficulties. I seek reassurance from the Minister on behalf of my constituents that the Government will do all they can to ensure that that is the case.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Employer National Insurance Contributions: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  When I was elected for the first time last year, my constituents told me that they wanted this Labour Government to rebuild our public services, which is what our tax changes are delivering. Does the Minister agree that Opposition parties, of whatever colour, want the benefits of our investment in public services but are not willing to take the tough decisions to deliver them?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) pointed out, the motion we are debating is based purely on media speculation. It also conveniently overlooks the Conservatives’ own disastrous record. Let us not forget that it was the Conservatives who presided over 14 years of failure, during which the very foundations of our economy rotted away. It was on their watch that taxes were increased 25 times in the last Parliament and the costs of mortgages soared, crippling family finances across the country. We have heard Conservative Members talk about covid, and Russia and Ukraine—and some even seem to acknowledge the travesty that was Liz Truss. However, a 2021 report from the cross-party Treasury Committee highlighted that the OBR had been warning since 2011 about an “unsustainable” fiscal trajectory in the public finances, although the Government failed to engage with that fact. Who was the Chair of the Treasury Committee making that shrewd analysis? It was of course the current shadow Chancellor. Before we got to Russia, covid and the disaster of Liz Truss, the Conservatives had already been mismanaging our economy. Now the Conservatives come to this House to complain about a Budget that has not even been written, offering no credible economic plan of their own and continuing to make unfunded promises. This Labour Government took immediate emergency action to stabilise our economy, and made difficult but absolutely necessary decisions. We are already seeing the early signs of promise: wages are now rising faster than prices; we have had five interest rate cuts, bringing down the cost of mortgages; and we have secured three major trade deals.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  The foundation for being able to cut interest rates is a stable economy, and that is exactly what the Bank of England has done. We are putting more money directly into people’s pockets, lifting the minimum wage for 3 million workers and delivering free breakfast clubs for all primary school pupils. We are getting Britain building again by reforming the planning system to cut through red tape, bringing in hundreds of new planning officers and making a record investment of £39 billion in affordable housing. We are committed to building 1.5 million new homes, so people are not locked out of the dream of home ownership. We are correcting the mistake of successive Conservative Governments with the crucial £113 billion in extra capital investment right across the country to boost our infrastructure and catalyse high-growth sectors. Crucially, we have had to make difficult but fair decisions on taxation—decisions that ensure that the richest and larger businesses pay more—because we urgently need to invest in the public services that the Conservatives ran into the ground. That means vital investment in our NHS, schools and other essential services that all my constituents tell me we need. It is only because of the revenue measures applied by this Government, which the Conservative party repeatedly opposed, that we are able to make that investment. As many others have said, the Opposition parties want all the benefits of our difficult choices, but refuse to say how they would pay for them. They talk about growth, but they consistently attempt to block measures to get our country building and they have been holding our economy back for far too long. As the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said, the next phase of this Government is singularly focused on making working people better off, improving living standards across the entire country, boosting British jobs and delivering the renewal that our country desperately needs. We will not be swayed by Opposition motions based on their fantasies, or by those who offer no credible solutions themselves.

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  One of the suggestions made to the Government earlier this year was from Conservative-run Hampshire county council, to increase the council tax on my constituents by 15%. That was blocked by this Government, by the Secretary of State. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in condemning Conservative-run Hampshire county council’s proposal to increase council tax by 15%?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Property Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  A moment ago, the shadow Chancellor suggested that he would not get into speculation, but this whole debate is premised on media speculation. I asked him to comment on an actual proposal that was made to the Government by a Conservative-run county council to increase local council tax for my constituents by 15%, so he is asking us to vote on a motion about media speculation but he will not comment on an actual proposal.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to ask about Unison’s point about LGPS funds requiring equal member and employer representation on boards—I should declare an interest as a member of said trade union. According to Unison, the Bill will mean a lack of member voice on LGPS board governance. I wonder how you respond to that criticism? Patrick Coyne: TPR’s responsibility is not for the asset pools, which are FCA-regulated entities, but we do have responsibility for governance across public sector schemes, including LGPS funds. It is really important to recognise the member voice within good decision-making, as Ms Blackman’s question indicated, but there are a number of ways to do that within standardised corporate governance boards and reporting functions, and that is something that we would look to explore over the coming months. With the LGPS boards, like the rest of the Bill, there is the ability, through greater scale, to start hiring better colleagues, introduce better systems and processes, and put in place better governance practices, and we would expect to see that come to pass.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It does not appear to be easily definable. What the financial benefits to members of an investment will be is easier to define through the fiduciary duty, but what is popular locally feels like a bit of a value judgment. Councillor Phillips: Like a lot of judgments.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q But would that outweigh the fiduciary duty and the question of monetary benefits to lenders? Councillor Phillips: The fiduciary duty would still be your main concern but in managing your risks you would have to take that into consideration as well.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q How do you measure the unpopularity or otherwise? Do you look at polling? Is it just a broad sense of sentiment? As a measure, it feels a bit vague. If you are weighing that up against fiduciary duty, are you doing any actual research? I am just trying to understand how you weigh it up against the fiduciary duty. Councillor Phillips: That is problematic, but at the same time you know when there are things it is perhaps best to steer clear of—perhaps a bypass, or something hugely controversial. It goes back to the mandatory business. If you are forced to invest in something that does not go well locally, that is not going to sit right or do the reputation of the scheme any good. Ultimately, as my colleague has said, we are talking about a well-run scheme with good integrity. Our businesses supply pensions to some of the lowest paid people in the public sector.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In your written evidence, the Phoenix Group encourages Parliament to reassess some of the timelines for the initiatives to ensure that there is sufficient time for market participants to respond in the interests of members and consumers. However, you also advocate for bringing forward the 2030 timeline for small pots and extending its scope to all pension schemes. How do you reconcile those two comments? Could you elaborate on why you think the deadline should be brought forward for small pots and extended? What are some of the barriers or challenges that might make the Government reluctant to take up your suggestion? Tim Fassam: That is a very good question. One of the things that makes the Bill powerful but more complex is the number of elements that interact. Eventually, we hope, it makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts, but it does mean it is critical that you get the ordering right. For example, we need the value for money framework and transfer without consent as soon as possible, so that we are able to get in good shape for the 2030 scale test—so those deadlines brought forward. Small pots are part of that scale: we are seeing thousands of new small pots generated every year, so the quicker we can get on with managing small pots, the fewer of them there will be for us to manage going forward. It is critical to think very carefully about the staging and phasing of the various elements of the Bill. That is the point we are trying to make. On the elements that help the market get to where we hope to get to by 2030, we need to get in as swiftly as possible, with enough time after the detail is in place for the industry to implement. I appreciate it looks like we are asking for things to be slowed down and sped up, but it is just making sure the ordering is correct and we have enough time to get into good shape for that 2030 deadline. We think the scope should be extended partly because of how supportive we are of the measures. Being a historical consolidator of private pensions, we have millions of customers who are not workplace customers but who could benefit from being transferred into a more modern, larger scale scheme and from going into a consolidator of small pots, for example. We see that value in our own book. We look at the opportunity and think, “We wish we could do that for this group of customers. They would really benefit.” The pensions market is quite complex, as others have pointed out. It is contract-based and trust-based. You also have workplace and private pensions. The more consistent we can be across all the different types of customer, who often do not think of themselves as being any different from each other, the more coherent a scheme we are likely to get at the end result.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q You said on Second Reading that you would encourage trustees, if they are considering a surplus release, to prioritise indexation of those that have not received it on their pre-’97 accrual. But some evidence submissions have suggested that it should go beyond encouragement, and maybe to mandation. Will you consider that? Torsten Bell: I understand why people say that but, as I say, it is for trustees. We are not going to legislate to change the offer made in scheme rules to savers, because that would be to fundamentally change the system. But trustees will want to consider that, and they will be in a very strong position to take a strong view about that when discussing with employers what happens with the surplus release situation.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What would be the challenges of that extension and scope? Tim Fassam: We see it predominantly as opportunity. We are not saying that the rules necessarily need to change. We are just saying these new opportunities should be extended to a wider group of available schemes, but the infrastructure we are putting in place regarding workplace auto-enrolment savers can be utilised across the piece.