Luke Murphy MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

• 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?