Luke Murphy MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  Q I want to return to your comments, Councillor Phillips, to be sure that I caught your meaning. You mentioned the popularity or otherwise of network grid schemes running across the countryside. I was not quite sure whether you were saying that those were a relevant consideration for investment. Councillor Phillips: Like the local government sector, the local government pension scheme operates in a goldfish bowl: constantly, on a weekly basis, an article is written about you or you receive a freedom of information request. So you are very conscious of the scrutiny, and that helps direct you to manage the investment risks as part of your fiduciary duties. What people do not realise is that there will be particular packages that Government and strategic mayors may think a fine investment that they should be in, but there might be some local problems. To go back to the previous question, it might be better for Northumberland to invest in it rather than Cornwall. That sensitivity has to be there.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement and the actions that the Government have taken already on sanctions, aid and proposals to recognise the Palestinian state. Given the facts on the ground, which he has recognised—the man-made famine, the killing of women, children, healthcare workers and journalists, the ongoing suffering of the hostages, and the intensification of the military campaign—will he confirm that he will continue to work with international allies and consider all further actions that he can take to bring about the end of this catastrophe?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. As one who has fought outside the House for significant investment in affordable housing, particularly social housing, I greatly welcome the Government’s massive investment in the affordable housing programme. It falls to this Government to fix the mess that the Conservatives left behind. We are committed to driving down poverty and driving up opportunity in every part of our country, delivering the change that the country so desperately needs. We have already made a considerable downpayment on the comprehensive strategy on child poverty that is due later this year, providing free school meals for all children in households receiving universal credit, for which so many of my Labour colleagues campaigned for many months and years; delivering free breakfast clubs in schools; reforming universal credit deductions with a new fair repayment rate, which the Minister mentioned earlier and which puts hundreds of pounds back into the pockets of 700,000 of the poorest families; and increasing the standard allowance of universal credit. Looking ahead, our plan to get Britain working involves the biggest investment in employment support in a generation, including an additional £1 billion a year by the end of the Parliament for work, health and skills support through a “Pathways to Work” offer.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  In 2023, the shadow Minister said: “The narrative that the public has now firmly adopted—that over 13 years things have got worse—is one we just have to acknowledge and admit.” Does he still acknowledge and admit that things got worse under his Government?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I will not get ahead of our Chancellor when it comes to the announcements about taxation that will be made later in the year, but I am confident that those on the Front Bench know that they have our full support in delivering the final recommendations of the child poverty taskforce, also later in the year. This Government will never allow young people to be written off, as the Tories did for years. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I am pleased that the Conservatives initiated the debate, which has given us all a chance to discuss child poverty and their record on welfare, both of which are shocking. I lament the fact that they have failed to recognise the scale of their failure today, but I am pleased that this Government are getting on with the job of returning people to work, ensuring that social security is there for those who need it, and tackling the moral stain on our country that is child poverty.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Opposition for initiating a debate that enables us to discuss one of the most critical issues facing our nation: child poverty. Every child growing up in poverty represents a future diminished, opportunity denied and potential unfulfilled. Every child deserves the best start in life, so that they can learn, achieve and go on to live the best life that they deserve. That is why tackling child poverty is now firmly back at the top of the Government’s agenda. For 14 years, the previous Government presided over a shameful legacy that led directly to this crisis. As others have said, they left us with 4.5 million children in relative poverty, including 3,000 in my constituency. Since 2010, child poverty increased by a staggering 900,000 children, but instead of trying to tackle the problem, the Conservatives decided in 2015 to abolish the target of eradicating child poverty. Their motion and, indeed, their rhetoric allude to the idea that Governments should “make work pay,” but when they were in government they oversaw the first Parliament on record with living standards lower at its end than at its start. Some within the Conservative ranks have today shown a shocking disregard for this issue. They have talked of personal responsibility, but their version of personal responsibility appears to be lecturing others on it rather than taking any themselves. If they were taking personal responsibility on child poverty, they would come to the House and explain why it rose by 90,000 children. Was it a matter of policy design, was it a matter of policy failure, or was it, indeed, the fault of the children themselves?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, not least because I called for such a measure before I was elected to this House, under the previous Conservative Government. This is a really important thing to do, not least because it underscores the Government’s approach to clean energy, and to wider climate action to tackle and mitigate the many climate impacts that we already see; we have just had three heatwaves. This action will also lower bills, strengthen our economy and, in a patriotic way, ensure our national security. Does he, like me, lament the loss of the cross-party consensus that he mentioned? The leader of the Conservatives says that net zero is impossible, and the deputy leader of Reform says that climate science is garbage. One denies urgency, while the other denies reality, and both deny the evidence from the Met Office and climate scientists—and, indeed, the experience of their constituents. Does the Secretary of State agree that when young people and future generations ask who stood in the way of their precious inheritance of cleaner air and local green space, it will be the Conservatives and Reform—

• 9 Jul 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q7. Last week, I published a report that revealed the terrible legacy that the Conservative party left the NHS locally. Kids in Basingstoke wait 210 days following a referral for access to mental health services. That is three times the national average. I welcome the publication of the 10-year plan last week. It was led by the Prime Minister, will be delivered by a Labour Health Secretary, and was made possible by a Labour Chancellor. What more can the Government do to close the gap in mental health services locally, and ensure that every kid in Basingstoke has access to the very best mental health services?

• 7 Jul 2025 · Government Performance against Fiscal Rules · Hansard source

  More

  The Institute for Government’s review of the Government’s performance against fiscal rules found that the previous Conservative Government changed their rules in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2019, 2021, 2022 and 2024. In fact, all of the sets of rules that existed under the Conservatives were abandoned because at least one rule could not be met. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury agree that the Conservatives have not met a fiscal rule they did not change, break or, in the case of Liz Truss, blow up?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Procurement: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  3. What steps his Department plans to take through the defence industrial strategy to support SMEs.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Defence Procurement: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  Basingstoke is home to some fantastic defence SMEs, including Nightball Technologies and Bertin Exensor, but one issue that has been raised with me is that Government procurement agencies cannot specify UK sovereign tech or sole-source contracts, even where UK capabilities exist. That results in lengthy competitive tenders, where there is a high risk that end users do not get the capabilities that they need and equipment is bought from foreign suppliers. Will the Minister meet with me and firms from Basingstoke to discuss how we can prioritise UK defence SMEs over foreign suppliers, especially where UK sovereign tech exists?

• 19 Jun 2025 · UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Chief Secretary’s statement. As someone whose parents and grandparents grew up in and lived in council housing and benefited from that opportunity, I particularly welcome the record investment in social and affordable housing. Under the previous Government, the UK was 28th out of 31 OECD countries for business investment, and it was regularly at the bottom of the G7 for the combination of public and private investment. Will the Chief Secretary confirm that this strategy today will begin to turn that terrible legacy around?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The evidence of the detrimental impact of smartphones on children’s mental health and wellbeing is overwhelming. Will the Leader of the House therefore join me in praising the more than 30 Basingstoke primary schools, including St Mark’s Church of England primary school and its headteacher Charles Applegate, for the smartphone-free Basingstoke initiative? They are taking action to ban smartphones from coming into schools and to help parents understand the impact of smartphones on their children. Will she allow a debate in Government time on smartphone-free childhood?