Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Third sitting)

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

Indeed, and I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about bringing forward a proposal about meaningful consultation. I would very much welcome looking at that. I think that would help to address the concerns being raised here.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

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

[Ellie Chowns]

I addressed those points in my comments. I am not disputing the fact that there are individual cases in which huge amounts of time have been spent. In response to the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I am not dismissing the evidence from the witness he referred to, but I have offered evidence from a report that looked at the whole spectrum of applications from 2011 onwards, which says that the representation of nature and community in pre-application requirements is not the underlying causal problem.

These issues are really complex. There is always a tendency to pick a particular example where the situation has clearly been problematic. I am not disputing the fact that some change may be needed. My argument is that it seems excessive to bring in a blanket policy and shift the pendulum too far away from the opportunity to use the pre-application consultation process to resolve issues that might clog up the process later on, because the requirement for meaningful consultation has been removed. Planning applications will always be contested, but these measures take it too far and sweep aside the rights of communities and organisations representing nature to have their voices heard, as well as the opportunity to resolve conflicts before they reach a legalistic stage.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Simmonds]

I have a lot of sympathy with the comments made by the hon. Members for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme and for North Herefordshire. I appreciate that the clause was tabled quite late, and the evidence that we heard last week was mixed. The National Infrastructure Commission gave us its views on the impact of pre-application consultation, and local authority representatives who are responsible for that section of the planning system’s decision making said that they have quite significant concerns.

The Opposition have sympathy with what the Government are trying to achieve, but it seems to me that, as the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington outlined, we need to look at alternatives. It may be that a regime of deemed consent is a mechanism we could use to speed up elements of the process, or perhaps altering how we set out the requirements of pre-app consultation.

I know that you have extensive experience in local government, Mrs Hobhouse, and you will be aware that, as a matter of law, Parliament has set numerous obligations on local authorities in respect of the quasi-judicial process that they follow in planning, and numerous other obligations in respect of what they do for their communities. The pre-application process is a means drawing out, before a major application is made, how the impacts may play out.

I can draw a good recent example from personal experience. The Chancellor, at the Dispatch Box, said that Heathrow expansion, and airport expansion more generally, would be enabled because sustainable aviation fuel would reduce emissions. It is true that sustainable aviation fuel mandates reduce the overall lifetime emissions from a given quantity of aviation fuel, but they do not reduce the level of pollution at the tailpipe of the aircraft at all. So when we look at Heathrow airport, it does not matter whether the fuel burned there is sustainable aviation fuel or conventional aviation fuel; emissions within the locality, which are what give rise to the legal obligations on the local authority regarding air quality, remain the same. It is not a solution. When a developer proposes to create a solar farm, a battery storage area or a nuclear power station—or any kind of major infrastructure—the pre-application process gives the local authority an opportunity to begin to understand which of its legal obligations may be engaged by the application.

I am conscious of the experience that the hon. Member for Barking described, illustrating the need to streamline the process as much as possible, but clearly, as several hon. Members have said, the major risk of that is that a developer comes along and sets out an ambition for a development, and residents are consulted and their response is, “In general—in principle—that sounds okay, but what will the impact on us be? Do we understand that from what the developer is putting forward?”

[Luke Murphy]

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.

[David Simmonds]

I understand the point the hon. Member makes, but part of me thinks, “Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they?” For a business whose profits come from expediting the grant of planning consent as much as possible, removing potential obstacles to that is important.

However, as has been outlined in many of the examples that we have debated, there can be crucial points of detail that either would make all the difference to the level of consent and support in the local community for a project, or would engage other legal obligations that Parliament has placed on the local authorities, either to carry out an impact assessment—an evaluation of what that will mean—or, in some cases, to engage with that process to oppose the development taking place, because it contradicts other legal obligations placed on the authority by Parliament in respect of environment, health or whatever it may be. Clearly, we need to ensure that there is a functional process.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill (Second sitting)

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

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.

[Gideon Amos]

Q That is a very interesting analysis. You touched on Hinkley, which is close to my constituency. I want to drill down into where you see the delays in the planning system. All the examples you mentioned were delivered within the six-month examination, but the points you raised were about species. You mentioned bats and fish. Is it those species protections that are really holding things up?

Sam Richards: As I said, that is where I think the big gap in the Bill is. There is a range of things. There are the rounds and rounds of consultation, which the Government have made some good progress on just this week by announcing that they will reduce the pre-application consultation stages. That is to be welcomed. It is the rounds and rounds of judicial reviews and the fact that the vast majority of major infrastructure projects in this country are brought to the courts. That has been the case multiple times for Hinkley and will be the case for Sizewell. Again, what the Government have done there is welcome, by reducing the opportunity for vexatious judicial reviews and reducing the number of opportunities from three to one and a half. That is to be welcomed, but it is also the additional environmental mitigations that have to be brought and the disproportionate responses that add costs and delay to building major infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We have just over a minute and a half. With a quick question from Luke Murphy, and a quick answer, we might just get something in.

[Luke Murphy]

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.

[The Chair]

Order. That brings us to the end of the time allocated. On behalf of the Committee, I thank the panel for their answers to the questions.

Examination of Witnesses

Councillor Adam Hug, Councillor Richard Clewer and Councillor Richard Wright gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

Q But you are saying that these are easily fixable through amendment. They are not devastating to the Bill, in principle.

Richard Benwell: They can be fixed, but we know it will take bravery and leadership from the Government. We hope that Ministers will go for it and the House will unite behind those changes.

[Luke Murphy]

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.

[Olly Glover]

Q I feel it would be a shame for Carol Hawkey and Mike Seddon to visit this wonderful building without making a contribution to our understanding.

We have had a lot of discussion about what Natural England’s chief executive said earlier. In her testimony, she was very clear that she feels that the provisions in the Bill do not have the effect of reducing current levels of environmental protection. What do you feel about that? Linked to that, do you feel that the Bill strikes the right balance between agriculture, environmental protection, housing and all the other things on which the planning system is here to deliver?

Mike Seddon: Thank you for the question and for inviting us. I will give you a perspective from a land manager. Forestry England is the largest land manager in England, and we are responsible for the public forest. I am not an expert on the development Bill, but from our perspective, the idea that environmental delivery plans can secure an improvement is correct, and it is particularly appealing if they can do that at a strategic scale. Anything that starts to join up nature across the country, which provisions of the Bill will enable us to do, would be a good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Holmes]

I didn’t think you would. Thank you.

[Luke Murphy]

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?

[The Chair]

Can I remind you again to keep questions as short as possible? It is entirely up to you, but I am just advising so that as many Members get in as possible.

Matthew Pennycook: I will take both questions in turn. The first is really important, and I am glad to have the chance to say very clearly again—as I did to Mr Benwell—that we do not accept as a Government that development has to come at the expense of nature. We have put a huge amount of effort into engaging with Mr Benwell’s organisation and many others, as well as other Government Departments, to ensure that the clauses allow us to deliver that win-win for development and the environment.

We are confident that the Bill will not undermine or reduce environmental protections, which is why we confirmed that to be the case under section 20 of the previous Government’s Environment Act 2021. As you heard from the chief exec of Natural England, our reforms are very much built around delivering overall positive outcomes for protected sites and species.

Specifically on the viability point, there are existing environmental obligations that developers have to pay to address. Moving to a more strategic scale and large geographies where we can get those better outcomes will allow us to drive down costs through strategic action through those economies of scale. We think that the approach will be beneficial overall, but viability has to be a consideration in the levy fee that we will eventually set.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Luke Murphy Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The increase in this country’s population is part of the reason why we have a rising need for housing, as well as for temporary accommodation. That all impacts on the system.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

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?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Gentleman fails to acknowledge that there were quite a few different housing Ministers during Labour’s previous tenure as well, but he makes an interesting and important point that I am happy to answer. Of course we want to build more houses to tackle affordability problems. I say that in relation to social housing, because during those 14 years, as well as delivering 2.5 million new homes, we delivered 750,000 affordable homes.

[Luke Murphy]

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?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said, there is no question but that there are underlying problems in the marketplace. We delivered 1 million homes, which was our target, in the last Parliament, but of course we agree that supply and demand is part of the equation. It is not the only part, so we support the ambition to deliver more homes. We had a similar commitment in our manifesto, and there is a context for that within the overall framework for a higher target.

The Government must reflect on the fact that although the construction sector is an important part of the economy, it represents only around 6% of GDP. Growth in the other 94% has been killed stone dead by the twin human wrecking balls who are the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister. Having inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor proceeded to trash talk the economy recklessly for six months, before hitting it with £70 billion per annum of tax and borrowing. If that was not bad enough, the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the Employment Rights Bill—[Hon. Members: “Hooray!”] Wonderful. All Labour Members’ union supporters will applaud them for it. It will kill tens if not thousands of businesses, and potentially hundreds of thousands of jobs throughout our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right, and that is why the Liberal Democrats were the only party to put in our manifesto the funds needed for Natural England and the Environment Agency to address the challenges she rightly sets out.

Lib Dem councils are also granting planning permissions, thousands of them—in my county of Somerset alone, 13,000 homes have permission but remain unbuilt.

[Luke Murphy]

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?

[Gideon Amos]

There was a significant increase in empty homes being brought back into use under the coalition policies promoted by the Liberal Democrat Ministers. If we look at the figures for the cuts the Government made between 2010 and 2024, we see that those cuts were far deeper after 2015, according to all Departments—the record will bear that out.

[Luke Murphy]

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.

[Gideon Amos]

I was referring to the departmental cuts. If we look at all Departments across Government, including Housing, Health and Education, the cuts were far deeper after 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

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.

[Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)]

In my constituency, we have hundreds of acres of land that is perfect for new nuclear power to be built. As a country, we have not completed a nuclear power station in over 30 years, and part of the reason for that is the state of our planning system. Does my hon. Friend agree that by making the changes in this Bill, we will be able to unlock vital national infrastructure such as new nuclear?

[Luke Murphy]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend. She makes an important and pertinent point. If we get urban densification right, it is a catalyst for the economic and social renewal of town centres, which is desperately needed.

[Luke Murphy]

rose—

[Bradley Thomas]

I will make a little progress, and then I will give way. Linked to urban densification is a pertinent importance to focus on the quality and aesthetic of the development that is taking place. I have long been a fervent advocate for design codes and the role that locally led placemaking principles can play in determining the quality of an area and its attractiveness for future inward investment.

I believe instinctively that residents across the country are not nimby, but I fear that successive Governments, including the previous Conservative one and the Labour one before that, have allowed mediocrity to reign. There is a lack of local distinctiveness in development, which causes an entrenched perception of nimbyism running throughout the country. I implore the Government to consider reinstating the Office for Place, which was disbanded back in July, and to think about the importance of those aesthetically-based placemaking principles and the role they can play in promoting the positive impacts of development. Linked to that, we have an acute need and opportunity to promote smaller, more artisanal developers, particularly those focused on developing the vocational skills needed to generate the incoming pipeline of talent to support the house building industry.

I will make a couple of points that relate to my constituency, but they probably apply to many others across the country. One is on the protection of the green belt. Green belt is a technical designation, but to the public at large, it is often considered to be lush open fields and meadows. My constituency has this large buffer between Bromsgrove and Birmingham. It is not the case that residents of Bromsgrove are nimby—I do not believe they are—but they do not want the identity of Bromsgrove to be eroded and, by virtue of that, it to become some kind of extension of Birmingham.

For me, and for many of my constituents, that word “identity” underpins the fundamentals we should be talking about. It is about sense of place and a lifestyle that people identify with. When I think about constituents from my area, they have probably grown up in Birmingham and moved into north Worcestershire. In many cases, they have done that because there is an aspirational element to moving into the countryside, and they want to benefit from the countryside that Worcestershire offers, while being in close proximity to Birmingham and all the services it offers.

I will wrap up my comments with four quick points that I would like the Government to focus on. They should consider intensive urban densification and the positive role that can play in delivering housing where it is needed and where young people live, and in regenerating town centres undergoing a lot of change.

Town Centres

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I will call Luke Murphy to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for a 30-minute debate.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for town centres.

Thank you for the opportunity to lead this important Westminster Hall debate on the future of Britain’s town centres under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Like so many towns across the UK, my constituency of Basingstoke is grappling with the consequences of years of neglect under successive Conservative Governments and the changing habits and shopping trends of consumers. High streets have suffered from an array of pressures, made worse, not better, by the policies of the previous Administration.

For more than a decade, the Conservatives failed to modernise the business rates system, leaving small businesses disproportionately burdened while allowing major online retailers to shirk paying their fair share. The failure to secure our energy supply and tackle retail crime, and the disastrous mini-Budget, which sent interest rates soaring, stifled the ambitions of our high street businesses, leaving them grappling with higher costs and a lower footfall.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am sorry, Ms Vaz, but the hon. Gentleman said to me, “Get in early,” so I have taken him at his word and done as he asked.

The hon. Gentleman has clearly outlined the issues for his own town centre. In the past, the Government here gave the devolved Administrations and institutions money sensibly. I know the Minister will respond to this when the time comes. They also did that through the levelling-up fund, so money did come through. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that more needs to be done to promote the economic and social regeneration of disadvantaged areas? After all, this is the great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are always better together, so we should be helping each other.

[Luke Murphy]

I think it was the hon. Gentleman who suggested that he might come in early, but I thank him for his intervention. I agree, but I will leave it to the Minister to respond more fully. I will take interventions from a number of Members. I am grateful to those who made it clear in advance that they wish to speak. I will try to get to them first, and I will do my best if others want to come in, but I am conscious that we do not have a huge amount of time.

Because of the issues and trends that I have highlighted, Basingstoke’s Festival Place shopping centre now contends with long-term vacancies. Some of the largest storefronts, such as the old Debenhams building, have sat empty for years. All too often, new businesses open their doors with optimism in the Top of the Town, but they find themselves shuttered within a matter of months.

After 14 years of Conservative Government, Britain’s high streets and town centres have been hollowed out. According to the Centre for Retail Research, more than 10,000 shops closed in 2023 alone. The high turnover of shopfronts leaves not just holes in the high street but a sense of instability that undermines confidence in the local economy, yet amid the challenges there is undeniably an opportunity to breathe new life into our high streets.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for securing this really important debate.

Rural market towns are really important. In my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton, Wincanton would benefit massively from regeneration. In fact, it was due to receive a considerable amount of funding—£10 million. The council put together a strong bid, but the former Member was unable to support it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that encouraging regeneration in our town centres and boosting footfall is the best way to bring prosperity back to our rural market towns?

[Luke Murphy]

I fully agree, but I will leave it there—for the sake of time, I will be short in agreeing with interventions.

None the less, like many towns and villages across the country, Basingstoke’s town centre is a hub of remarkable independent businesses that continue to thrive, despite years of neglect, from the unique offerings of Afrizi and the cherished Willows to the flavours of the Chennai Express and the ever-popular Festival Street Kitchen. These diverse ventures highlight the incredible entrepreneurial spirit in our town. The wealth of talent and creativity showcases the untapped potential of small business owners in our town, who deserve greater support and investment.

[Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some excellent points about our high streets. The Government’s recent move to introduce high street rental auctions is a game changer for places such as Leigh and Atherton. Local businesses such as local construction firm WJ Structures are eager to regenerate, but are often held back by obstructive landlords. Does my hon. Friend agree that empowering businesses with a genuine stake in the area will only boost the local economy? It will create jobs and foster skills and training for industry in communities such as mine.

[Luke Murphy]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend and look forward to seeing auctions playing a role in rejuvenating high streets such as those in Basingstoke and in her constituency. I also welcome the Government’s action on small business access loans in the Budget, with £250 million for the British Business Bank’s small business loan programmes.

We know that the high streets of tomorrow will not look like those of the past. The modern consumer is looking for more than a place to shop. They are looking for an experience, and a reason to visit that goes beyond everyday retail. Independent, forward-facing business owners such as those running the Dice Tower and the Post Box in Basingstoke, which provide engaging experiences alongside the food and drink offerings, show that they already understand the habits of their customers. Events and experiences are clearly the future of the high street.

Innovation is the way forward for our town centres. A shift towards more diverse, mixed-use developments, integrating housing, leisure, culture, banking hubs, centres of education and public services, will help to create more vibrant high streets where people want to spend time and money. Alongside innovation, we must also address the factors that deter footfall.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for the importance of regenerating our high streets with a new modern vision for their success. Does he agree that, for them to be successful, they must be seen to be safe? That is why it is so important that this Government do not tolerate, as the last Government did, a rise in antisocial behaviour and retail crime. A strong neighbourhood policing presence is required to assure residents that our high streets really are there for them, safely, when they need them.

[Luke Murphy]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend—I was just about to come on to that point. Antisocial behaviour and retail crime remain significant barriers to a thriving town centre. I am sure that businesses in his constituency have shared with him, as those in mine have shared with me, their frustrations over theft, vandalism, drug use, knife crime and things like illegal car meets. These are not merely nuisances; they are economic threats that drive shoppers away and force businesses to close. Labour’s plan to tackle these challenges head on—with robust action to tackle antisocial behaviour, stronger powers for local police and more town-centre policing, as well as support for businesses to invest in safety measures—is critical to restoring confidence in our town centres.

Since 2014, our police force has been diminished and retailers have been left to fend for themselves against the so-called low-level crime of shoplifting, which we know is absolutely nothing of the sort. It wrecks the bottom line and puts staff and shoppers in harm’s way.

I am glad to see the Government tackling shoplifting by reversing the rule under the previous Government that meant that the police would not usually investigate shoplifting of goods worth less than £200. Only by putting more police on the streets and empowering them to tackle shoplifting and antisocial behaviour can this Labour Government truly bring consumer and business confidence back to town centres like ours in Basingstoke. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the recent work in his Department to support high street businesses that continue to be victims of antisocial behaviour and retail crime.

The recent Budget provided £1.9 billion of support to small businesses and the high street in the next financial year by freezing small business multipliers and providing 40% relief on bills for retail, hospitality and leisure properties, up to a £110,000 cash cap. I welcome those measures, but would also be grateful if the Minister updated us on the progress of the Government’s plans to deliver the promised permanent reform of business rates. This is an absolute key issue that is raised with me time and again whenever I am in the Top of the Town.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I agree with the point that the hon. Member has just made. Does he agree that businesses are facing not just a cost of living crisis, but a cost of doing business crisis? In my constituency, a restaurant called Huxo, which only opened a year ago, has unfortunately had to close—he referenced that issue in his own constituency. Does he agree that it would be useful to hear from the Minister what the Government intend to do to help our local businesses with the cost of doing business crisis?

[Luke Murphy]

Absolutely, and this is something that we have seen businesses plagued with over the last 10 to 14 years. It is really important that, as well as improving footfall and stabilising the economy, we tackle those costs facing businesses.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister and the businessman Theo Paphitis visited Gabardine Bar together—a fantastic independent business in my constituency. It is great to see Kevin and Fran, who run Gabardine, here with us today. They represent exactly the kind of small business owners we have to support—ambitious for their own business, but also for the Top of the Town and Basingstoke as a whole. I rarely have a chat with Kevin that does not include a new idea, not just for his own business, but for rejuvenating the town centre.

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

Hearing about my hon. Friend’s constituents and the great work they are doing reminds me of the excellent work happening in my own constituency of Rugby around the night-time economy and live music, particularly in places such as Inside the 22, which provides live music, and The Squirrel Inn. Does he agree that this shows that small businesses are very entrepreneurial? They have the ideas about how to regenerate their own towns; what they need is an empowering ecosystem, which I believe is what the Government are seeking to create.

[Luke Murphy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It is just those kinds of entrepreneurial businesses that are seeking a better future not just for themselves, but for the town as a whole. We must create a supportive environment for them. Like many local businesses, they are community minded at The Gabardine—they put on food and refreshments for the recent local remembrance activities—but they need to operate in a stable economic environment, which is why I welcome the recent Budget to protect the smallest businesses and shore up our economy.

It is also important that the Government deliver on securing our energy supply, with a credible plan to increase the availability of cheap, clean, home-grown sources of power through Great British Energy. I would value knowing what more the Government can do, and are planning to do, to support high street businesses in Basingstoke and elsewhere, which have been crippled by the weight of soaring energy costs.

One of the other issues raised with me by local businesses is about reliable bus routes and public transport. These are essential for driving footfall in towns such as Basingstoke. The Government’s plans to allow public transport to be put into local hands is a welcome step towards ensuring that every town and village has the bus services and public transport access that it needs.

[Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. One in seven shops are empty—I have noticed that in my constituency, and the situation is similar in many constituencies across the country. Many owner-operators, like some of my hon. Friend’s constituents here today, want to get their town centre going again. They know what is best. The communities that bounced back the quickest after lockdown had owner-operators at the front and centre. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should be trying to provide infrastructure such as buses and routes to enable entrepreneurs and community stakeholders to get their communities back and vibrant again?

[Luke Murphy]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Public transport plays a role in making town centres accessible, but we must think about the wider need for infrastructure that supports all modes of travel, to ensure that additional footfall to support entrepreneurs such as Kevin and Fran.

Central to this debate is the recognition that town centres are not just about bricks and mortar, but ultimately about people. When my neighbours visit the Saturday market at the Top of the Town, I want them to see a bustling town centre with plenty to offer—somewhere they want to keep coming back to.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing a debate on this issue. Bournemouth town centre has just had a very busy Christmas period. We had fantastic Christmas lights funded by the Bournemouth town centre business improvement district. We have also had the successful opening of The Ivy, which is fantastic. Otherwise, the town feels like a ghost town. Does he agree that the roll-out of the high street rental auctions, for which Bournemouth is a pilot area, could be critical to restoring confidence in our high streets, increasing footfall and making our town centres safer? Ultimately, that will help more businesses to grow and help our local economy.

[Luke Murphy]

I completely agree. I look forward to seeing the role that those auctions can play in Bournemouth and elsewhere, and to seeing them rolled out in places like Basingstoke as well; they are a really exciting innovation.

I want our town centre to be a vibrant place that people keep coming back to. The opportunity is there, but it will take the Government, local authorities, and our communities and businesses to work together to realise that potential. Last year I stood on a Labour manifesto pledging to breathe new life into our high streets, and in February I committed to hosting the first Top of Town summit in my constituency of Basingstoke as a step towards achieving this collaboration. I hope the Department will support efforts in constituencies like mine to break down the barriers that stand in the way of local economic growth.

I hope the Minister will agree that delivering a boost to town centres like Basingstoke’s through tackling antisocial behaviour, retail crime, the scourge of empty shop fronts and soaring energy prices, and reforming outdated business rates, must be a priority for the Government if we are serious about reaching our milestone on growth in a way that improves local economies, builds up small businesses and puts more money in people’s pockets.

I would welcome—as would Basingstoke business owners like Kevin and Fran, who are here today and who met the Prime Minister during the election campaign —any updates that the Minister can provide on the work that the Government are doing on these issues.

Renters’ Rights Bill

Luke Murphy Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

If it was so patently obvious and it was such a fundamental principle of property rights, why did everyone on the Conservative Benches, including the right hon. Lady, stand on a manifesto committed to reform? Is it not the truth that rather than thinking such legislation would not work, the previous Government simply failed to deliver it, in common with many other things?

[Mrs Badenoch]

There is a big difference between having a headline in a manifesto and seeing the detail, as many Members on the Government Benches will soon find out. Earlier on, their Prime Minister could not answer the question about whether the Government will increase taxes. Campaigning is easy, but governing is hard.