Speeches by Murphy.
Every Hansard contribution by Luke Murphy this parliament, most recent first. Back to the MP page for the headline figures and analysed positions.
Showing 361–380 of 783 contributions · most-recent first
| Date | Debate & contribution | Words |
|---|---|---|
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Just very quickly, the guidance says that the most significant impacts are only going to happen within a close vicinity of the site. Is that true? It is a genuine question. Is it that, if people are impacted because they can see it from a distance, that should not be classified as a significant impact?” | 55 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Thanks for your answers. I will just ask that guidance question slightly differently. Is there anything that we are doing now or should be doing now that is different from the approach that was taken when the ban was first imposed and that would bring more communities along with us?” | 50 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Charles, do you have any thoughts on possible changes to guidance and the threshold?” | 14 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “You think the threshold should be much lower. Do you have a number in mind?” | 15 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Can I just briefly take you back to onshore wind? Its reintroduction into the NSIP process was very welcome, certainly from my point of view. Could there be any improvement in the guidance that would help avoid the same local opposition that ended up with it being banned in the first place?” | 52 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “In terms of impacts on irreplaceable habitat that cannot be mitigated or avoided, could there now be scenarios where the infrastructure could go ahead because the need and the public interest is so overwhelming?” | 34 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “We have been told that the introduction of the critical national priority status has lowered the threshold for developers to gain planning consent. Would you dispute that?” | 27 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “We heard from the RSPB, which has given us written evidence. It said that the CMP policy could lead developers to override environmental concerns and result in the environmental impacts of developments not receiving enough scrutiny. How do you respond to that?” | 42 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Are you saying that the streamlining has not gone far enough?” | 11 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Moving the conversation on to network upgrades, what will the combined effect be of the presumption of consent for critical national priority projects and the endorsement of the centralised strategic network plan? What is going to be the effect of that presumption of consent?” | 44 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Is it too early for the national policy statement to reference the strategic spatial energy plan before it is even completed? An earlier witness thought that the reference should be removed.” | 31 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “What would happen if there is a proposed development that is outside the optimal areas or above the capacity limit identified for a particular one of those zones?” | 28 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “On the first panel that we had today, there was a bit of disagreement between our witnesses about how detailed the strategic spatial energy plans will be. How detailed and specific will they be place by place?” | 37 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “In that case, how is it not contradictory, given that the national policy statements maintain a commitment to a market-based energy system? How is that to be reconciled?” | 28 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Thank you to our witnesses for coming today. The strategic spatial energy plan marks a shift away from the market-based energy system. Would you agree?” | 25 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “I am interested in whether it is a tonal or substantive disagreement between Sam and Isobel and Jackie on the level of protection needed and the concern about what could happen to wildlife. Is it just a tonal difference?” | 39 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Just very quickly, the guidance says that the most significant impacts are only going to happen within a close vicinity of the site. Is that true? It is a genuine question. Is it that, if people are impacted because they can see it from a distance, that should not be classified as a significant impact?” | 55 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Thanks for your answers. I will just ask that guidance question slightly differently. Is there anything that we are doing now or should be doing now that is different from the approach that was taken when the ban was first imposed and that would bring more communities along with us?” | 50 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “Charles, do you have any thoughts on possible changes to guidance and the threshold?” | 14 |
| 21 May 2025 | Energy Security and Net Zero Committee — Oral Evidence (HC 868) “You think the threshold should be much lower. Do you have a number in mind?” | 15 |