partytracker.uk — a sourced record of what Britain's political parties say and do, party by party, with every entry linked to a primary source

12,868 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   I have got to say, this is rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman. The Conservatives had 14 long years in power; they wrecked neighbourhood policing—he was Home Secretary; prisons were at bursting point—that is why they called the general election; and they let out offenders in secret—and that why we have the Sentencing Act 2026, which passed through this House and the House of Lords. We are getting thousands more bobbies on the beat, toughening up probation—they decimated it—and we have to have the space to lock up dangerous criminals. That is why we passed the Sentencing Act.

   Hansard source
2. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   Let us be clear: there is no proposal before this House to scrap trial by jury. The right hon. Member needs to do better and get on the detail. There is a threshold change. Margaret Thatcher made a change to jury trials. David Cameron made a change to jury trials. The vast majority of criminal cases in this country are dealt with by magistrates—again, which the Conservatives cut. We are restoring the magistery, so that they can do more. We are investing in our courts—the Conservatives ran our courts down. We are modernising our courts, we are introducing digital ID, and we need reform.

   Hansard source
3. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   The right hon. Gentleman insists on proving that he cannot count. We lost 16,000 police officers when the Conservatives were in power. The British people have not forgotten what they did to our country. After two years of this Labour Government, I will compare our record with theirs every day of the week. Their record is the biggest fall in living standards in recorded history; our record is the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation. Their record is wrecking our criminal justice system; our record is bringing down violent crime. Their record is millions of people stuck on NHS waiting lists; our record is cutting NHS waiting lists at the fastest rate in history. Their record is cutting defence—the right hon. Gentleman was a reservist—and hollowing out the armed forces; our record is the biggest boost to defence funding since the early 1990s. Their record is plunging hundreds of thousands of children into poverty; our record is lifting half a million children out of poverty. I will take our record over theirs any day of the week.

   Hansard source
4. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   This case involves horrific offences against vulnerable children. I know that all Members of this House will join me in paying tribute to the victims, who have shown remarkable bravery in coming forwards. It is evident that these children were failed dreadfully, and Glasgow city council must urgently act on the recommendations of this review. I know that my hon. Friend has written to the Scottish Government to request an independent inquiry, and the SNP should consider that request with the gravity that it deserves.

   Hansard source
5. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   Well, everyone can see that the Reform leader is just trying to distract from the fact that he is up to his neck in sleaze. He has serious questions to answer and he cannot run away from them. Labour is not going to be part of this circus. I hear it is the people versus the establishment: the City trader, Putin-admiring, professional politician who is pals with crypto billionaires versus Count Binface. There have been unqualified joke candidates in the past—let’s see what the people of Clacton decide.

   Hansard source
6. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   The hon. Member raises a very serious issue. I will arrange for Beth to meet the Security Minister to discuss the matter in detail. The hon. Member also mentioned the Hillsborough Bill, and I am confident that it will be before the House in the coming days.

   Hansard source
7. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   My hon. Friend is right that our protections must keep pace with evolving threats such as deepfakes. I know that she has been in discussions with Ministers on the issue. We will look at her amendments closely. We are absolutely focused on protecting our democracy against foreign interference.

   Hansard source
8. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   I am very pleased that the hon. Member raises the issue of votes and democracy. But I have got to say this to the Greens: during the local elections, a Green councillor in Lewisham described me and the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), as “coconuts”. The Green party looked the other way, kept the candidate in post and rewarded them with the council job—I am not making this up—of cabinet member for healing. The Greens could start the healing process by stopping such racist language.

   Hansard source
9. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   I commend my hon. Friend for the difference that he has made and for his hard work to bring Pride in Place funding to his constituency. He lists an amazing record in two years, and we have got three more to go.

   Hansard source
10. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I say to the hon. Gentleman that everyone is equal before the law. That is the foundation on which the openness, tolerance and generosity of this country rest. Let us be clear: there is no two-tier justice in this country. The hon. Gentleman was elected as a Reform Member of Parliament and clearly aspires to become one once more. Given reports that concerns were raised with the National Crime Agency about the £5 million gift to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), he should be asking where did the money really come from?

    Hansard source
11. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    My hon. Friend is right to champion the huge potential of Cornwall. We are absolutely committed to devolution and putting power in the hands of local leaders. Conversations with local authorities such as Cornwall are ongoing, and we will confirm next steps as soon as possible. I know that Ministers will be happy to update him.

    Hansard source
12. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    The hon. Member is right that we inherited record levels of pollution, and we are determined to tackle that and clean up our waterways. We have acted by banning unfair bonuses, introducing jail time for lawbreaking bosses and unlocking £104 billion of private investment to rebuild vital infrastructure to deliver cleaner waters, and we also have the clean water Bill. Of course I will arrange for her to meet the Minister.

    Hansard source
13. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the future: it is coming home. I echo my hon. Friend’s sentiments on Jude Bellingham. Not only is he making Stourbridge proud, but he is a source of pride for the whole nation. In Great British Railways we are seeing the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation. We will work with all partners, such as local authorities and local businesses, to drive investment, support economic growth and deliver a better service for her constituents.

    Hansard source
14. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    We are raising defence spending to keep this country safe in an increasingly volatile world. That does require tough decisions, and the Department for Transport will set out £700 million-worth of savings from roads funding, but we will consult on the next road investment strategy and set out decisions in due course. I reassure the hon. Lady that safety would come first.

    Hansard source
15. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have the honour to say that His Majesty the King has accepted our advice to grant Ruth Ellis, the last woman to be hanged in the United Kingdom, a conditional pardon. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] While the pardon does not claim that she was innocent of killing David Blakely, it replaces the death penalty with a sentence of life imprisonment to recognise a profound injustice in this exceptional case. I know that her grandchildren, Laura Enston and Stephen Beard, are in the Gallery with us today. We hope that this pardon brings a measure of peace to Ruth Ellis’s family, who have carried the weight of what happened to her for over 70 years.

    Hansard source
16. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is discussing the budget at this very time. Tackling fraud and error in the welfare system is a priority for the Government, which is why we passed the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Act 2025, giving the Department for Work and Pensions more powers to stop fraud in its tracks, recover money lost and prevent overpayments.

    Hansard source
17. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend. We owe a profound debt of gratitude to the Gurkhas who have served this country courageously. We are listening to the needs of the community and already improving access to healthcare and community support. Ministers have met veterans and the Government in Nepal for constructive discussions on pensions, and those will continue. I will be happy to ensure that my hon. Friend is kept updated.

    Hansard source
18. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    We are backing business with the lowest corporation tax in the G7, we have delivered the small business plan with the largest crackdown on late payments in 25 years, we are bringing down costs for businesses through five major trade deals, we have secured £365 billion in private investment since the election and unemployment is down, with over 400,000 more people in work than this time last year.

    Hansard source
19. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless work in this area. She is absolutely right that we must stand united against those who seek to divide us. Our social cohesion action plan sets out how we will tackle extremism, bring communities together and restore national pride, and we are providing local communities with up to £1.7 million to insulate them against the threats to social cohesion.

    Hansard source
20. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    Did the hon. Member just refer to the nuclear deterrent as “ordinary”?

    Hansard source
21. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    I am pleased to have been a signatory to the application for this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) on securing it. [Laughter.] Therein is a lesson. The subject of the debate—rearmament and readiness—could hardly be of greater importance to our constituents, our military and the future security of our nation. I thank Members of all parties who have contributed to a compelling discussion, and I welcome the opportunity to respond to some of the points that have been raised. You can enjoy the confusion of my moving between my speech and the notes I have taken. I will attempt to explain how the Ministry of Defence is working to get our armed forces warfighting ready as an urgent priority. However, I will start by responding to the principal criticism of the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) that there is no new money. I emphasise that £300 billion is new money; £15 billion is new money. I will never, ever let you forget the cold water that I endured in the messes of the bases on which I served—

    Hansard source
22. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    The removal of funding specifically in 2010 resulted in the removal of Nimrod and the reduction of our shipyards and boatyards, which has led to the risks that are manifesting today. The Opposition cannot deny that is the reason that we are in the position we are in now.

    Hansard source
23. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    In time. Two years ago, this Government inherited a defence programme that was overcommitted, underfunded and fundamentally unsuited to countering the very real threats we now face. Since then, we have published a strategic defence review, the defence industrial strategy and, most recently, the defence investment plan. We are building a far more modern and lethal military, through massive increases in defence spending, radical reform of the armed forces and close collaboration with our NATO partners to protect Europe’s and Britain’s borders, showing Putin that the alliance remains as strong as ever. As technology reshapes warfare at the fastest pace in history, and as the world becomes increasingly dangerous, our overwhelming focus at the Ministry of Defence is to get warfighting ready as fast as possible, and that was the critical tilt in the change between the two Defence Secretary’s DIPs. This DIP is a defining moment in that journey, committing, as I said, £298 billion for our armed forces over the next four years, ensuring that they have the kit and weapons they need. That is £15 billion more—more than significant—and £1.5 billion more than was announced just a few weeks ago. The DIP means that UK defence spending will rise in real terms by 27% between 2023-24 and 2029-30—the largest sustained increase since the cold war. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence budget will grow faster over this Parliament than the budget of any other major Department. The £74 billion allocated next year—2027-28—is £20 billion more for our armed forces than the last year of the previous Government, and the budget will continue to grow in real terms for the rest of this Parliament.

    Hansard source
24. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    Twenty four years of serving this great nation means that I am acutely aware of the risks that the Opposition presented me and manifested during my time in service. That is why I am resolute in addressing these challenges and why I am backing the defence investment plan. Let me make one point crystal clear: Britain has always met its NATO spending obligations in the past, and under this Government we always will. That begins with the early delivery of our first commitment to raise defence investment to 2.7% of GDP next year, compared with just 2.3%, which was missing from the Opposition’s analysis of the decline in our defence spending.

    Hansard source
25. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    My hon. Friend has advocated for the Defence, Security and Resilience Bank and alternative finance methods for the past two years. It was pleasing to see the DSR Bank announcement from Canada over the last couple of days alongside the multilateral defence mechanism announcement from our Government, which, significantly, was joined by Poland. I hope that we will see the DSR and the MDM aligned as we go forward.

    Hansard source
26. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    Not at the moment. Let us jump forward to tech. It is not about how much we spend but about how we spend it, as we heard repeatedly in the debate. It is about how we rearm and get to warfighting readiness. The DIP will energise the transformation of our armed forces and target resources to reflect how war is waged today. We will sequence the delivery of a NATO-first transformed and integrated force powered by modern technology. Through the DIP, AI autonomy and uncrewed systems will receive the sustained increase in support that reflects their strategic importance. I will pivot to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells about the hybrid Navy. The DIP speeds up the transition to the hybrid Navy. I have a great deal of respect for him, but it is incoherent to talk about future manned flight but talk down an autonomous fleet. On my visit to Portsmouth only last week, a member of our Royal Navy said “Never again” as we walked past a Type 45, and made it clear that the work on the Type 83 had stopped a significant time ago—it is an incoherent conversation. For the Type 23, every refurbishment takes two to three years and costs us £100 million, while £115 million has given our nation the autonomous capability that we are rolling out in the middle east. That is how incoherent the hon. Member’s argument is.

    Hansard source
27. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I agree that this will be testing, but we must take up the challenge, and we need people like him on the Defence Committee to ensure that we are held to account while we proceed with delivery. The DIP also speeds up the transition to: a digitally enabled Army that is 10 times more lethal; the next generation of combat air, including a potent mix of crewed and uncrewed air power; a new uncrewed systems taskforce to rapidly develop and deliver field autonomous capabilities; and Europe’s biggest drone testing site in Swindon. I remind those who do down our nation and say, “We aren’t building enough” that at the moment we are providing 150,000 drones a year to Ukraine.

    Hansard source
28. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Calvin Bailey

    Rearmament and Warfighting Readiness

    I thank the right hon. Member for his question. Perhaps we should have a discussion about it outside, because of its ambiguity—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member and I will speak afterwards. The programme of rapid rearmament mentioned in the motion of this debate has not only begun; we are well on our way to delivering it, with significant and further increases in funding to come. That means an unprecedented investment in new technologies, new munitions, new factories and new jobs. It means creating a path to 3% and then 3.5% of GDP, and having honest public conversations about the very serious threats we face. As a fellow veteran, I know how committed the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells is to strengthening UK defence. I hope we get behind this national endeavour, which represents an historic upturn in support for our military and for our brilliant service personnel who keep Britain safe in an increasingly uncertain world.

    Hansard source
29. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mike Reader

    European Entry and Exit System

    As an MP who represents a constituency at the heart of the golden triangle, with one in five of my constituents working in logistics, this issue comes up regularly, including most recently with Steve Deveraux from BSI Transport, who explained to me the costs and the red tape that the current entry system creates. Will the Minister set out what assessment his office has made about the economic impact of the new system on HGV drivers and hauliers, and what measures the Department will take to support that sector going forward?

    Hansard source
30. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Michael Shanks

    Greenhouse Gas Removals Sector

    May I congratulate the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) on securing a debate on this important topic? I thank him for all his engagement on this and many other issues, and for his leadership on the energy transition. In the rising noise in and outside this place against facts on the climate crisis in front of us today, it is genuinely a relief to have conversations with him about what we can do about the reality. On that, he makes a hugely important contribution to the House. In all my engagements with him, I come away having learned something new; I thank him for that. I will start where the hon. Gentleman started: by recognising that we cannot put off our response to the climate crisis to tomorrow. We are now living through extremely hot weather caused in part by the action that we did not take to tackle the climate crisis. While this is one of the hottest summers that we have lived through, it is almost certainly one of the coldest summers that we will live through, so every single step we can take to tackle this crisis should be taken. We absolutely need greenhouse gas removal technologies to reach net zero and to tackle the climate crisis. Such technologies give us a not just a huge opportunity to balance the residual emissions from hard-to-decarbonise sectors, but—as we have said throughout all of the work the Government are doing on the clean power mission and beyond—an exciting opportunity to grow our economy and secure new investment into the UK. When I say that, I mean all parts of the UK, including Northern Ireland, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly always challenges me on. This is not just the Government’s view; it is firmly the view of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and our own independent Climate Change Committee. That is why we are looking ahead and investing in these technologies. Last year, in our carbon budget and growth delivery plan, we set out how the UK will continue to reduce emissions in a way that lowers bills and secures good jobs, including developing and deploying GGRs at scale. We forecast 0.7 megatonnes of engineered GGRs deployed in 2030, with that figure increasing exponentially to 21.8 megatonnes by 2035. We are laying the groundwork now to support the massive growth that we expect to see in the 2030s, because, as exciting as these technologies are, they are new, and it will take a comprehensive and holistic policy framework to get us to where we need to be. I will set out six steps, many of which will respond to the points made by the hon. Gentleman. The first is providing support to incentivise private investment through a contractual revenue support mechanism. That is the GGR business model, designed to stimulate private investment in GGRs by providing revenue support under a contract for difference mechanism. It aims to capitalise on growing demand for high integrity GGRs in the voluntary carbon market and, in the longer term, in the UK emissions trading scheme, designed to enable the deployment of GGR projects at scale in the UK while ensuring at all times value for money for taxpayers. We are employing similar approaches to support energy from waste, with carbon capture and storage through the waste industrial carbon capture business model and large-scale bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or BECCS, through our power BECCS business model. We are also exploring the case for financing GGR technologies not reliant on CO2 transport and storage infrastructure, such as enhanced rock weathering and CO2 mineralisation in building materials, as we recognise that there are a number of benefits to a diverse portfolio of GGR technologies. No decisions have been made on the particular intervention or mechanism. I want to reference the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised with me before and he raised today as well on the British carbon bank, or the idea of some kind of revolving fund. It is a serious idea that we will look at carefully, because we recognise that there is a real benefit to having that portfolio in place. We have already invested money, as I will come on to, but looking at interventions like that is important. We will continue to engage with him and the wider sector on how that could work. Secondly, we are introducing a new standard to ensure that investors and the public have confidence in these technologies. To complement the business models, we have commissioned the British Standards Institution to develop methodologies under an official UK GGR standard, and that is expected to be published next year. This is about making sure that carbon removals are genuine and verifiable, and having a standard in place so that we can objectively assess the viability and suitability of projects applying to the business model. The BSI development process generates high-integrity standards and benchmarks, bringing together industry specialists, academics and policymakers from across relevant sectors to produce a consensus-based final product. It is an example of a strong point made by the hon. Gentleman: everything we need to make this work is already here in Britain. The academics, the industry specialists, the skills and the capabilities are all here, and we just need to look at how we capitalise on those resources as quickly as possible. Thirdly, we know that carbon capture, usage and storage infrastructure is critical for enabling some of these technologies, and we have been committed to deploying CCUS at scale. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) about the need to capitalise on investment that we have already made, and to continue down that path by investing in these projects. In October 2024, just a few months after we took office, we made a significant funding commitment of up to £21.7 billion over 25 years to kick-start the CCUS industry here in Britain. GGR projects have been able to apply to the expansion of the HyNet and East Coast clusters through the HyNet Track-1 expansion process, the Teesside selection process and the non-pipeline transport pathfinder process—all very catchy names. I can already confirm that the HyNet Track-1 expansion includes two GGR projects that are in the negotiation phase of that process. Fourthly, we are investing in innovation. For many of these technologies, there is research that still needs to be undertaken and there are breakthroughs that are waiting to be made. We have already invested over £80 million through the direct air capture and greenhouse gas removal innovation programme and the UK Research and Innovation funded greenhouse gas removal demonstrator programme and its co-ordinating hub. The carbon budget and growth delivery plan committed to launching a series of cleantech innovation challenges that target mission-critical innovation. These will set specific, measurable, time-bound goals for innovation, co-owned with industry, which will mobilise public and private sector investment and focus policy efforts on creating the necessary market pull for new technologies and, in the process, de-risking those investments into new innovations. That leads me to the fifth point about how we stimulate market demand. We want to engineer GGR projects to generate high-quality carbon credits that can be sold on high-integrity negative emissions markets, and so we will maximise the opportunity for the voluntary carbon markets to channel private finance into those GGR projects. At COP29, we launched six principles for voluntary carbon and nature market integrity to guide organisations into taking voluntary action towards nature-positive and net zero goals. When we consulted on those principles with stakeholders, they highlighted that, in order to unlock the full potential of the voluntary carbon market, there is a need for greater clarity on the definition of high-quality carbon credits and how credits could be used in corporate net zero claims. Alongside the Governments of Singapore and Kenya, we are leading development of the Coalition to Grow Carbon Markets to strengthen corporate demand for high-integrity carbon credits, and anyone and everyone is welcome to join that coalition. Our long-term ambition is for a competitive negative emissions market, underpinned by demand in the carbon market and the UK emissions trading scheme. We have signalled our intention to include GGRs in the UK ETS. Last summer, the ETS authority published a response to the consultation on the inclusion of GGRs in the ETS, setting out further details on how we will do this. Finally, we are considering the findings of the independent review into GGRs that we commissioned last year under my noble Friend and all-round GGR and general energy expert and nerd, Lord Whitehead, who did fantastic work. I can assure the hon. Member for West Dorset and the House that that review is certainly not gathering dust on my desk; I have been flicking through it far too much for it to be gathering dust. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that the review includes many interesting and useful conclusions. We are taking time to go through them in detail, but we aim to publish the response this month. I am sorry that that is not quite an exact date, but I hope it is close enough. I hope that the steps that I have outlined today will reassure the House that this Government take the future of GGRs extremely seriously. We know that these technologies will be essential to reducing our emissions while growing the economy on the road to net zero by 2050, and that is why we are acting now. I want to conclude by coming back to the point where the hon. Gentleman started. It is absolutely critical that we rebuild, where we can, the consensus on acting on the most existential crisis that this planet faces. The climate crisis is not some future threat that we can have a theoretical debate about now and worry about later; it is a very real and pressing threat, and GGRs will play a really important part in addressing it. The Government are determined to make that happen, and there is an economic opportunity if we get this right as well. I absolutely commit to working with the wider industry, with the hon. Gentleman and with everyone else who has an interest in this fascinating subject in order to make this work.

    Hansard source
31. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq. The order was laid before the House on 4 June. It will establish a centrally led urban development corporation in greater Cambridge, pursuant to the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, which provides that the Secretary of State may designate an urban development area only when they are of the opinion that it is expedient and in the national interest, and following a public consultation. As the Committee will be aware, the economic growth of Cambridge over recent years has been a phenomenal success. It now has arguably the most intensive and innovative science and technology cluster in the world, with more than 5,000 knowledge-intensive firms based in and around the city, employing tens of thousands of skilled workers and generating in excess of £18 billion in annual turnover. However, the supply-side constraints that are evident across the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, from infrastructure deficiencies to housing affordability, are particularly acute in greater Cambridge. Its continued position as a world-leading centre of innovation, its ability to make an even greater contribution to the UK economy, and the quality of life experienced by its existing residents are all dependent on removing those constraints. Local institutions and leaders have worked hard to support the rapid growth of greater Cambridge over recent years. Over the past two years, the Government have intervened alongside local authorities and the greater Cambridge shared planning service to address pressing constraints such as water scarcity. Such action has helped to unlock more than 9,000 homes, 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and a new cancer research hospital. It is widely accepted, however, that delivering development at the scale and pace necessary to realise the full potential of greater Cambridge is beyond the capacity and powers of existing institutions. It was for that reason that, between 4 February and 1 April this year, we consulted on proposals to establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation—a centrally led urban development corporation with the legislative powers, focus and resources to unlock the area’s full potential. I once again thank all the organisations and individuals who took the time to engage with the process. The prevailing theme among responses was that infrastructure delivery in greater Cambridge has been slow and piecemeal, or has failed to keep pace with historical population and employment growth, and that that was having a detrimental impact on residents’ quality of life, constraining the region’s ability to scale its globally significant innovation economy, and reducing business and investor confidence. Individuals and organisations widely reported that greater Cambridge has lacked a strategic, co-ordinated and long-term approach to the rapid delivery of primary infrastructure. Complex governance, fragmented decision making and uncertain long-term funding were identified as obstacles to delivering at the scale and pace required. While fully acknowledging the strong local efforts that have been made and the excellent performance of the greater Cambridge shared planning service, the consultation confirmed the Government’s belief that the scale and complexity of the development challenges faced by greater Cambridge required a bold and long-term approach, and a genuine step change in how infrastructure is planned, co-ordinated and delivered; and that the establishment of a centrally led development corporation, combining responsiveness to local priorities with national leadership and influence, would be the most effective way to unlock nationally significant growth at the pace and scale required. The development corporation established by the order will unleash ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in greater Cambridge to the benefit of its existing communities and the country as a whole. Once established, the corporation’s boundary will align with the current combined administrative areas of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council. This broad development area will underpin the corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth necessary to deliver on both local and national interests.

    Hansard source
32. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

    That is a very good question. In short, although I am more than happy to expand on this response, the development corporation’s boundary does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of the recent consultation on local government reorganisation. The Government would, of course, consider, through due process, any changes to the development area that are deemed necessary as a result of any local government reorganisation but, as I say, that does not pre-empt or prejudice what we are taking through by dint of this order. The Government have worked hard to sustain a constructive relationship with local leaders and key partners. We want the development corporation to be a joint national and local endeavour that combines local insight and input from local democratically elected representatives with national leadership powers and investment. As such, the democratically elected leaders of Cambridge city council, South Cambridgeshire district council and Cambridgeshire county council, as well as the democratically elected Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will be invited to join the board. The Government also recognise that input from residents and communities will be integral to the success of the development corporation. That is why it will be asked to create exemplary engagement structures to enable broader community participation, including from residents, community representatives, and town and parish councillors. The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an independent corporate entity, allowing it to be granted infrastructure, financial and land assembly powers in due course. The powers and functions order, which my officials are preparing for consideration later this year, will equip the development corporation with planning powers, including the ability to determine planning applications above a minimum threshold of 250 homes, and non-residential applications above 5,000 square metres. Our intention is that the development corporation will eventually take on plan-making powers. However, we believe the optimal way to kick-start growth in the plan-led system is to take a phased approach. As such, the development corporation will exercise plan-making powers only once the draft local plan has been adopted. The Government are clear that adoption of the draft local plan should not limit or delay future ambition for growth and, subject to its adoption, successor plans will be expected to build positively on the draft local plan’s foundations to support continued growth. The development corporation will also be granted development management powers for strategic sites within its boundary. Only applications for sites of strategic importance will be determined by the development corporation. The vast majority of planning applications will continue to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. The Government recognise and accept that almost all strategic residential developments will be of over 1,000 houses, flats, or houses and flats. However, to account for the possibility of residential development prejudicing the delivery of sites of strategic importance, residential thresholds will be set at a minimum of 250 houses, flats, or houses and flats. Any application that is determined by the development corporation will still be considered against national and local policy, and subject to public consultation as normal. That combination of powers will provide the development corporation with the tools, certainty and investment needed for sustainable infrastructure-first growth. The model will form an exemplar for integrated powers and funding, and set the standard for housing development elsewhere in the country. The order will establish the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as an entity accountable to the Secretary of State and set out the geographical boundary in which it may operate. The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation will focus on the delivery of strategic, nationally significant growth within its boundary. It will work collaboratively with local authorities both within and bordering its development area, as well as with transport bodies and utility providers, to unlock development opportunities and boost economic growth. I extend my sincere thanks to local leaders and their officers in greater Cambridge for their hard work and ongoing constructive collaboration in pursuit of our shared objective of supporting ambitious and high-quality sustainable growth in Cambridge and its environs. I also thank Peter Freeman for his continued leadership of the Cambridge Growth Company and commend the CGC for everything it has done to date to help to facilitate the delivery of new homes, infrastructure, and commercial and laboratory space. I hope that hon. Members agree on the value of establishing the development corporation. I commend the order to the Committee.

    Hansard source
33. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    The Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026

    That was a long list of perfectly reasonable and fair questions, which I will seek to answer in turn. If I miss any, hon. Members are more than welcome to intervene on me. I will begin with the questions from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner. The order establishes, as a corporate body, a centrally led urban development corporation, not a mayoral development corporation. The sitting Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will have representation, with a seat on the board, but the mayor and his area will not be controlling this development corporation; it is very different from the mayoral development corporation model. I think the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough has designs on a mayoral development corporation for Peterborough, but that would be a delivery vehicle very different from the one we are establishing here. The mayor will, however, have representation on the board along with other local authority leaders. The shadow Minister asked me about the planning committee modernisation statutory instrument that we voted on today. That will apply to local authority committees in the ways we discussed when we considered that instrument in Committee. As I said in my opening remarks, we expect the vast majority of planning applications still to be determined by the greater Cambridge shared planning service. I will come on to why we have taken the development management powers we propose to in the functions order that will follow in the months to come, and why we have chosen the 250-home threshold, but planning committees are a local planning authority designation. The development corporation, as an entity and delivery vehicle in itself, will take particular development management powers to determine specific sites, which I will come on to in a moment. The same goes for conditions that would be associated with a planning permission. We think those development management powers are important to accelerate strategic growth in an integrated and co-ordinated way. The decision to grant development management powers to the development corporation for strategic sites reflects the need to balance local and national planning merits to facilitate nationally significant growth in the area. I bring us back to the objective of the development corporation to facilitate nationally significant growth, which local leaders—they have made great efforts over recent years—are quite clear that they are not able to do. When it comes to some very serious constraints—the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned water scarcity—local leaders have not been able on their own to remove some of these barriers. That is what the development corporation is for. Development management powers will be granted for sites of strategic importance. We will define what “strategic importance” means at a later date, but as a proxy for a definition of strategic sites, the development corporation will use the minimum thresholds that we outlined in the Government response to the consultation on 3 June. We gave a flavour in the consultation of the type of sites we have in mind. I think we listed seven sites, which are major sites already identified in the local plan. I hope that gives the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire a sense of the type of strategic sites that we are talking about. We need the threshold because the development corporation can delegate decision making to the greater Cambridge shared planning service, but that service is unable to reverse-delegate the determination of planning applications to the development corporation. As such, we judge that if the threshold for residential development were set at a level higher than 250 homes, the development corporation would be unable to exercise development management powers for any application that fell below that threshold, even if the application could prejudice the delivery of a strategic site. That is the central objective of the 250-home threshold. We do need the development corporation to have the ability to move in and determine an application on a site that might impact the delivery of a strategic site. As I said to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and the Committee, we will come back and define a “strategic site” in more detail as we take forward the functions order later this year. To reassure him, that functions order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure; we will have a chance to debate and vote on it in the House. [Official Report, 8 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 422.] (Correction.) The shadow Minister raised a point about boundaries. Again, this is all outlined in the 3 June Government response to the consultation: 42% of respondents to the consultation agreed with our proposed boundaries—the Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council administrative areas—23% felt they were too small, and 33% felt they were too wide. We recognise that there is a wide range of views about what the precise boundaries should be, but we judge that the boundaries as consulted on are a broad development area that will allow and underpin the development corporation’s ability to deliver its objectives and make effective use of its powers, enabling the scale of growth that is necessary to deliver on both local and national interests. As set out in the consultation, the proposed boundary encompasses the land required to support strategic infrastructure, providing a sufficiently broad geography to maximise funding opportunities and enable land value capture to support social and environmental projects. Aligning the boundaries with those of Cambridge city council and South Cambridgeshire district council will simplify the governance arrangements in this area—that has been a real source of challenge over recent years—and enable the development corporation to support the delivery of the draft local plan. I am glad that the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire mentioned the draft local plan. We are working very closely with the shared planning service and democratically elected local leaders. We want to see that draft plan adopted. On the Secretary of State’s powers as they apply to the development corporation and its ability to take planning powers in the future, we do want it to have those powers; we think that is absolutely necessary to set out a spatial plan for the years to come. This development corporation will exist for at least 25 years, perhaps longer, but we want to see that local plan in place in the first instance, and the Government are doing what we can to support that process and help the authority get the plan in place. On local government reorganisation, to add briefly to what I said in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, proposals for reorganisation in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough were received in November 2025 and recently went out to consultation. As I said, the development corporation’s boundary, established by this order, does not pre-empt or prejudice the outcome of LGR in that regard. I push back quite strongly on the challenge from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we have not outlined in any way the objectives of the development corporation. If he reads the Government response to the consultation, published on 3 June, he will see exhaustive explanations of why we think the development corporation is necessary and the sort of capacity, powers and ability it can leverage in on private finance, land assembly and all these matters to meet the shared objectives for the area. We will build on that with the functions order—we will detail precisely how the planning powers and the development management powers will come through—but to assure him, the development corporation will have powers to directly plan, fund and deliver essential infrastructure to support regeneration, including utilities such as water. Targets for the development corporation’s objectives will be set across the development corporation’s corporate plan, framework document and development plan, and in individual business plans for all projects. We will have a chance to scrutinise those documents, among others. I hope that I have responded to all the points raised by hon. Members. I think this is a fairly straightforward and simple instrument, which establishes the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation as a legal body and sets the geographical boundaries in which that development corporation will operate. I commend the order to the Committee. Question put.

    Hansard source
34. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Point of Order

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to correct an inadvertent error I made earlier today. During the Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee debate on the Greater Cambridge Development Corporation (Establishment) Order 2026, I inadvertently stated that a relevant powers and functions order would fall under the affirmative procedure, when it will actually be made under the negative procedure. [Official Report, Ninth Delegated Legislation Committee, 8 July 2026; c. 10.]

    Hansard source
35. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Patrick

    Manufacturing Supply Chain

    I take every opportunity to champion Northern Ireland’s brilliant manufacturing sector, and whether it is Denroy, Airbus or Thales, or even Harland & Wolff, which has just announced that it is bidding for a major UK-Dutch shipbuilding deal, there is a lot to champion.

    Hansard source
36. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Patrick

    Manufacturing Supply Chain

    I certainly agree with my hon. Friend; many opportunities are arising from the defence growth deal, on which I have worked closely. Many businesses, small and large, across Northern Ireland have dual-servicing capability and they have a real opportunity here. We are supporting them every step of the way.

    Hansard source
37. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Patrick

    Manufacturing Supply Chain

    I worry that the hon. and learned Member is in danger of talking down Northern Ireland and its incredible business opportunities. We are here to champion it. If issues arise from the Brexit that he and others championed, we do our very best to ensure that trades flow smoothly.

    Hansard source
38. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Patrick

    Seasonal Scampi Fishers

    My hon. Friend is a powerful campaigner on this issue. The Secretary of State and I recognise the importance of fishing industries across the United Kingdom, and the Secretary of State visited Kilkeel earlier this year with Minister Muir, where this topic was raised. Immigration changes are designed to ensure that our domestic workforce has access to good jobs, and the Secretary of State has written to the Home Secretary about the issue.

    Hansard source
39. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Patrick

    Seasonal Scampi Fishers

    As I have said, we have written to the Home Secretary about these issues, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will be making her case very powerfully as well. It is our duty to work with businesses across the UK to ensure that they are ready for these changes. We want our fishing industry to thrive, and we want people here to benefit from those good jobs.

    Hansard source
40. 8 Jul 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Patrick

    Seasonal Scampi Fishers

    As the hon. Gentleman will know, we totally support our fishing sector, and I am interested to hear more about that proposal. If the Immigration Minister is speaking with the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I will, of course, try to be part of those meetings to hear whatever I can hear.

    Hansard source