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

Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,942 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   I welcome the shadow Energy Secretary to the Dispatch Box. It is always good to hear from someone who was at the heart of the Treasury during the biggest fall in living standards on record, who was the Children’s Minister in the Government who plunged hundreds of thousands of children into poverty, and who was the Energy Secretary who showed an unwavering commitment to the cause of net zero, even though she has now forgotten that. The right hon. Lady should not believe everything she reads in the papers. The Prime Minister and the Energy Secretary have been discussing cutting bills by over £100. Our warm homes plan is lifting millions of families out of fuel poverty, and we are securing enough energy projects to power 23 million homes. The right hon. Lady was the Energy Secretary who left our country exposed to global fossil fuel markets. We are delivering clean energy security.

   Hansard source
2. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   I remember when the right hon. Lady championed net zero as Energy Secretary. She said in 2023: “We cannot prosper… Nor can our children flourish if we don’t decarbonise energy”. The Tories used to believe this three years ago. The right hon. Lady has forgotten that, because the Tories are desperately chasing Reform and we know it. Over 700 jobs were lost in the last 10 years that the Tories were in power, and production fell 75% over the last 25 years. We have secured over £900 billion of investment to support more jobs by taking control with renewables, and over 100,000 jobs in Scotland are supported by clean power. We are building on that, led by Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen.

   Hansard source
3. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   The right hon. Lady used to be an investment banker, and she has got her facts wrong. Oil and gas are coming out of the North sea 24/7. In the first three months of this year, 52 million barrels of oil came out, and the equivalent of 44 million barrels of gas came out. We are not turning off the taps. This will be part of a mixed economy that will support existing oil and gas fields throughout their lifespan, making changes to exploit neighbouring fields. We do want to create more jobs, which is why we will continue to invest in renewables. She knew this three years ago. She has changed her mind because she is chasing Reform.

   Hansard source
4. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   Stop reading the papers, is what I would say to the right hon. Lady—or certainly the right papers. When the defence investment plan is published, it will set out—[Interruption.] This is important. It will set out how every Government Department is contributing to defence, including the Energy Department. We will always put national security first. The Conservatives still do not get it. Families are worried about their bills going up because of a war in the middle east that the Leader of the Opposition said she would jump into feet first.

   Hansard source
5. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   We have said that more spending on defence is our No. 1 priority in this spending review and the next spending review. The right hon. Lady wants to talk about resignations. Let us remind ourselves of the Tory Defence Secretary in the last Government—the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson)—who was sacked for breaching national security; the Tory Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, who resigned over sexual harassment; and the Tory Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, who admitted hollowing out the armed forces for 14 years. We have a Prime Minister securing jobs and investment at the G7, we have a Chancellor raising the minimum wage, we have an Education Secretary cutting costs for childcare, and we have an Energy Secretary cutting energy bills by over £100. We are proud of that record.

   Hansard source
6. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   It is very thin gruel. I am here, like the right hon. Lady, because I am standing in for the leader of my party. I am proud to serve the Prime Minister and proud of what the Labour Government are delivering: more rights for working people—the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights in a generation—the biggest boost to defence spending since the cold war, and lifting more children out of poverty in a single term than any British Government in history. [Interruption.] The Conservatives can make all the noise they want. They do not want to talk about the economy because it is growing, they do not want to talk about the NHS because waiting lists are falling, and they do not want to talk about immigration because they lost control of our borders and net migration is down under us by 82%. They had their chance and they blew it. We are building a stronger, fairer Britain.

   Hansard source
7. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   I join the hon. Lady in utterly condemning the violence. People are right to feel sickened by the sight of people being burned out of their homes because of the colour of their skin. That is racism, and those responsible will face the full force of the law. We must never go back to 1950s Britain, where my father arrived to signs saying, “No blacks, no dogs, no Irish.” We are focused on bringing people together, and that includes by providing a further £24 million to help to tackle paramilitarism and by acting to tackle those who incite hatred online; our social cohesion plan is about bringing our communities together. I am happy to work with all parties in that endeavour.

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

   Engagements

   We believe we should work with our allies to join up defence, procurement and funding. That is why we are exploring the most effective mechanisms for multilateral co-operation, which is of course a topic of discussion for the Prime Minister at the G7.

   Hansard source
9. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

   Engagements

   I was proud to be the Labour Foreign Secretary who returned to the meeting of European Foreign Secretaries, and to work alongside my colleagues in the Cabinet Office to ensure that we were at last year’s summit and that it was successful. I can confirm that the next summit will take place on 22 July. Our red lines remain, but we are focused on a sanitary and phytosanitary deal to cut prices on the shelves, a youth experience scheme and cutting red tape for exporters.

   Hansard source
10. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Sir Kevin Sinfield. He is an inspirational fundraiser and a champion for his sport and, of course, for the MND community. I know that Mark Sommerville runs an excellent foundation that campaigns on MND in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We are committed to improving care for people with motor neurone disease. We are looking at the current system to ensure that care is truly focused on the needs of individuals, and we are investing in cutting-edge research, including a world-first clinical trial to test remotely monitored portable ventilators. I know that the Minister for Care would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the matter further.

    Hansard source
11. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    We have the fastest growing economy in the G7, borrowing is down and we have just signed our fifth major trade deal. I must say this to the Tory deputy chairman: yesterday he was on television laughing and joking about the arson attack on the Prime Minister’s home, laughing about a firebomb targeting the Prime Minister and his family. Not only that, he joined with promoting conspiracies about the attack and laughed along to demeaning homophobic remarks. He should be ashamed of himself—absolutely ashamed. My advice to him is to grow up, apologise and do considerably better.

    Hansard source
12. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The Prime Minister has rightly put tackling violence against women and girls at the heart of this Labour Government. By contrast, I have been utterly appalled by what we have heard from the Reform candidate in Makerfield—from the vile, sexist comments to saying that Putin was within his rights to invade Ukraine. When the Reform leader was asked about them, his answer was, “So what?” This speaks volumes about Reform. The only way to stop its politics of grievance is to vote Labour.

    Hansard source
13. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I attended the AI summit in India, and right across the world all countries and many companies—certainly tech companies—are at the forefront of this opportunity. We have to get the governance right, and of course we have to test and re-test to ensure safety. Anything on our roads would of course be tested and licensed by the Department for Transport. I do not think we can stand in the face of innovation.

    Hansard source
14. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I am so grateful to my hon. Friend. We all miss Jo—a dear friend and a valued colleague. Three years ago, I had the great privilege of opening the Jo Cox More in Common centre in Huddersfield alongside Jo’s sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), and her parents Jean and Gordon. It was one of the great honours of my life. We all have a duty to live up to the values that Jo stood for. She was a trailblazing campaigner against loneliness and inspired the Great Get Together taking place this weekend. In the words of the Jo Cox Foundation, holding or attending a Great Get Together “in your local area is a simple but powerful way to honour Jo’s legacy”— neighbours coming together, differences set aside and communities choosing unity over division, because that is what Jo stood for.

    Hansard source
15. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I am hugely grateful for the work of the Home Secretary and the previous Home Secretary in putting neighbourhood policing back at the heart of our communities and putting in extra policing across the country. We on the Labour side remember the decisions by Boris Johnson to cut policing across the country—I will take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman.

    Hansard source
16. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I am grateful to my hon. Friend for campaigning on this issue. I am very proud of the fact that this Government have restored the UK’s position as a global leader on climate action. That includes ambitious targets to reduce climate emissions and restore nature, and seizing the opportunities of clean, renewable power. “The net zero economy now supports 1.1m UK jobs and generates £105bn in economic value—proof that tackling climate change & growing the economy can go hand in hand.” Those are not my words; they are from Baroness Theresa May in the past fortnight. The Tories used to believe in this agenda, but they have forgotten because they are chasing Reform Uk.

    Hansard source
17. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    The hon. Gentleman raises a serious issue. He might have forgotten that this House legislated for emergency measures to save steel across our country. We will continue to do more—and, of course, this is on the agenda for the Prime Minister at the G7.

    Hansard source
18. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue. She makes a powerful point, as someone who has worked in public health for many years. I have met Ella’s family, including her mother Rosamund. Her death was a tragedy, and this is an issue close to my heart. Through our environmental improvement plan, we are taking action to cut pollutants, including through new targets to cut exposure to harmful particles by a third, and by reforming industrial permitting to reduce emissions. A Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

    Hansard source
19. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I never thought I would get a request from the hon. Gentleman to look at his tattoos. I know that Eastbourne pier is a much-loved iconic local landmark. I believe he is meeting the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), to discuss his campaign. I am pleased that we have allocated £20 million of Pride in Place funding to regenerating Eastbourne. It was one of the first seaside towns I visited as a young child. This summer, his constituents will be able to enjoy their day at the pier for less with our Great British summer savings, with free bus travel for kids, cheaper meals and cheaper tickets to amusement parks.

    Hansard source
20. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I thank my hon. Friend for her dedicated work on this. I am on the side of the people who elected us to clean up our rivers, our lakes and our seas. I and this Government are on the side of consumers, who are paying the price for years and years of failure by the Conservatives. We do not want Thames Water customers to have to pick up the bill for the company’s failures. We stand ready for all eventualities. The Labour Government have already blocked bonuses and introduced criminal sanctions for polluting water bosses, and we will go further by creating a new powerful regulator to hold all companies to account and clean up our waterways.

    Hansard source
21. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    The right hon. Gentleman and I have made common cause on a range of issues, cross-party, over the years. On the central issue, I am proud that we have seen a reduction in net migration of 82% over the 23 months that we have been in power. We cannot both grip this problem and say, when it comes to ensuring that people are detained—most often so that they can be removed—“Not in my patch.” I do not know the detail of his circumstances, and of course the immigration Minister will look at this matter, but we have to be honest about what the British public expect us to do on their behalf.

    Hansard source
22. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    I agree 100% with my hon. Friend. I know that she has worked closely with families affected by harmful content in her constituency. Our decision to ban social media for under-16s is a landmark moment that will ensure that we better protect children and young people across our country. We will absolutely hold platforms to account for the harms that they can cause. That is why we have asked Ofcom to review their capability to enforce the social media ban and publish a clear enforcement strategy.

    Hansard source
23. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    There is a new target that 75% of patients diagnosed from 2035 will be cancer-free or living well after five years. That means that 320,000 lives will be saved. The cancer plan will end the postcode lottery on cancer, introduce a new three-year neighbourhood early diagnosis fund, and cover the cost of travelling for cancer treatment. I know that Ministers are happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that further.

    Hansard source
24. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr David Lammy

    Engagements

    My hon. Friend is a former schoolteacher, and I know how much he cares about this matter. I am delighted that we have announced the locations of 180 new youth hubs, which include Harlow; it means that more young people across the country will benefit from skills and training opportunities. This week, we have shown that this Labour Government are working to transform the lives of our young people. I thank my hon. Friend for all his campaigning on behalf of his constituency—and I know that a lot of the young people support Spurs.

    Hansard source
25. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Clive Betts

    Steel Tariffs

    It is absolutely right in principle for the Government to try to defend the steelmaking sector, particularly Liberty at Stocksbridge and Rotherham. However, there are downside implications for smaller firms, particularly manufacturing firms such as Ansell Handtools, Special Steel Group and Crown Hand Tools in my constituency, all of which have said that they cannot buy precisely the steel that they need, or the quantities of steel that they need, from British manufacturers. That is the challenge. I know that the Minister has been doing a great deal of work on this; can he tell me how he will leave a channel open for concerns to be raised by those companies if the further measures that he has taken do not address their particular grievances?

    Hansard source
26. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Alex Barros-Curtis

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I want to begin by acknowledging what many colleagues across this House will believe: when a Government ask Parliament to extend their powers in the name of national security, scrutiny is not obstruction; it is our duty, as has been said already on the Opposition and Government sides. Civil liberties, the right to dissent, and the freedom to campaign, to report and to advocate—these are the very values that distinguish us from the states whose hostile activities this Bill is designed to confront. I know the Government understand that and, equally, I know that colleagues across the House will hold these expectations firmly. The threat facing the United Kingdom from hostile foreign states and their proxies is very real—we have heard some examples already in today’s debate—and it is growing, and our existing legal framework has not kept pace with it. I want to take the opportunity to endorse strongly what my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said about the need for us to have a public conversation about the very real dangers that our democracy faces. In 2025, the director general of MI5, Sir Ken McCallum, reported a 35% increase in state threat activity from the previous year. Over that same period, MI5 tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iran-backed plots on British soil. We have seen espionage threatening and targeting our Parliament, our universities and our critical national infrastructure. We have seen arson, surveillance and physical violence commissioned by foreign states, and we have seen those states hide behind proxies precisely because our current laws make it easier for them to do so. Following the start of the conflict between Iran and the US and Israel in February, there have been a number of attacks on Iranian and Jewish targets in the UK thought to be linked to Iranian proxy groups. Those include an attempted arson attack at the London premises of Iran International—a Persian language news channel opposed to the regime in Tehran—an arson attack on a synagogue in Finchley, and the stabbing of two Jewish men in Golders Green. In a statement on tackling antisemitism on 5 May this year, the Prime Minister acknowledged that one line of inquiry was whether a foreign state had been behind some of these attacks. He said that such “malign threats” from Iran or other states “will not be tolerated” and that the Government would fast-track legislation to deal with them. The Bill before us today is a result of that commitment and it is something that I fully support. As has been said, the National Security Act 2023 was a significant step forward, but as Jonathan Hall KC, the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, concluded in his May 2025 report, there remain gaps, particularly in our ability to disrupt proxy organisations acting on behalf of foreign powers, and the Bill seeks to fill those gaps. At its heart, as has been discussed, is a new designation power for the Home Secretary, equivalent to the proscription power that exists for terrorist organisations under the Terrorism Act 2000, but applied to bodies engaged in state threat activity. Crucially, the Bill also covers the aliases and proxy names through which hostile states so often seek to obscure their operations. These are serious powers and they must come with serious safeguards. The Bill has been drafted to be compatible with the European convention on human rights, and particularly article 10 on freedom of expression, and I welcome that, but compatibility is a floor and not a ceiling. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to ensure that the definitions of “support” and “assistance” are applied with precision and proportionality, because the offences created in the Bill can, by their nature, reach into areas of ordinary civic life, including journalism, academic research and political advocacy. I also want to raise a particular Welsh dimension. As well as the security services who work day and night to keep us safe, so too do our armed forces and our police officers. As the Bill progresses, I wish to place on the record my continued support for capital city policing status for Cardiff, with the resources to match the unique security and civic responsibilities that come with being a capital city. I urge my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to engage seriously with that as the legislation progresses and comes into force. Our constituents ask us to take tough decisions and to ensure that we exercise our judgment responsibly to ensure that our nation is protected. I believe that the measures in the Bill, taken together, will help to keep my constituents safe as it will make the operating environment for foreign intelligence services and their proxies much tougher. I support the Bill because the threats it addresses are real and demand a response. I do so with clear expectations that designation powers are used, as has been said, on solid evidence and building on established legal frameworks, that enforcement is proportionate and that civil liberties are treated as central to the legitimacy of the law, not as an afterthought. My constituents will be reassured to understand that the Bill provides that designation decisions will be agreed by Parliament, that it will be annually reviewed for efficacy by the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, and that individuals will have clear rights of appeal and access to independent review. These are important and welcome safeguards. We can be strong against those who threaten us, but we can also be strong in defence of the democratic values they are trying to undermine. The Bill, properly applied, will do all those things, and it is for those reasons that I am supporting it today.

    Hansard source
27. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Mr Alex Barros-Curtis

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    I take the points, particularly from the Opposition, about the speed at which we are proceeding on the Bill today. However, does my hon. Friend—by the way, he is giving an excellent speech—agree that, as we have 17 more working days in this place before recess, time is of the essence? To go back to the points made earlier, we want to get this through both Houses and on to the statute book before the summer.

    Hansard source
28. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Melanie Onn

    Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I have some quick questions that I probably ought to have raised in an intervention. They relate to regulation 3, which will impact the Marine Management Organisation. What additional burdens will the regulation put on the MMO? Have discussions been had with the MMO about adding the new strategic planning authority to the list? It does not sound as though there will be many new burdens, but has that definitely been checked? Might additional costs be incurred by the MMO as a result? Also, what would the relationship be between the MMO and the strategic planning authority? Would either have a veto over plans that are put forward? I just want to get a sense of what the Minister anticipates the relationship between the strategic planning authority and the MMO will look like.

    Hansard source
29. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maya Ellis

    Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

    I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government support for private investment in Lancashire this evening. Lancashire is my home. It is also the home of some of the most powerful innovators that we have in this country. Often, they fly under the radar of both Government and private investors. In many ways, that is because they do not need us. They already have exceptional trade links and supply chains within their own sectors—decades-old business models in multi-generational companies that just work—so they crack on, quietly making money for this country and prosperity for themselves. In some ways, they do not need our help when they have figured it out for themselves for so long, but we need them. We need companies that have drive and that, with Government support and further investment in enabling infrastructure, could do 10 times what they are currently doing for our economy. As a Labour Government, we are great at helping people who are struggling and who do not have the opportunities they deserve. I am grateful for the millions this Government are investing into Lancashire through Pride in Place projects, which will absolutely improve health and wellbeing—something we have particular need for in our county, where poor health accounts for a significant portion of the productivity gap. But, as a Labour Government, I think we could be more honest with ourselves that while overcoming deprivation is a top priority, growth is a top priority too. We could also be better at recognising where those growth opportunities are. I think it is fair to say that this Government are pretty convinced by agglomeration economics and by the idea that if we invest in city regions, the wealth will trickle out. But what happens somewhere like Lancashire, where there is already wealth but it has been supported consistently for decades by EU funding and then by the crisis and resilience fund and the shared prosperity fund, all of which have now been removed? It feels shortsighted to pull the rug from under Lancashire’s thriving economy in the hope that some wealth might trickle out from surrounding city regions in 20 years or so.

    Hansard source
30. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maya Ellis

    Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

    I absolutely agree. As I will come on to, it is about ensuring that we make the most of all areas of our country. Some of those areas already have growth, and we need to ensure that we are expanding the growth that is already there. Without a proper holistic look at how the Government can support businesses in Lancashire, not only will businesses struggle, but our UK economy will struggle more when we miss out on the huge potential for growth. I could stand here all night waxing lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is—our hills, our grand town halls, our coastline, our grit—but I know none of those things speak the language of the Treasury, Government and growth, so I will focus on the numbers and the examples of how the Government have a growth opportunity in Lancashire that they need to not miss. Lancashire is a £40 billion GVA powerhouse. That makes us the 5th largest economy in the north. As the Minister knows, the current growth narrative for the north is often dominated by our major metropolitan neighbours. While we celebrate their success, any true growth narrative for the north must take non-metropolitan areas into account. At this point, let me be clear: “non-metropolitan” does not mean rural. There is a serious risk of people in Westminster making that mistake.

    Hansard source
31. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maya Ellis

    Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, the people and places in counties such as Lancashire deserve that kind of funding. Even if the politicians who have been making the decisions have maybe delayed those opportunities to get devolution, we should not penalise the people there for that. Lancashire is a prime example of a polycentric economy. We have coastal and rural environments, but also urban environments from city centres to market towns, with many of the same issues and opportunities as our metropolitan neighbours. We are a county of 1.57 million people and over 55,000 businesses, contributing a massive portion of the north’s economic output. We face the same challenges—some of the highest levels of deprivation and worklessness in our urban pockets—yet we also have areas that rank in the top five of northern local authorities for productivity. We are not just waiting for growth; we have an economic base that matches any of our neighbours, where strengths in defence, energy and advanced engineering add unique productive potential to the north as a whole. The private sector in Lancashire is ready to lead. We have a dynamic project pipeline with the potential to attract over £20 billion in additional investment over the next decade. However, we are currently fighting with one hand tied behind our back. The macroeconomic data tells a sobering story: since 1998, Lancashire has experienced the lowest growth in investment spending of any UK region. Despite our high-value production base, we rank in the bottom quarter for average Innovate UK grant size, for example. These grants are increasingly concentrated in areas with strong knowledge-intensive business services, rather than production-oriented economies such as Lancashire’s. We must be honest about what Lancashire is missing out on because we lack mayoral arrangements, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) highlighted. Currently, we are excluded from 30-year investment funds estimated to be worth £30 million per year for our county. We are also missing out on the collective £200 million per year available to new mayoral areas and the city region sustainable transport settlements that our neighbours in Greater Manchester and Liverpool enjoy.

    Hansard source
32. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maya Ellis

    Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

    I completely agree. As many of my constituents regularly tell me, the congestion we get when the M6 fails or has a closure is a nightmare when it falls on to the A-roads around the constituency, so a second bridge around Preston to create a ring road is critical. Staying with the subject of transport, my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) are having to fight relentlessly for better connectivity in their constituencies, which is where devolution could really help us. The Government may say that Lancashire did not come to the table when the offer was first there for devolution, but that is not the fault of Lancashire’s places and people, so it does not seem fair that they should suffer. Lancashire leaders are at the table now, so let us crack on. The disparities are reflected in our venture capital and equity investment volumes, which trail significantly behind Greater Manchester. In the first quarter of 2024, Greater Manchester reached approximately £104 million in investment, while Lancashire secured just £7 million. That innovation gap is not due to a lack of ingenuity; it is a lack of investment that acts as a direct drag on our wider commercial performance. When I speak to private investors—both those investing in small companies and those investing in big infrastructure —they often sheepishly tell me they know they should probably be doing more in Lancashire, but that they are creatures of habit. I am making it one of my missions to coax more of them up to Lancashire to see what is on offer, but I ask the Minister not to let this Government fall into the same bad habit of sticking to what we know, even though there is clearly such growth potential in Lancashire.

    Hansard source
33. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Maya Ellis

    Private Sector Investment: Lancashire

    I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As much as the debate is about Lancashire, one thing that will underpin change for both our counties is a commitment to devolution and to towns, so that the focus is not just on our cities. We know what works. Our enterprise zones at Samlesbury and Warton have already helped to deliver a cumulative £1.2 billion in private investment. In the wider north-west, private capital already supports 873 businesses. We have world-class assets, from BAE Systems, which supports 20,000 jobs in the north-west and partners with 1,400 UK suppliers, to our nuclear renaissance, anchored by Springfields, Westinghouse and Heysham. The data is firmly on our side. Lancashire offers a cost-effectiveness ratio of 1:80 for tech talent. That means that a tech professional’s take-home pay goes significantly further in Preston or Blackburn than in London or even Manchester. We are a magnet for the next generation of start-ups, already producing 16 academic spin-outs from our universities that have raised £36 million in equity this year. I will take a moment to highlight a couple of specific initiatives that exemplify our county’s proactive approach to investment. Fhunded is a project close to my heart, as I had the privilege of working directly on its development during my time at Lancashire county council, prior to my election to this place. I want to give a huge thanks to my former colleagues at LCC, especially Dan Knowles and Rory Southworth, who have nurtured this initiative into the vital economic engine it is today. Fhunded has become a cornerstone of our early-stage finance community, acting as a curated bridge that brings our brightest founders and most ambitious funders together. Its impact is undeniable. The vast majority of equity raised in Lancashire throughout 2024 was generated through connections made via the Fhunded initiative. It serves as a perfect case study for this debate: a local government-funded catalyst that is successfully mobilising private capital and ensuring our high-potential start-ups can thrive right there in Lancashire. Another brilliant publicly funded initiative is the RedCAT Catapult run by East Lancashire Chamber of Commerce. It has exceeded targets set by the previous Government on return on investment, supporting businesses in the low carbon technology and advanced manufacturing sectors. My hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) is meeting the Minister soon to discuss the initiative, and we would welcome some initial thoughts today on potential support for future funding. Beyond the big names, we must support our foundational economy. In Lancashire, family-owned, mid-tier businesses are the key to the supply chains that drive our most vital sectors. They have the potential to scale, to bring new innovation and to distribute growth across our entire economic base. KeTech, in my constituency, is an established software and data SME that powers 80% of the UK’s train data, but has struggled with winning UK contracts over foreign competitors. Our ability to work with such small and medium-sized enterprises is currently heavily constrained by the loss of local economic development funds, but the Lancashire county combined authority has the potential to drive key pilot activity based on our leadership in the mid-tier business council. When it comes to growth, we know from our city region neighbours that it was the investment in culture and night-time economy that attracted the young talent needed for innovation to really thrive. The Guild Hall in Preston was a key entertainment venue for the whole of Lancashire but closed in 2019 due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and will take over £60 million to rebuild. I hope that the Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport speak regularly about the impact cultural investment like that can have on attracting talent and growth, and I hope that they will support Blog Preston’s campaign to reopen the venue. The county has quick wins and immediate opportunities in defence, energy and advanced manufacturing that simply do not exist elsewhere in the north. There are pipeline investments from Government that, if pushed through quickly, could provide a win-win-win by stimulating local economic growth, supporting the UK to retain key sovereign capabilities and driving national growth—the most important mission for our Labour Government. While my primary aim today is to put Lancashire back at the heart of Government thinking in general, I also have, as Members would imagine, some specific asks of the Government. First, will the Government confirm funding for the permanent home of the National Cyber Force at Samlesbury in my constituency via the defence investment plan? This £5 billion commitment by the previous Government needs continued engagement from Ministers. Secondly, will the Government continue their investment in the National Cyber Force ecosystem, including investment in the Blackburn cyber and skills campus, to ensure that my constituents get the skills to work at the National Cyber Force and that we do not just bring people in from elsewhere in the country? Thirdly, will the Government confirm funds to Westinghouse for next-generation nuclear fuel capabilities? Westinghouse at Springfields is the supplier of choice to fuel the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent platform. Fourthly, will the Government progress the office relocation requirements of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as an anchor tenant to bring forward a new office quarter around Preston station? Fifthly, will the Government fast-track our move toward a mayoral combined authority with a commitment in the spring spending review for an interim settlement, similar to other areas, that allows Lancashire to pull its weight—as it clearly can—alongside its northern neighbours? I am nearly finished. Sixthly, echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), will the Government scope the return on investment of a second bridge across the River Ribble, west of Preston, to create a ring road around Preston and unlock the increasing gridlock in our rapidly growing county? Finally, will the Government commit to regular engagement with Lancashire MPs through the all-party parliamentary group on Lancashire, which I chair, to ensure that Ministers fully understand the opportunities for Lancashire to make a significant contribution to the UK economy? I am a red rose through and through in both party and county. I came back to Lancashire, and I will likely be there forever, because I see not only the potential, but a way of doing growth better—of businesses grounded in community, with care for the environment in which we are lucky to work and live and with a quiet relentlessness to thrive. Our businesses lead with humility; they understand risk and reward, and that is what makes them stronger. Those are Labour values, and it should be this Labour Government who help those values and those businesses to thrive. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

    Hansard source
34. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 27 April. The Government were clear in their manifesto that housing need in England cannot be met without planning for growth on a larger-than-local scale. That is why we committed to introducing effective new mechanisms for cross-boundary strategic planning. To honour that commitment, we legislated for an England-wide system of strategic plan making in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which received Royal Assent in December last year. The Act inserted a new part 1A into the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, placing a requirement on strategic planning authorities—be they mayoral or non-mayoral strategic authorities, or upper-tier county councils and unitary authorities—most of which, but not necessarily all, will be grouped together to prepare a document called a spatial development strategy, or SDS. An SDS will form part of the development plan that local planning authorities must determine planning applications in accordance with, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Local plans produced by local planning authorities will be required to be in general conformity with the relevant spatial development strategy. SDSs, as we discussed throughout the progress of the Bill in Committee, are not big local plans; instead, they will be high-level spatial frameworks for housing growth and infrastructure investment across sub-regional areas. They will be able to identify broad locations for development and establish the infrastructure required to support it, and they will be able to redistribute housing and other development needs between local planning authorities. The draft regulations make two minor, consequential amendments to support the implementation of the new strategic plan-making system, which we intend to commence later this year through a package of regulations. The first amendment concerns the procedure to be followed during the examination of a spatial development strategy. Unless the Secretary of State directs otherwise, a draft SDS must be examined by a person appointed by them. The matters to be examined are for the examiner to determine, and the examination does not have to cover every aspect of the proposed strategy. The draft national planning policy framework sets out that the purpose of the examination should be to assess that relevant procedural requirements have been met and that the strategy is sound, alongside any other matters that the examiner considers appropriate. Draft regulation 2 will amend section 114 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act to allow the Lord Chancellor to make rules under section 9 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, governing the procedures for examinations. Any such regulations will support the effective examination of a strategy. The second amendment concerns marine plans. Draft regulation 3 amends paragraph 1 of schedule 6 to the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 to require a marine plan authority to notify a strategic planning authority whose area adjoins, or is adjacent to, marine plan areas, of its intention to prepare a marine plan. That requirement already applies to local planning authorities, and extending it will enable strategic planning authorities to consider how they wish to participate in the marine planning process and to put in place appropriate arrangements for that participation. I trust that the Committee agrees that these minor, consequential regulations are necessary and that it will support the effective implementation of the new system of spatial development strategies.

    Hansard source
35. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their considered contributions and questions, which I will try to address in turn. It is first worth making clear that the two minor and consequential amendments before us do not implement the new strategic plan-making system. We will bring forward a package of statutory instruments in the autumn to switch on the main provisions of that system. As I made clear in my speech, the two minor and consequential amendments do two very simple things. One provides for the Lord Chancellor to make examination rules. The final content will be clear when we lay those rules, which we intend to do in the autumn; they will be largely technical and procedural in nature. The other simply requires marine plan authorities to notify strategic planning authorities as well as local planning authorities that they intend to make a marine plan. I hope that that clarifies what the two amendments are about. On the points made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Orpington, I do not want to relitigate all the debates we had in Bill Committee; I well understand the concerns expressed by Opposition Members about local input. It is important to reiterate a couple of things. Spatial development strategies will not allocate individual sites. As I said, they are high-level frameworks for housing growth and investment—they are not big local plans. Local plans will have to conform with them, but local planning authorities still have to develop local development plans. That is where decisions about which sites are appropriate come within the context of national planning policy—a “brownfield first” national planning policy. As the shadow Minister knows, we strengthened the policy requirements on previously developed land in our December 2024 update to the national planning policy framework. We have gone even further in the new NPPF, on which we have just consulted, and we will respond in due course to that. These are very high-level spatial development strategies. We do not want them all to be London plans; if they were, that would not represent success. London has very particular development needs. The legislative basis for SDSs is the London framework, but as I have said these plans are much more high-level. We are not aiming to replicate the London plan across the country.

    Hansard source
36. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    We have, to the extent that marine plans impact on spatial development strategies; I will outline the relationship when I respond to the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes. To be clear, the regulation power that we are talking about is a simple notification requirement on SDSs to ensure joined-up plan making. The Crown Estate is involved with marine plans, obviously, and I will set out how many there are across the country and how that relates, but this is a simple change in scope. I touched on brownfield land. I want to make clear where the democratic input comes from and who has to produce spatial development strategies: combined authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; combined county authorities, both mayoral and non-mayoral; upper-tier county councils; and unitary authorities. All will have a duty to produce a spatial development strategy. Those authorities, as I said, are known as strategic planning authorities. The Government, however, will be able to group any of those authorities together to jointly produce a spatial development strategy, through a committee known as a strategic planning board. In those areas where, for example, a mayor is not in place and there is not an obvious geography to take forward an SDS, a combination of authorities will be put together to come up with an SDS through a strategic planning board. Each authority will have a voice on the planning board. I should touch on the geography of an SDS. As hon. Members will know, in February and March the Government undertook a national consultation seeking views on proposed geographies for which spatial development strategies should be produced. That included proposals about which authorities will be grouped together under a strategic planning board. We intend to publish a response to that consultation in the summer. Regulations will be needed to establish each strategic planning board. Before the regulations are laid, the affected authorities must be formally consulted. We intend to begin laying regulations to establish those boards after the summer recess, as I said; at that point, we will confirm the geographies. Local people will have a chance to input into the strategies, whether they come through the individual authorities involved or the mayoral link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes knows, marine planning is the process for managing the use of marine resources in a sustainable and co-ordinated manner. It ensures that the right activities happen in the right place, at the right time and in the right way. To encourage sustainable development, marine plans guide those who use and regulate the marine area, while considering the environment, economy and society. Marine plans operate alongside land-use planning systems to ensure a holistic approach to managing the coastal and marine environments. The six marine plans in England cover 11 marine plan areas. I come back to the specific change we are making through this amendment: it is just a notification—no veto is involved on the part of the strategic planning authority. It is being made so that we can ensure that, in areas where a marine plan abuts a spatial development strategy area, there is co-ordination and that the marine plan can be taken account of in decision making by the strategic planning authority producing the SDS. I consider these to be simple, straightforward, minor and consequential amendments. We will have a chance to debate more fully the more substantive amendments that come when we establish the new strategic plan-making system.

    Hansard source
37. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    The right hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not take a sideline into a philosophical discourse on the meaning of a strategy or of a report that I do not think he named and I do not think pertains to my Department. We are introducing a system of strategic planning, on which I think there is widespread consensus across the House. The removal of any effective mechanism for cross-boundary co-operation has caused a variety of issues. The duty to co-operate does not work effectively and we have to put it back in place. The draft regulations allow us to do that. On that basis, we will have a series of SDSs that provide a high-level housing growth and infrastructure framework.

    Hansard source
38. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    If the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention is about the actual regulations that we are debating, I will give way.

    Hansard source
39. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matthew Pennycook

    Draft Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

    If the right hon. Gentleman wants to write to me about the whole of Government report that he cites—I do not think that he has mentioned the title—I will happily consider some of the lessons learned from it and how they might apply to my Department. On that basis, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

    Hansard source
40. 17 Jun 2026·Parliament·Labour·Matt Western

    National Security (State Threats) Bill

    The world has clearly entered a new era of geopolitical volatility, with technology and strategic competition for resources driving an increasingly contested and competing world. This has not just happened since July 2024. It has been on the horizon for a good many years, and that intensifying and escalating rivalry between states is now the new normal. The United Kingdom must adapt to this new world, not cling to a dying world order, and this Bill is the latest recognition from the Government that they must and will adapt and respond, and that they will always put the national security of the UK first. Today, I will centre my remarks on the state threats we face, on the Bill and on the wider response that is needed to tackle those state threats. The three greatest state threats facing the United Kingdom are from Russia, China and Iran, and they each pose a distinct and unique threat. Only this week it has been confirmed that Russian proxies set the Prime Minister’s house and car on fire. We need to urgently grasp the seriousness of that. It was abhorrent political violence targeted against the elected leader of the United Kingdom—our country—but that was not all. The individuals spread disinformation, whipped up community tensions and paid for far right posters to be put up and for “Stop Islam” graffiti to be sprayed. We must not tolerate this. That was not an isolated event. We have heard about the assassination of Litvinenko, the attempted assassination of Sergei Skripal, the attack on the warehouse in east London in March 2024 by the Wagner Group and many other suspicious attacks on these shores. These include the cyber-attacks on Jaguar Land Rover, on Marks & Spencer and on the British Library, which still has not recovered from the attack several years ago. In October 2025, the director general of MI5, Ken McCallum, said that state threats had risen by a third over a year and were now equal to or even greater than the threat of terrorism. In the last year alone, there has been a 35% increase in state threat activity. For example, between 2022 and 2025, the UK prevented 20 Iran-backed plots, all of which were potentially lethal threats. Meanwhile, Chinese espionage and cyber-attacks are a continual threat. With China’s thousand grains of sand theory, every piece of information, no matter how small or seemingly unimportant, is of value. In May 2024, the director of GCHQ said that the service “devotes more resource to China than any other single mission” and that China poses a “genuine and increasing cyber risk” to the UK. Those three countries present three different ideologies and three different strategies, but they all represent an intensifying and rapidly evolving threat to the United Kingdom. The Bill is another important step following the critically important National Security Act 2023 to protect the United Kingdom from these state threats. It will introduce a new power to designate bodies involved in foreign power threat activity, as we have heard, and create a new offence of supporting, assisting or benefiting from designated bodies. Of course, that follows the review by Jonathan Hall KC into whether existing terrorism powers could be used to address state threats. He found that the terrorism proscription charges would not be appropriate, so instead this legislation will now designate bodies, including proxies, such as the IRGC or the Wagner Group. It was clear from the inquiry by the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy into the China spy case that while the 2023 Act was a big step forward, the ever-evolving threat landscape means that it would need to evolve, be improved upon and be amended, just as we are doing today. I am pleased that the Government have taken up the recommendation and acted in the national interest. The designation of certain bodies should and must send a clear message to our adversaries that the person will be held responsible for it, with a maximum of 14 years in prison for such an offence. It is slightly unusual for a Bill to be expedited in this way, but I recognise the urgency and thank the Department for its continued engagement with the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. However, I do have one area of concern. The impact assessment outlines a potential long-term consequence that I would like to focus on. The assessment says that a long-term impact may be “Detrimental impact of foreign policy objectives/bilateral relationships”. On the risks to bilateral relationships, my immediate thought is, of course, China. The Chinese state does not take kindly to accusations of espionage, as we saw with the collapsed China spy case whereby, under the last Conservative Government, the deputy National Security Adviser was unable to describe China as the enemy due to Government policy, despite the security threat—this tricky tightrope that we continue to have to walk. We have to engage with China. Its economic might and, quite frankly, our dependence on it, which we have to reduce in the long term, means that ignoring China is not an option, but how does the Minister plan to mitigate the risk to our national security while avoiding damaging that relationship? It seems that the contradiction here is yet to be fully resolved. Could the Minister assure me that there are clear contingency plans for an incident like that and that all civil servants, police forces and intelligence services are clear on the Government’s position regarding China? I am pleased that this Labour Government have already taken a raft of measures to keep us secure and safe, with today being the latest piece of legislation to meet the moment. Of course, there will be other piece of legislation because the threats will become greater and even more diverse. The Representation of the People Bill, the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill and the Bill before us are all interlinked and should be seen as a co-ordinated effort, but there is more to be done. We need to explain this very real threat to the public and build resilience in our institutions and businesses, and throughout the country for each and every individual. We need a national conversation with the public because the Government cannot do this alone. In this new era of state threats, legislation is crucial, and the Government have an integral role in keeping us all safe, but so does the public. We need to explain that and not shy away from the realities before us.

    Hansard source