Luke Akehurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 29 Jan 2026 · Modern Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  15. What steps he is taking to implement the modern industrial strategy.

• 28 Jan 2026 · Defence Industry: Environmental, Social and Governance Requirements · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McVey. I thank the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) for securing this important debate and introducing it so eloquently. It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who always makes important contributions to debates about defence matters, and my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), whose knowledge of defence financing is extremely granular. This debate is a chance to make it clear that the highest form of corporate social responsibility is for a company to be involved in the defence of the country. To me, it is quite bizarre that people and institutions would put the provision of proper equipment for our armed forces or our allies who are fighting against fascism in Ukraine in the same category for divestment as tobacco, pornography, modern slavery or forced labour. That just seems perverse. Investment in the task of keeping the British people safe from the growing threats posed by hostile actors is not just legitimate, but a moral necessity. In the context of the strategic defence review, which correctly identifies the urgency and significance of unlocking private capital to drive the investment in defence that we need to meet the growing and complex threats facing the country, the impact of environmental, social and governance ratings on securing finance for defence must be looked at more closely than ever before. We must not lose sight of the fact that the whole point of having the strongest possible defence capability is to act as a deterrent. We are not aiming to use these weapons; we are using them to try to prevent a war from happening. I am sure that I do not need to point out to Members the ethical, environmental and social harm of conflict. I know they are acutely aware that the best way to avoid war is to prepare for one. Only by projecting strength and showing our enemies that we are ready to fight can we deter the worst-case outcome. As the hon. Member for Windsor said, back in March 2025 I and 100 other Labour MPs signed a letter, which was co-ordinated by my hon. Friends the Members for York Outer and for Aldershot (Alex Baker)—she is disappointed not to be able to join us today—calling on Britain’s bank and fund managers to do away with rules that class investment in defence, notably in supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russian aggression, as somehow unethical. As the letter stated, “There can be no more ethical investment than giving the Ukrainian people every ounce of support that can be mustered by their allies.” That same standard, of course, applies to our own defence —one of the core tasks our constituents send us to this place to take care of. Ten months on from that letter, today’s debate is a prime opportunity for the Minister to update us on what consideration the Government have given to this issue, especially with regard to what I hope is the imminent defence investment plan. As a Member of Parliament for a constituency in north-east England, I am particularly excited by the opportunities that the Government’s increase in defence spending can create for my constituents in North Durham and across the region. Less than a third of the Ministry of Defence’s spending with British industry is directed to London and the south-east, so defence can be an engine for growth in the regions. I share the Labour Government’s ambition for defence spending to act as a key engine for economic growth, especially in more deprived, post-industrial parts of the country, which have borne the brunt of decades of deindustrialisation, including my North Durham constituency. It is worth noting that, during the cold war, there were tens of thousands of jobs in the defence sector in north-east England. There was Swan Hunter shipyard, and there was a very large factory, Vickers, producing land systems—it is still a very good factory, under Pearson Engineering, but a lot smaller. People remember the industrial contribution the north-east was making to defence. Unfortunately, the north-east now has the lowest per capita defence spend of any region or nation, according to the MOD’s own figures. I would go so far as to argue that there are significant ethical and social benefits from the kind of defence investment that would bring jobs to our area, upskill my constituents and provide them with the opportunity to make a good living in exercising the patriotic duty of pitching in by equipping the people who are defending our country. Can the Minister update us on the impact of ESG ratings on directing capital towards areas such as the north-east, where there is a heritage of industrial jobs and skills, and where investment would bolster the Government’s agenda of tackling regional inequality and bringing opportunity back to places such as County Durham? When they go wrong, ESG ratings can act as a drag on crucial investment in defence, but that does not mean we should write off the importance of ethical considerations when financing the defence of our nation. It is right that, even when investing in defence capabilities, we do all we can to operate in line with, for instance, the planet’s environmental limits. Indeed, many defence companies have already changed in line with ESG considerations. Through the UK defence ESG charter, the defence sector in the UK has collaborated to drive ambition and action on sustainability. The charter promotes greater transparency, dedicating firms to working together to meet commitments focused on climate transition, clean technology, societal impact, and governance and ethics. The charter was shortlisted for the 2025 Trade Association Forum awards in the ESG initiative of the year category. To give one example—it is actually the company that the hon. Member for Strangford talked so eloquently about, because it has a site so near to his constituency—Thales in the UK sources all its electricity from renewables, and ESG forms at least 15% of its supplier selection criteria. The platinum medal from EcoVadis places Thales among the top 1% of all firms in its rankings. Clearly, the moral grandstanding of backing away from defence investment on ethical grounds does nothing to improve the ethical footprint of the defence industry. Instead, we ought to be working with industry to incentivise better practices, such as those I have just outlined. With that in mind, will the Minister elaborate on the positive role that ESG can play for defence companies? How can we ensure that the industry takes the greatest possible consideration of its impact on the planet, without getting in the way of its No. 1 priority, defending our nation? Thankfully, ESG standards are becoming less and less of a roadblock to defence spending, with ESG-labelled investment in defence rising steadily since 2021. However, broader structural issues continue to act as a barrier to unlocking growth in defence. SMEs, as my hon. Friend the Member for York Outer mentioned, face particular challenges in accessing finance and banking, because of banks’ own compliance policies rather than ESG ratings. Will the Minister expand on how the Government can address those challenges, and encourage banks to adjust their compliance policies to better ensure that defence SMEs can access the capital they need to get off the ground? We must never lose sight of the moral case for the defence of our nation, which I know matters so much to my constituents in North Durham, many of whose family members are veterans or serving in the armed forces; indeed, one in 10 of the households in my constituency is in that position. We must do all we can to secure the capital that our defence industry needs to rearm the country at pace and stand up to the growing threats we face. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can ensure that ESG requirements do not act as a barrier to this moral and practical necessity, and I hope to continue working with Members across the House to drive investment in the British defence industry, especially in the north-east of England.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Members across the House who have brought to the debate personal experience of serving this country in the armed forces. I particularly thank the right hon. Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) for his insightful speech, in which he talked about some of the threats we face. It was mentioned earlier in the debate that there are no Members present from the Reform party. I think that their apparent lack of interest in defence matters could partly be because, while most of us across the rest of the House have sleepless nights worrying about the threat to the United Kingdom and its allies from Russia, Reform Members do not actually accept that that threat exists; they are on a spectrum that ranges from thinking it is all Ukraine’s fault that it was ever the subject of two invasions and the threat of a third, through to their Welsh leader actually accepting money from the people whose military threat we are trying to counter. For many families across North Durham, the contract between the state and the brave men and women who serve in our armed forces is a key issue—one that they sent me here to focus on. One in every 10 households I speak to in North Durham has a veteran or serving member of the armed forces. When I am campaigning on people’s doorsteps, I often play “spot the cap badge”, as many homes have different badges just inside the door as mementos, and if I manage to recognise it, it helps to strike up a conversation. Across my constituency are people who have served in all three services and many different units, but North Durham has a particularly strong connection with the Durham Light Infantry—also known as the DLI or Faithful Durhams—and its successor regiments following amalgamation. I pay particular tribute to the Durham Light Infantry Association for its role in my constituency. For my constituents, having proper housing, social care, justice and other support for veterans is not just about making a pledge; they must be a reality for them and their loved ones in order to get on with life. Since being elected, I have tried to use my role in this place as a platform to stand up for our armed forces and veterans and call for greater investment in defending our country. In an increasingly turbulent world, the importance of the invaluable efforts of our servicemen and women is clearer than it has been at any time since the end of the cold war. I am proud that we have a Labour Government who are showing through this Bill that we are on the side of our armed forces. I was elected on a manifesto that promised to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve through better housing, services and protections for our forces and their families. The Bill will do exactly that. It will also renew, as is done on a five-year basis, the existence of standing armed forces—a tradition that has gone on since 1688. I am sure Members will be unsurprised to hear that I am happy for this country to have standing armed forces. As others have said, I hope that the standing armed forces will grow and that we will attain the kind of mass that we need to deal with the threats we face. The Bill forms a key part of a wider picture of a Labour Government who are delivering on the defence of this nation. I spoke about the tough political choices that we are making to obtain the funding that is needed for that, but landmark deals have also been secured to protect British jobs and help keep the world safer from hostile actors. We secured an £8 billion deal with Turkey on Eurofighter, which I spoke about in a Westminster Hall debate late last year, and we have seen the selection of the UK’s Type 26 frigates by Norway. Incidentally, I consider Norway to be one of our key strategic partners in defending the north Atlantic bastion. As parliamentarians, we all have a duty to deliver a renewed covenant with our armed forces. We must do that for the brave men and women in North Durham who were willing to put their lives on the line throughout history and do so even now for the good of the rest of our constituents up and down the country. We must do it for the current generation in active service, who are safeguarding the nation from threats, wherever they come from. We must do it for the entire population, who rightly expect that their Government will do all that they can to keep them safe from any risk of conflict and bloodshed.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On the proposal to extend the age limit under which reservists can be called back, a small number of them might have attained the extremely high levels of physical fitness of the Minister for the Armed Forces and be suitable for a wide range of roles, but some could be called back for back-office tasks such as analysing intelligence or training people, where the levels of fitness required are far lower than for any kind of combat role. Does my hon. Friend accept that that would release younger people who are currently in those roles to take up roles nearer the frontline?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under the right hon. Gentleman on the Finance Committee, where we look at slightly smaller-scale issues on spending. He appears to be questioning the Government’s political commitment to find the funding necessary for defence. Does he accept that the downpayment on that political will was the very tough political decision of the Government to take an axe to international development funding, something close to the hearts of many Labour Back Benchers, to provide additional funding for the MOD? If a Labour Government are prepared to take a step with that political courage, he should be in no doubt that, as the years go forward, we will find the funding that is essential to deal with the future defence threats we face.

• 8 Jan 2026 · Myanmar: Religious Minority Persecution · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts. I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing the crisis in Myanmar to our attention and I congratulate the other Back-Bench speakers in the debate so far on their eloquent and important contributions. I declare my long-standing membership of the Burma Campaign UK. I joined because, about 20 to 25 years ago, I heard testimony from two Burmese refugees at my local Labour party meeting. I asked what I could do, and they said that I should sign up to the Burma Campaign. That is part of the reason I am speaking today, having received their updates and understanding what is going on in the country. I also commend the Burma Campaign on the consistency of its support for human rights. Whatever the changes—the political twists and turns in society in Myanmar, or whichever individuals ended up on different sides of the debate—they have not mattered, because the campaign has consistently advocated for fundamental human rights. As we have heard, Myanmar is in the midst of a humanitarian crisis. Since the military coup in 2021, the Christian and Muslim minority populations of Myanmar have encountered greater violence and tighter restrictions on their freedom. In Rakhine state, about 630,000 Rohingya Muslims remain subject to systematic abuses and crimes against humanity. About 150,000 are held in open-air detention camps. The Rohingya are one of the largest stateless populations in the world, in effect having been denied citizenship since 1982. As we heard from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), about 1 million Rohingya live in overcrowded refugee camps in Bangladesh, after fleeing Myanmar in 2017, showing the tangible impact of the persecution that we are highlighting, with the displacement of swathes of people, condemning them to a poor quality of life. As conflict rages in this part of Myanmar, the Rohingya have been caught between the junta and the Arakan Army, which the UN has documented committing multiple violations of international law. Both sides have indiscriminately attacked civilians since hostilities between them resumed in November 2023. I therefore ask the Minister whether she can assure us that aid to Rohingya refugees and the people of Myanmar will not be cut in the context of the overall UK aid budget. The Arakan Army also pursues its agenda of oppression by less direct means. It limits freedom of speech, censors access to international media and communications, arrests journalists, and threatens civil society organisations in the area it controls. For Christians, the situation is similarly bleak. Believers have been killed and churches have been indiscriminately attacked. Nowhere has that been more intense than in the landlocked state of Chin—the poorest of Myanmar’s 14 states and regions. More and more Christians have been driven out of their homes, finding refuge in churches or displacement camps. Some have even been forced to flee to the jungle, where they are deprived of access to food and basic healthcare. Last year, Myanmar rose two places on the Open Doors world watch list, an annual ranking of the 50 countries where Christians face the most extreme persecution. It now scores in the extreme category for persecution. That categorisation puts the situation facing Christians in Myanmar on a par with that in places such as Afghanistan, Iran and Saudi Arabia. Myanmar is currently in the process of holding a set of elections that no observer could characterise as free or fair. They will be an opportunity for the Burmese military to rebrand and put forward a false narrative that it is reforming. Frankly, it will not concern the Burmese military that we can see the elections for what they are: a sham. The military junta has said it itself that, in its view, “Whether the international community is satisfied or not, is irrelevant.” These elections are vital in understanding this issue. They will be passed off as a front for the appalling human rights abuses and the persecution of minorities we have heard about today. We must stand steadfast against that and reject the idea that these so-called elections give any legitimacy to a malign regime. In April 2025, the UK supported a Human Rights Council resolution calling for the protection of civilians and all minorities. It has also been clear that it does not regard the military regime in Myanmar as a legitimate Government. I am pleased that the Government have committed to taking any steps they can, including sanctions, to bring about peace. Today is an important chance to strengthen our resolve and stand up for persecuted people who need our protection. Will the Minister therefore explain why it has been more than a year since any new sanctions were imposed to cut off money and arms going to the Myanmar military? Will she assure the House that we will resume imposing such sanctions? We must not allow the religious minority communities of Myanmar to suffer in silence. I join colleagues across the House in urging the Government to keep standing up for the rights of those persecuted people by expanding targeted sanctions against those committing atrocities, directing humanitarian aid towards those who need it the most and working through international institutions to hold the military junta and other forces waging war in the region to account. Today, we must reaffirm that the UK will never stand by as religious freedom is crushed and human rights are denied.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No matter what unit they served in, veterans in North Durham are particularly concerned about the impact of the new legislation on those who served in the special forces. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that he has met the Special Air Service Regimental Association and is responding to its specific concerns?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles Bill · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he has taken to engage with relevant stakeholders on the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Vacant Commercial Properties (Temporary Use) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable local authorities to allocate for temporary use by charities, community organisations and small businesses any vacant commercial properties during the period of their vacancy; to provide for certain obligations on landlords of commercial property in connection with such allocations; and for connected purposes. During the last general election, I kept my election literature very simple, making only three pledges. One of those was to improve the state of our local high streets, known in County Durham as front streets. Everywhere I go in North Durham, this is a matter of great concern for residents. Within living memory, both of the larger towns in the constituency—Stanley and Chester-le-Street—had thriving bustling front streets, with a variety of independent traders selling food, clothing and other items, larger stores, a range of pubs, banks, and entertainment venues, such as cinemas. Sadly, that is no longer the case. Chester-le-Street has a fine selection of independent retailers and cafés, such as Cafe Neena’s, Computer Centre, Chester Le Geek, GW Horners pub, In the Closet, Carsons Cafe Bar, and REfUSE community café. In recent months, we have seen excellent new additions to the front street, including Willow’s Bakehouse and Pretty Busy Blooms. However, Chester-le-Street’s front street is blighted by vacant landmark sites, including the former Barclays, Santander, HSBC and Halifax banks—which will sadly be joined by Lloyds, closing in January—and large, empty landmark pubs including the Queens Head and Red Lion. In Stanley, the situation is far worse. The former Board School site reached a stage where it had to be demolished. We have literally the burned-out remnants of Bertie’s Bar, and there are very few remaining active units among the vacant premises. It creates a depressing air of dereliction, which is a source of deep shame and disappointment to residents, who take great pride in the history of their town. It is desperately unfair on the small number of businesses, such as the lovely DH9 café, that are striving to keep the front street alive. While in both cases there is need for improvement, residents have explained to me that the relatively worse performance of Stanley is largely down to the nature of the landlords. In Chester-le-Street, the main landlord is local to the town, committed deeply to it and takes care to curate his front street holdings by making generous arrangements to help new businesses get started. In Stanley, however, the tale is different. Many of the key landlords are absentees who bought their sites speculatively and have never even visited the town to see what they purchased. When approached by potential tenants, they make wholly unreasonable rent and other demands, as they would rather maintain a high notional value for their property in the hopes of a future sale than accept a lower rent to get the premises occupied. There are a limited number of premises in Chester-le-Street in similar circumstances too. The challenges facing our front streets in Chester-le-Street and Stanley are faced by many high streets across the country. The universal nature of this issue, and its paramount importance to our constituents up and down the country, is demonstrated by the geographical spread of the Members sponsoring the Bill. From Stoke-on-Trent and Stafford to Sittingbourne and Sheppey, Truro and Falmouth and beyond, I am grateful to my hon. Friends who are backing the Bill to revitalise our high streets. We are all proud to be part of a Labour Government who are already delivering for small businesses across the UK. Labour’s plan for small businesses places the growth and productivity of smaller firms at its core. It will help make the UK the best place to start and grow a business. From creating a business growth service that helps local businesses access the advice and support that they need, to pledging to end the scourge of late payments, which drains £11 billion from our economy every year, this Labour Government are standing up for our high streets. We are expanding start-up loans, overhauling the business rates system so that 250,000 small businesses will benefit from up to 40% off their rates, and standing firmly behind the shops, cafés and entrepreneurs who keep our town centres alive. The Bill strives to add to the impressive record of our Labour Government. It aims to give local authorities the power to step in and compel absentee landlords to make empty shop units available temporarily to charities, community groups and small businesses. The aim is to address the growing number of empty shops and commercial units, each of which represents the wasted potential of a space that could be serving customers, hiring local people and bringing footfall to the town centre. The Bill will provide a lifeline to new enterprises, giving them the backing that they may need to break through and become a staple of the local community. Whether filled by a small business employing our constituents, or a charity or community organisation providing vital services for the most vulnerable, those spaces could be so much more than a vacuum. The Bill presents us with two visions of our town centres. The first is all too familiar to Members across the House: a ghost town of empty shops, lost potential and eerily quiet streets. The second is a brighter alternative: a thriving town centre, where every unit provides value to our constituents, and to which more people come to do their shopping, to treat themselves, and to spend time with loved ones. I know which of those visions our constituents put us here to deliver, and the Bill would help us get there. The state of the high street is the clearest visible indicator of the state of the economy, and it is of paramount importance to how the public see the communities that we live in. The Bill fits in with the tangible steps that the Labour Government are taking to restore pride in place in our communities; for example, the aptly named Pride in Place scheme is injecting £20 million into some of the most deprived communities in the country, including South Stanley in my constituency. We should have zero tolerance for eyesore, derelict buildings. Premises sit empty, while many organisations, charities, businesses and community groups desperately need them. If there were more people working on the high street, that would naturally bring more footfall—visitors who will use other shops and cafés. The high street naturally faces problems, due to increased internet shopping and out-of-town shopping centres, but we do not need to accept terminal decline. We need to reimagine our high streets as community hubs that people will once again be proud to visit. My constituents and those of other hon. Members deserve better. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Luke Akehurst, Dan Aldridge, Danny Beales, Dr Allison Gardner, Leigh Ingham, Jayne Kirkham, Amanda Martin, Kevin McKenna, Mike Reader, Alistair Strathern, Dr Lauren Sullivan and Peter Swallow present the Bill. Luke Akehurst accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 January, and to be printed (Bill 3 51 ).

• 4 Dec 2025 · National Resilience: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps he is taking to consult the public on his Department’s policies on national resilience.

• 4 Dec 2025 · National Resilience: Public Consultation · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister explain to the House the importance of exercises like Pegasus, and outline how Pegasus has supported this Government’s efforts to improve our national resilience for future pandemics?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Is the Prime Minister aware that, because of the decision by Reform’s Durham county council to scrap support introduced by Labour in 2013, a typical working family in Stanley will be £170 worse off? How would the Prime Minister contrast the values of this Labour Government with a Reform party dividing our country and hitting working people in their pockets?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman mentions taxpayers in his Hertsmere communities, which I have visited and know. Does he accept that among his constituents, there will be families who receive benefits and have more than two children, and who will be positively impacted by today’s Budget? Could he at least nod in the direction of those of his constituents who will benefit from the measures that the Chancellor has set out?

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  If the right hon. Gentleman were to look at the Budget book, he would see that the graph that shows the progressiveness of this Budget shows that, in every decile, it is redistributive. He might be correct about the impact of the specific measures he has spoken about, but the overall impact of the Budget is that the poorer people are, the better off it makes them, and the richer they are, the less well-off it makes them.

• 26 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that it was not a U-turn, but that there were better economic statistics that meant that the hole the Chancellor was trying to fill was smaller? People on both sides of the House should welcome the numbers being better. I find it quite bizarre that anyone would attack the Chancellor for finding herself in a better situation. It would be worse for our economy and all of us, including our constituents, would be worse off if we had had to look down the barrel of any change to the headline rates of income tax, quite aside from our manifesto pledges.

• 24 Nov 2025 · Critical Minerals Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister agree that, in an increasingly uncertain world, ramping up our domestic critical mineral production and diversifying our supply is critical to the defence of our country?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Asylum Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly welcome the measures which I believe will tackle a failure by the previous Government to maintain one of the most basic fundamental functions of government: control of our borders. My constituents are worried and angry about the proliferation of houses in multiple occupation to house asylum seekers in towns and villages that already have significant social and economic problems. Will the measures lead to lower demand from the Home Office for that type of housing for asylum seekers and the return of HMOs over time to use as family homes for local people who need affordable housing?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Typhoon Fighter Sovereign Capability · Hansard source

  More

  It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I was going to make some points about the industrial case, but those have been made very well by Members with a direct constituency interest in this programme, so I will talk about the role of Typhoon in air and missile defence. I have a strong interest in that subject and spoke about it in a Westminster Hall debate last year. I do not often lose sleep over politics—I am quite a robust character—but there is one issue that keeps me awake, which is whether we are moving fast enough to defend Britain from air and missile attack. Russia poses a direct threat to us. It is real, imminent and growing every day. Typhoon forms one important component of the UK’s integrated air and missile defence, as our quick reaction alert aircraft at Coningsby and Lossiemouth. While ground-based air defence engages late, Typhoon engages early, making it a key part of multilayered defence. Typhoon pushes our defensive perimeter outward, stopping threats before they get close to British bases, troops or even civilian targets. When suspicious aircraft approach UK airspace, the first thing that goes up to see them and turn them around is Typhoon. It is our fastest and most flexible interceptor. It can also provide, albeit rather expensively, a last-ditch way of destroying cruise missiles or unmanned aerial vehicles before they hit their target. It performed that role during the Iranian attack on Israel last year. I welcome the commitment in the SDR to upgraded Typhoons, which will form part of the next-generation RAF. Upgrades to our current Typhoon fleet could transform our air defence capability. For example, integrating conformal fuel tanks on to Typhoon could increase their combat range to allow them to reach Russian airspace from the British Isles. I welcome the MOD’s confirmation that the UK will spend £2.35 billion to deliver the new European Common Radar System Mark 2 for the Typhoon fleet. Given the potential for Typhoon upgrades to level up our air and missile defence capabilities, can the Minister elaborate on a timeline for when further upgrades will be set out, and any detail on what upgrades are being considered?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Human Rights Laws · Hansard source

  More

  Because of our proud history and our commitment to the rule of law, the UK is a global leader in legal services, with our courts garnering respect across the world. What does the Lord Chancellor think would be the impact on our reputation should we begin ripping up our international agreements and our commitments to the very rule of law that we as a nation helped to shape?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  It is beyond belief that Conservative Members have chosen today to shine a spotlight on the subject of welfare, when their record on it is one of failure, chaos and incompetence. Under the previous Conservative Government, welfare spending ballooned out of control. The final Office for Budget Responsibility forecast on their watch projected that annual welfare spending would increase by close to £100 billion by 2028-29. That is enough to fund the entire NHS for a year, but instead, the money was spent patching up the consequences of Conservative failure. The Conservatives now want to run from their record. The Leader of the Opposition has even called for a “totally different approach” to welfare from the one that she supported when in government. So who did she appoint as her shadow Chancellor? The right hon. Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride)—the very Member who, as Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, oversaw the overspending. When the Conservatives say that they have changed, I say: look at their Front Bench—the architects of failure are still drawing up plans. And what a failure it was. On the shadow Chancellor’s watch, more than 800,000 people left the labour market. What does it say about a Government when hundreds of thousands of people give up on looking for work? Those people had lost hope. That is not just money lost in tax revenue—it is a parent who can no longer work because they are on an NHS waiting list; it is a young person with mental health challenges, left behind by cuts to mental health services.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Obviously, the pandemic was a factor, but the right hon. Gentleman cannot blame every Government policy failure on external factors. All Governments must deal with external factors. Unpaid carers are having to leave their jobs because the Conservatives never fixed social care. Behind every one of those 800,000 people who are outside the labour market is a tragic story of wasted opportunity and a Conservative Government who looked the other way. That abject failure hits constituencies like mine the hardest; North Durham has more economically inactive people than the national average. Let us contrast that with the record of this Labour Government in our first year in office. Economic inactivity has fallen and employment is up: 730,000 more people are in work, and 360,000 fewer working-age people have been out of work and not looking for work since we entered office. That is 360,000 stories of lives moving forward, new parents able to get back to the workplace, people off NHS waiting lists thanks to our record investment, and young people accessing training. Behind every one of those stories is a Labour Government who refused to accept wasted opportunity. There is still so much left to do to fix the mess that we inherited from the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chancellor and the rest of the Conservative party, but I am proud to support a Labour Government who want to help people into work, so that they can get on with their lives.

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Civil Justice Council Review of Litigation Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an early stage in his speech. I want to highlight another positive example of the use of litigation funding. It was essential in helping 52 former franchisees of Vodafone—essentially, small business owners, including one in Chester-le-Street in my constituency—to bring a claim against the company, which they would have struggled to bring without funding. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this example demonstrates that litigation funding can play a crucial role in enabling access to justice for those who would otherwise be denied it?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Hong Kong: Human Rights Violations · Hansard source

  More

  Two pro-democracy parties in Hong Kong have disbanded recently, activist Joshua Wong was rearrested and faces further charges under the national security law, and Jimmy Lai remains in prison. Does the Minister agree that the national security law continues to be used to erode the rights and freedoms of Hongkongers, and can she confirm that the UK continues to strongly oppose it?