Luke Akehurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I am particularly concerned about missile and drone threats to the UK, so I welcome the £790 million in the DIP for additional air and missile defence capabilities. Could the Secretary of State give a little more detail about what additional capabilities will be added to our existing layered air defences?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Supporting British Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Minister set out what plans he has to make sure that today’s workers—tomorrow’s pensioners—enjoy a decent retirement?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman accept that welfare is only part of the story when it comes to where we might need to find the money? It would provide valuable revenue resource, but much of what we are talking about is an equipment programme that needs to be funded from capital. When I speak substantively later, I will suggest where I might like to find the money, but I should like to know now which capital budgets the Opposition would look at in order to increase capital spending.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  As he comes to his conclusion, I invite the hon. Gentleman to take the opportunity to express his specific regret for the role that the Liberal Democrats played in the coalition Government in slowing down the nuclear continuous at-sea deterrent programme; indeed, they actually argued to scrap it entirely and replace it with Biggles-type aircraft taking off from aircraft carriers, which would have put us in a very dangerous position. As it was, they used the influence that they had to delay it, and one of the reasons why there is such difficulty in the MOD budget now is that we are catching up on that essential spending on the continuous at-sea deterrent.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the opportunity to make the case once again for a sustained uplift in defence spending, as I have done at every opportunity in this place. I feel quite humbled to follow the gallant Members who have spoken: the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) made very thoughtful contributions to the debate. As I did yesterday in our debate on the Armed Forces Bill, I pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey), and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns)—who I am disappointed has left the Chamber, so he cannot hear me saying nice things about him for the second time—for their steadfast commitment to equipping our country to deal with the emerging threats from hostile actors who wish to attack our democracy, our freedom and our way of life. It is my firm belief, as I have said directly to the Prime Minister, that when a Defence Secretary tells us that the funding envelope on defence “would reduce the readiness of our Forces and increase the risk to personnel on operations, and could make the country less safe”, the Government have a duty to listen and act. I commend the new Defence Secretary; the new Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey); the promoted Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones); and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for stepping up to serve or continuing to serve our country in these challenging circumstances. The new Secretary of State and Veterans Minister are gallant colleagues who, before coming into politics, served our great country in the military, and I can think of no one more appropriate to be making the case within Government for increased prioritisation of defence. We have heard some slightly confusing messages during the day—none of them definitive—about the timing of the publication of the DIP, and the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), referenced this. I am aware that the Chancellor was still talking in Treasury questions about the DIP being published before the NATO summit in Ankara, and the Paymaster General gave an interview in which he indicated that it would be before Ankara. I think there is a very strong argument for sticking to that deadline, because we ought to be able to tell our partners at the NATO summit what we have committed. I also think there is an argument for publishing it under the current Prime Minister, because this needs to be seen as an issue of continuity: it does not matter if we have a change of party leader and national leadership, because we are still committed to this. I urge the current Prime Minister, of whom I am a great supporter, to cement his legacy as someone who, despite what was said earlier, has consistently taken difficult political decisions because they are in the national interest, and he has paid a huge political price for some of those decisions. I would like him to secure the necessary uplift in defence spending before he leaves office, to keep this country safe. I am sure that history will be kinder to the outgoing Prime Minister than opinion polls and political commentary have been, especially if, decades from now, we can look back to the final days of his leadership as the moment that the UK faced up to the real and dangerous threats it faces and appropriately responded with the money required to counter those threats. I know that it behoves Members like me, who have consistently made the argument for increased defence spending, to also make the argument for where that money should come from. I understand the political point the Opposition are making about looking to welfare for this funding. I know that we cannot afford an ever-growing welfare bill and that that is not good for the people who are not in work but could be. I was proud to support the proposed welfare reforms last year, which would not have cut the total benefit package but reduced the increase by about £5 billion over the course of the Parliament. That would have been a useful contribution to the revenue side of any gap in defence funding. The issue with this argument, however, is that that only covers revenue spending and does not free up capital expenditure for new equipment. Reducing the welfare bill therefore cannot be the only answer to the funding requirements of the DIP. It is not as if the Government are not already taking politically painful decisions to ensure that we fulfil our first duty, as set out in the manifesto I was elected on: ensuring the safety of the nation. On top of the difficult decision to halve overseas aid spending to fund an uplift in defence spending, which I know was felt deeply on the Government Benches, everything that one is led to believe about the DIP negotiations indicates that every Department has already been asked to accept a 1% cut—known as a “haircut”—to its capital budget. I am fully aware that this would slow projects down that Members across the House and our constituents in the country care about, from transport infrastructure programmes to new hospitals to rebuilding schools; I can think of projects I have argued for in the House that I would have to accept will arrive slower because of that 1% change. However, if we heed the former Secretary of State’s calls and go further, as is clearly required, we must look to the Departments with the greatest capital budgets for any additional uplift. I would argue that additional capital funding, as has already been mentioned, could still come from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Programmes that are being rolled out by that Department are important. Although we could be forgiven for forgetting during this week’s heatwave, my North Durham constituency has a cold microclimate and lots of badly insulated homes, so cutting capital programmes such as those that address home insulation would harm my constituents. Similarly, investment in carbon capture and storage means that new jobs in the North sea would come on tap later, although I am in favour of the proposed new oil and gas fields—that is as near to rebelliousness as anyone will ever see me in the House, but we are in “freedom hall” in between Administrations. However, when compared with the immediate need to keep our country safe, it is hard to see why those projects ought to be prioritised in the short term over ensuring that our armed forces have the kit that they need to defend the nation from threats that are here or coming in the near future. Given the long lead times in defence procurement, any month that we go without spending the money needed on equipment could translate to a month in just a few years’ time when our brave men and women on the frontline do not have the weapons and ammunition they need to protect themselves and the country. In the final weeks of his premiership, I urge the Prime Minister to look again at whether additional funding could be found for the MOD’s capital budget from the source that I have mentioned, or from other sources. For the avoidance of doubt, let me set out just how pressing the threats that we face really are. Developments across the Atlantic have made it abundantly clear—

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to the achievements that this Government have already made in a minute—I thank my hon. Friend for urging me to get on with that—but let me talk about the threat first. The era when taxpayers in Missouri or Virginia paid for the defence of Europe is long gone. Europe and the UK must fund our own defence. Although we can currently be optimistic about the progress of our gallant allies in Ukraine, it remains possible that the war will end in a harsh peace treaty for Ukraine that could leave it with borders that are not realistically defensible from a third Russian invasion and constrain the size of its military, removing the largest and most battle-hardened anti-Russian force from a future conflict. From that point, the clock starts to tick on Russia’s ability to launch a new war of aggression against another of its western neighbours, perhaps this time a NATO ally, like Finland or the Baltic states. Within two years of peace, Russia could rearm to exactly the same level of defensive capability it had when it invaded Ukraine in February 2022, this time having learned lessons from that experience. It could choose to engineer a scenario to test whether NATO will hold, perhaps taking Narva on the Estonian border, which is largely Russian speaking, in an attempt to break the alliance politically. The only way that we can stop this is by developing an effective deterrence, conventional as well as our existing nuclear deterrent. While we possess a strategic nuclear deterrent, we lack almost every rung on the escalatory level below a global thermonuclear war, which would end humanity and civilisation as we know it. The F-35A programme, which I believe will be in the DIP, is an important additional nuclear rung, but we also need many more rungs of conventional capability. I have consistently argued, including in my 2024 Westminster Hall debate, that we need additional air and missile defence to counter the threat of Russian missile and drone attacks coming at us from the High North, as well as defences against grey zone conflict. That is especially urgent when the last Government reduced spending on ground-based air defence by 70% in their final years in office. And we need to deter by investing in long-range strike missiles, which I know is part of the SDR and will be in the DIP as well. The only way we can avoid a conflict is by ensuring our enemies—in this case, the proximate threat is Russia—know that we are prepared for one. This is not just about hard power through military personnel and equipment. It also involves the political resolve of the British people and the politicians that they elect. Without a strong military, our way of life could be ripped away from us in an instant. Without a fair and good society worth defending, there will not be the public and political will to fight. Russia will know these weaknesses and will prey on them. Russia could aim to take advantage of perceived societal weaknesses and political divisions, knocking us out of a conflict early by making continuing to fight a political impossibility. I appreciate that I have taken quite a lot of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can see you indicating that I should wind up. Let us compare and contrast the Labour and Tory record. Under the Tories, armed forces personnel saw a real-terms pay cut in nine out of 14 years, but under Labour, they have received a third consecutive above-inflation pay rise, bringing the cumulative increase since 2024 above 10%. Under the Tories, armed forces housing was left in disarray, with a record 13,000 complaints a year, but Labour is setting up a defence housing service, and bringing homes into public ownership to address the unacceptable state that they are in. Under the Tories, the armed forces fell in size by 25,000 people to its smallest size since the Napoleonic era, but under Labour, recruitment is up, and over 100 outdated recruitment policies have been scrapped. As a result of 14 years of underfunding, and the previous Government’s dereliction of their duty to protect our nation and make the necessary tough political choices, our armed forces’ presence in Estonia is down to fewer than 10 Challenger 2 tanks. We know about the shortage of ships, because we struggled to find even one Type 45 at a moment of extreme crisis. My message to the Opposition is: let us have more of the thoughtful contributions of their Back Benchers, rather than some of the rhetoric that we have heard from their Front Benchers. I recognise the progress that the Labour Government have already made, and I urge them to get to the 3% spending target. I can say that as a Back Bencher, but I know that Ministers cannot talk about percentages of GDP with such freedom. However, they should know that there is Back-Bench support for getting to 3% by the end of this Parliament.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill is perhaps one of the most constitutionally significant Bills that Parliament regularly debates, as it renews the mandate for a standing Army on a five-yearly basis. It has therefore been a privilege to serve on the Select Committee established to scrutinise it. I am grateful to the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), for pointing out the convention that one should address the opening speech, and the new clauses moved in it, because that gives me the opportunity to say—I am very sorry that the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is not in his place, because it would have been a delight to cross swords with him metaphorically—that I am really quite flabbergasted that in new clauses 1 and 2 the right hon. Member has managed to insert issues relating to the middle east into a debate that is primarily about the welfare of the armed forces here in the UK. It was extremely imaginative of him to manage to do that, which perhaps indicates a degree of dedication to one particular policy area that is in some ways commendable and in other ways slightly disturbing. I am sorry he is not here, because I would have been delighted to have taken an intervention from him on that subject. Just in case he scrutinises what I have said, I refer right hon. and hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I once again pay tribute to the armed forces community across the North Durham constituency. As I have noted at every opportunity I have had to speak on the Bill, North Durham is home to a considerable number of veterans, as well as the families of service personnel. It was an honour yesterday to speak at the flag raising ceremony in Stanley Front Street for Armed Forces Week. We are so into Armed Forces Week in North Durham that we have two ceremonies—one at the start of the week and one at the end of the week—and this year it was my honour to be at the one at the start of the week. I pay tribute to Stanley town council and the Durham Light Infantry Association for their role in that ceremony. You could really see the pride that people in North Durham take in their connection to the armed forces. I am always seeking to use my platform here to advocate for those who serve our country, and I have taken every opportunity, such as serving on the Bill’s Select Committee, to play a role in advancing policy that helps our armed forces community. The Labour Government introduced the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on their pledge to renew the contract between the state and the armed forces community. The Bill will deliver for veterans, serving personnel and the next generation of our armed forces by making key strides forward on the covenant, housing and service justice, as well as bolstering our defensive capabilities by changing reservist criteria—at the request of reservists, I might add—and giving the Government powers to tackle drone activity. I believe the parliamentary scrutiny the Bill has had, by the Select Committee and on the Floor of the House, will make it even stronger than it was at the start. I pay tribute to the Government for engaging so constructively with the Bill Select Committee and for accepting the vast majority of our recommendations, resulting in 81 Government amendments to further strengthen the legislation in Committee of the Whole House. In particular, I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to the former Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) and the former Armed Forces Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns) for their tireless work. They have consistently stood up for what is right, not only for our armed forces community but for our country. From their service as Ministers to making the case for the increased defence spending to adequately protect the British people and, ultimately, to the very honourable decision they took to resign, I hope their decision will have encouraged the Government so that when we finally see the defence investment plan, the quantum and content of it will reflect the political sacrifice they have made in standing down. I welcome the new Defence Secretary, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and the new Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones), with full confidence in their ability to step up and continue to do the right thing by serving personnel and veterans. All of us in this House should wish them well. They are doing hugely important work on the final stages of getting agreement on the DIP. Whatever the politics going on in Whitehall around that, we wish them all the very best in that process. They are taking on huge responsibility at a time when this country faces really severe threats. I repeat that I pay tribute to their predecessors, but I also pay tribute to them for stepping up and taking on these hugely important responsibilities at a time when it could not be more important.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the strategy not in the strategic defence review that was published last year? I remember reading it, and copies were available from the Vote Office. I would recommend that the hon. Gentleman has a look at the SDR, because it sets out what our role is in terms of geopolitics and military strategy.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 22 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My understanding is that the recommendations in the SDR that do not require financial investment—changes of doctrine or stance or the deployment of existing forces—have been implemented. It is the defence investment plan that we are waiting for, which is primarily about additional spending above and beyond what we already spend on equipment.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the previous Security Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), for his tireless work to get us to this position, debating a much-needed Bill to tackle the state threats we face. As our new Defence Secretary, he will continue to hear from me—perhaps even more than before—on the need to match the urgency with which we are dealing with hostile states in today’s legislation, with the largest possible uplift in defence spending. I welcome the new Security Minister to her place. She is a long-standing friend and ally of mine from our time together on the Labour party’s national executive committee, as indeed is the Home Secretary, who is no longer in her place but who gave an excellent speech to introduce the Bill. I welcome the Security Minister to her position and look forward to her bringing her wealth of experience to the debate. I have been campaigning for the Government to take more action against the Iranian regime and its proxies and their activities in the UK for many years. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; before being elected to this House, I campaigned on this issue in my then employment as director of the organisation We Believe in Israel. I wrote to the Home Office last year, calling on it to follow Australia’s lead in designating organisations such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as state sponsors of terrorism. The Bill clearly is not intended to specify particular states, although three states and particular organisations have been mentioned, but it gives the Government the powers to facilitate such a move. The Bill itself and any proscription measures— [ Interruption. ] Sorry—we are not supposed to call them proscription measures. The Bill itself and any measures that it takes to deal with such organisations have my wholehearted support. I was elected on a Labour manifesto that recognised the key duty of Government to keep their people and the country safe. That foundational pillar ought to motivate every Member of the House to support the proposed legislation we are debating. This Bill is a necessary response to the growing and evolving threat posed by hostile states to our freedom, our democracy and our way of life. According to the director general of MI5, MI5 tracked more than 20 potentially lethal Iranian-backed plots in 2024. The IRGC is Tehran’s prime weapon in exerting influence here in the UK and in many other countries. That influence has targeted the British Jewish community to devastating effect. We have seen proxy groups carrying out a horrific spate of arson attacks designed to terrorise our Jewish communities and normalise antisemitic hate. These are not just attacks on British Jews; they are attacks on the values that we all hold dear as a nation. Jewish community leaders, including the Chief Rabbi, have demanded robust action to take on the threat that Iran’s proxy campaign of terror poses to British Jews. Today, our Labour Government are heeding those demands and continuing to stand with Britain’s Jewish community. This Bill empowers Ministers to disrupt and deter the activities of state and state-linked entities, as well as those working with them, that target and terrorise British civilians. Such a power was recommended by the independent reviewer of state threats legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, as the best way for the Government to achieve their manifesto commitment of dealing with terrorism and adopting legislation to deal with state-based security threats. As Jonathan Hall KC has made clear, traditional proscription is not the appropriate way to deal with state-linked entities due to the constraints of international law, which prevents the British state from banning the existence of a foreign state entity. As someone who has previously called for IRGC proscription to be considered, I am confident that this measure goes just as far as proscription to prevent hostile foreign actors from advancing their malign interests here in the UK. It gives Ministers flexible powers to target these organisations without legal constraints that hold us back from taking the right action under existing frameworks. The Bill does not designate any organisations as state threats to national security. Instead, it will give the power to Ministers to make any decisions based on the intelligence to which they have access. I am aware that the Government do not comment on individual proscription decisions, but I would like to take this opportunity to call on the Government—hopefully for the final time—to use a designation against the IRGC to keep British Jews and Iranian refugees and dissidents resident in the UK safe, and to clamp down on the brutal and oppressive machinery of the Iranian regime. The legislation before us is not just bad news for Iran; other hostile countries will be set back by the Government’s robust action. The Secretary of State mentioned actions by Russia and China. It was less than a decade ago that Russian operatives carried out a Novichok attack here on British soil. More recently, just two years ago, the Wagner Group, which was already proscribed as a terrorist organisation, co-ordinated an arson attack on a warehouse providing critical aid to our gallant allies in Ukraine. Just this week, it was revealed that appalling arson attacks on the Prime Minister’s home were linked to Russian actors. Whatever other disagreements we may have, I know the House will stand united on this matter, with the Prime Minister and against what a former MI6 chief has described as attempts by Vladimir Putin to intimidate British people on British soil. Across the world, regimes with values diametrically opposed to our tolerant, democratic society clearly want to make the United Kingdom and its citizens suffer for our values and the role that we play in supporting countries such as Ukraine. Wherever that threat arises, the Government have a duty to defend against it, and today they are stepping up to the plate and doing just that. This legislation is a welcome step forward in equipping the Government to handle the dangerous threats faced in Britain in 2026. By supporting this Bill, we are supporting the safety of British citizens, particularly British Jews, and opposing a tyrannical regime that is hellbent on disrupting our way of life. It gives us the tools to confront those who seek to terrorise, divide and harm our society, and I urge colleagues across the House to support it.

• 11 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I have been campaigning alongside healthcare professionals who are concerned about risks arising from the unsafe handling of hazardous medicinal products. The BBC broadcast footage last month inadvertently showing a nurse handling a potentially hazardous new cancer drug without the correct protective equipment. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on introducing a framework to protect healthcare workers from exposure to hazardous medicinal products?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the decision taken early in this Parliament to halve the overseas aid budget and put that into defence shows that this Labour Government are prepared to take the tough political decisions needed to fund rearming this country, unlike the Conservatives, who had 14 years to invest in the armed forces, but instead left them and their equipment in the parlous state in which we found them in 2024?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Myanmar: Human Rights · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way as he is beginning to make a very cogent case about the human rights abuses happening in Myanmar. I intervene because he raised the issue of airstrikes. Since the last sanctions were imposed on Myanmar by the UK 591 days ago, there has been a significant increase in airstrikes by the Burmese military. Does he agree that we need a new round of sanctions, including potentially targeting the military-owned Mytel mobile phone network, as well as vessels and companies identified by Amnesty and Reuters as delivering jet fuel and materials for making explosives, some of it originating in Iran?

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It has been a pleasure to serve on the Select Committee set up to scrutinise this important legislation, which, as Members will know, renews our mandate for a standing Army and takes important strides on the covenant, service housing and service justice. The thrust of my speech will be against new clause 2, which is an attempt by the Opposition to play a political game with the timing of the publication of the crucial defence investment plan. First, I pay tribute to the armed forces community across my constituency. As I said on Second Reading, North Durham is home to a large number of veterans and families of serving personnel. As their Member of Parliament, I want to use my voice to stand up for those people in our community who are serving, or have served, our country. That is why I was so keen to play a role in the passage of this Bill. The Select Committee also allowed me to highlight the work of the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street. I welcome the provisions to better integrate cadets into our armed forces by transforming the reserve forces and cadets associations into a non-departmental public body. I turn to new clause 2. I would like to think that there is no one—with the possible exception of my hon. Friends the Ministers at the Ministry of Defence—who wants the defence investment plan tabled more than me. As I said in the defence estimates debate in this place on 4 March to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry: “My message to the Minister is to take back into the Whitehall system the support on both sides of the House for seeing the defence investment plan sooner rather than later” —[ Official Report , 4 March 2026; Vol. 781, c. 895.] We cannot afford more delay, because in the event of a war with a dangerous opponent, every month we delay could, in just a few years’ time, be a month in which our troops do not have the right kit in their hands. As a north-east MP, I am aware of the strong industrial case for providing certainty about the footprint of our defence spending, so that we can drive investment towards communities like the one I represent. Many of my constituents are proud to travel to work for BAE Systems in Washington, where they make munitions for the British armed forces and our gallant allies in Ukraine, or work at Pearson Engineering in Newcastle, making essential components for armoured vehicle programmes, such as the turrets for Challenger 3. My constituents also hope that future MOD contracts will lead to the north-east of England becoming a major centre for the space industry. We need to get this right. We only have one shot at dealing with the equipment implications of the strategic defence review. We do not have an infinite pot of money. In fact, all of us know that the state of the public finances that this Government inherited in 2024 means that the pot of money for many pressing priorities, including defence, is decidedly, and sadly, finite, so we must make the right decisions about where to allocate resources. As I have now said three times to the House, the political commitment of this Labour Government to finding the funding for defence equipment and procurement should not be doubted, given the early decision to cut the overseas development budget by half in order to increase defence spending. That was extremely painful and politically contentious, given that the aid budget is close to the hearts of many Labour Members, but it was the right thing for the Labour Government to do. That represented a historic commitment to the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. Given that, no one should be in any doubt of this Government’s preparedness to make the further tough political decisions needed to properly fund the defence of the nation. Indeed, I am hopeful that the DIP will be published before the plan would be that new clause 2 is trying to bounce the Government into. The Defence Secretary confirmed yesterday in the House that the Prime Minister is determined to publish the DIP before the NATO summit, which starts on 7 July. The plan in new clause 2 would be left until the end of the year, which is when the Bill will complete its passage. The Conservatives lost the political and moral right to dictate the timetable for how we best prepare for conflict after the British people ejected them from office, following over a decade of the tragic underfunding of our armed forces. Indeed, in their first year in government, the Conservative party cut defence spending by £2 billion. That is in stark contrast to this Government, who are spending over £11 billion more on defence than in the last year of the previous Government. Rather than tacking a timetable on to the Bill—a Bill that will play a hugely important role in improving how the state delivers for our armed forces community—I will be supporting the Government in publishing a well-thought-out DIP, that is not rushed but is published as soon as possible, so that we can start directing investment towards those industries that will play a key role in defending our nation in the coming years.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  So that I can understand, could the hon. Gentleman explain slightly more carefully why he is proposing to remove the choice that the victim has? They can say which of the two systems—the service justice system or the civilian justice system—they have more confidence in. Why would it be better for the victim if that choice were removed, and they had to go down the civilian justice system route?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Allied Health Professionals · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on allied health professionals. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) on initially securing this important debate before her well-deserved promotion to Parliamentary Private Secretary, and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for leading it. It is right that we talk about doctors and nurses when we talk about the NHS and the difference that it makes to people’s lives and the lives it saves, but we often overlook the incredible contribution that is made by the group of 14 professions known as allied health professionals. Today I want to share my personal experience of the importance of these key workers. Without them, I would literally not be stood here today in this Chamber, speaking and serving as the Member of Parliament for North Durham. Allied health professionals worked alongside doctors and nurses, as well as a host of other clinicians and non-clinicians, to save my life when I had a life-threatening illness in 2009 and then, to my mind, gave me my life back as they worked across disciplines to rehabilitate me following severe illness and disability. In 2009, I was hit by a sudden onset neurological illness called POEMS syndrome. It is a rare type of neurological disorder caused by a tumour that can affect multiple systems in the body. I spent five months in hospital being treated for and recovering from this illness, followed by an extensive process of recovery and rehabilitation in the months and years following it. The symptoms of my condition were similar to multiple sclerosis, meaning that they affected my nervous system, which impaired my mobility, causing me to spend a year using a wheelchair and now to use a walking stick and orthotics, which Members cannot see but— [ Interruption ] —can just about hear. Looking through the list of the 14 allied health professions, I was staggered by just how many of them I had been helped by. I will confine myself today to talking about the six or seven professions in this group from which I have personally experienced help and care. At the beginning of my illness, when I was diagnosed, it was radiographers who contributed to diagnosing the tumour causing my condition, using a range of techniques from skeletal surveys to MRI scans to, eventually, a PET-CT scan. Once the tumour and its role were identified, they mapped its location to prepare me for radiotherapy and administered 30 days of 30 Grays of radiotherapy in the basement of University College London hospital. As I recovered, they measured the shrinkage and eventual elimination of my tumour using further PET-CT scans. More recently, I have been back to see radiographers. I can actually remember the day of my last MRI scan, because when I went in, Liz Truss was Prime Minister, but when I came back out, the people looking after me said that the Prime Minister had resigned—she was not there for that long, but it felt like a long time inside the MRI machine. The radiographers were using the MRI not because they think there is a risk of recurrence of my illness, but to measure the long-term regrowth of my nervous system. Following on from that, physiotherapists taught me to walk again. In fact, before that, they got me standing using a standing frame, because I could not stand independently. I had an intensive two-month period of in-patient physiotherapy on the rehabilitation ward of the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery, Queen Square. That was followed by almost a year of out-patient physiotherapy at home and in Saint Leonard’s hospital in Hackney. Support from my physiotherapist took me from being unable even to stand to taking the first faltering steps using a back slab, foot-ups and a walking frame, and then to using two crutches, one crutch and now a walking stick and ankle orthotics. As part of our recovery, the physiotherapists ask every neurological patient on the ward to set themselves a higher-level balance task to walk towards. They told me that I was the first patient they had met who set a higher-level balance goal of leading a canvassing team while carrying a clipboard and pen. The dietitians in hospital were tasked with helping me rebuild my wasted muscles. They rather kindly asked me what food I like. Fortunately, when I answered “red meat and cheese”, they agreed that, at that stage, those were the ideal sources of protein to rebuild the muscles that had wasted away over five months spent predominantly in a hospital bed. My dietitians also ensured that friends or family occasionally took me from the hospital, in my wheelchair, to Carluccio’s restaurant in the nearby Brunswick centre, because the Italian-style liver and bacon served there very usefully contained the vitamins necessary for nerve regrowth. As I prepared for, and then adjusted to, life outside a hospital ward, there came the support of occupational therapists, who taught me how to use a kitchen from a wheelchair—and later a perching stool. They taught me how to safely pour boiling water from a kettle when my arms were weakened. They taught me how to write again using a biro, when my ability to grip a pen had gone. Unfortunately, they did not get very far in teaching me how to cook again, as I had never got to grips with cooking even before my illness and disability. They taught me how to transfer safely from a wheelchair to a piece of furniture, and then back to the wheelchair again. They asked me what I needed to do in my life, and then worked as hard as they could to get me back to doing it. One of the most fundamental tasks that the occupational therapists succeeded in— [ Interruption. ] Sorry, this is a little emotional. They succeeded in enabling me to get down on to the floor so that I could play with my three-year-old son, and then to get back up again, when my legs were too weak to lift me up and down. When I left hospital, they equipped my wheelchair-accessible flat—which my amazing wife had organised at five days’ notice, after moving from a non-wheelchair-accessible home—with the equipment that I needed to use it safely, such as a seat across the bathtub to shower myself safely. My occupational therapists oversaw my return to work, explaining to my then employers what adaptations were needed to make to my workplace. They advocated on my behalf for a graded return to work because of the severe fatigue that my illness and disability had caused. They signposted me to the support available to my employers for transport to, from and within work, and for physical adaptations from the Access to Work scheme. They also assessed my workplace to ensure that I could physically get around it from a wheelchair. Alongside that work, podiatrists helped me with a horrible side effect of having impaired sensory nerves in my feet: I was very susceptible to ingrown toenails. At first, I could not feel them because of nerve damage, but when they cut through, the pain was excruciating. I thank the podiatrists for dealing with that, and alleviating those nasty side effects, in the first few months after I left hospital. I still receive ongoing support from the orthotists, who, once I was able to walk, fitted me with the ankle/foot orthoses—often known as splints—that I wear on each foot. They stop me from tripping over my feet—even now my weak ankle nerves cause foot drop. I continue to rely on the orthotists’ services when having my orthoses repaired, refurbished or replaced as necessary. That reminds me: I have an outstanding appointment to schedule with University Hospital of North Durham to have my orthoses refurbished in the coming months. I am fairly sure that operating department practitioners were involved in my treatment, when I had an operation to enable analysis of the tumour once it had been located, but as I was under general anaesthetic and completely unconscious at the time, I cannot speak for who was in the room with the surgeon. By now, it will be clear to Members across the House that I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to a wide array of people across the allied health professional workforce. It is that gratitude that drove me to speak in this debate in order to call for greater prioritisation of AHPs in NHS workforce planning and for parity of esteem with medics and nurses. I join colleagues in asking the Minister to recognise the critical contribution that allied health professionals make to allow people like me to live happy and healthy lives. To back that recognition, the Government could retain in the Department for Health and Social Care the roles of chief allied health professions officer and director of rehabilitation, confirm which Minister holds responsibility for AHPs—although, given the very welcome presence of my hon. Friend the Minister for Secondary Care on the Front Bench, I think I might be able to guess—and restore quarterly ministerial meetings with the Allied Health Professions Federation. Some of the specific professions involved in my treatment face their own unique challenges, which I want to ask the Government to address. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, with which I have worked closely in recent months, is campaigning to embed physiotherapy leadership in neighbourhoods. I back its calls for the upcoming NHS 10-year workforce plan to expand the capacity of core community rehabilitation services. Given the record number of physiotherapy graduates, and the high level of public trust in physiotherapists, who empower people to manage symptoms and improve general health, now is the time to take advantage of the healthy supply of physiotherapists to ensure that people can live as well as possible for as long as possible. It is clear to me that physiotherapists can play a role in the Government’s ambitious healthcare shift away from hospitals and closer communities. However, in recent years recruitment freezes in physiotherapy have risked wasting the potential of newly qualified physios, so will the Minister meet me and representatives from the CSP to discuss widening access to physio careers through apprenticeship programmes, guaranteed NHS jobs for all newly qualified physio graduates—as has been rolled out for nurses—and other challenges facing this vital workforce? [ Interruption. ] I will come to a conclusion as quickly as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker. The British Association of Prosthetics and Orthotics is asking for the creation of a formal “small and vulnerable profession” designation within NHS workforce and education policy in order to trigger proportionate safeguards and guarantees for those workers. The Royal College of Occupational Therapists is calling on the Government to establish national commissioning guidance to make occupational therapy a central component of the neighbourhood health systems that the Government are delivering. Will the Minister address those particular industry concerns and outline the Government’s broader support for the whole family of AHPs? Without those professionals, I would not have got my life back. I want to use this platform to thank them, and to say that their fantastic professions need the pay, incentives and career structure to encourage the next generation of allied health professionals to support future generations in the way that so many of them have supported me.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. One of the main concerns that North Durham residents raise with me is the vitality of local high streets, so I am delighted that in the last year, a series of new independent businesses has opened on Chester-le-Street’s Front Street, including Willow’s Bake House, Paper & Park bookshop, Pretty Busy Blooms, Kira Sushi & Poke restaurant and, just this weekend, the Black Rabbit bar, which I am looking forward to visiting. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating those new businesses, and outline the measures that he is taking to support further regeneration of our high streets?

• 21 Apr 2026 · Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Government on this significant announcement. Does the Minister agree with me that the agreement provides additional safeguards to Gibraltar’s sovereignty, while creating new economic opportunities for its people? Does he agree that anyone in this House who has any concerns should listen to the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, who knows better than anyone what is best for the people who elected him and he represents?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Given that the hon. Member is outlining cases where a previous Government—in 2001, if I am right, that was a Labour Government—derogated from ECHR articles without being required to in a piece of legislation such as this, why would he not expect any future Government to be equally rational in making choices about whether to derogate? We have the example of our great allies in Ukraine, who remain signatories of the ECHR but have taken the appropriate derogations to deal with their wartime emergency. They are fighting an enemy that withdrew from the ECHR in 2022, and I am getting a hint that, morally, the hon. Gentleman is on the side of the line of the country that withdrew from the ECHR, rather than the one that is continuing under it with appropriate derogations.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to clarify that I had no intention of hinting that the hon. Gentleman was in any way politically allied with Russia. Clearly, he is an ally of Ukraine, as we are on the Government side of the House, but it is a matter of fact that the only countries in Europe that are not signatories to the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. I do not wish us to make the same choice that they have made.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the problem is not just the legacy that his Department inherited, but the wider legacy of debt that our Government inherited, which means that the path that Germany is going down—raising new finance—is not open to us? We inherited a bow wave of immense welfare spending from the previous Government, who let the welfare bill get out of control. This is not happening in isolation; these are systemic problems of government that we are having to address, and we are having to find a source of funding for the incredible investment that we now need to make.