Luke Akehurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  I think that everyone who cares about defence shares the right hon. Gentleman’s anxiety about wanting to see the defence investment plan published. Would he accept that we are only days away from polling in a very important set of elections that are governed by a purdah process? Perhaps, if the Prime Minister stood up in the Chamber on Monday and announced the investment, some of it would be targeted at Scotland, where there is a Scottish Parliament election; some would be targeted at Wales, where there is a Senedd election; and some would be targeted at places around the country where there is a defence industry but where council elections are happening. The right hon. Gentleman’s party would probably say that the Government were breaking purdah and trying to sway the outcome of those elections if we were to announce the DIP between now and polling day.

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

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the different pressures that cause people to leave. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that in the year to September 2025, there was 1,000 more in inflow to the regular forces than in outflow? That year included the first two quarters in a row where inflow has exceeded outflow since 2021.

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

  More

  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is bipartisan support for extending cadet forces into the state sector, which was his first point. He mentioned cadet forces in state schools in his constituency, and the combined cadet force at Park View school in Chester-le-Street also does excellent work. I hope he accepts that there is a community of interest in achieving that aim. I am not aware of the obstacles he spoke about around the RFCA, but I am interested by his points.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Access to Work Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I wholeheartedly commend the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) for securing today’s debate, for his eloquent description of the problems facing the Access to Work scheme and for allowing me a few minutes to contribute—in support of the views that he expressed. I wanted to contribute to today’s debate as I am another example of an MP who has personally benefited from the Access to Work programme. My story has remarkable similarities to the hon. Member’s. In 2009, I was hit by a sudden-onset neurological illness. In my case, it was one called POEMS syndrome—POEMS stands for polyneuropathy, organomegaly, endocrinopathy, monoclonal gammopathy, and skin changes—but I am very familiar with GBS, the syndrome that the hon. Member experienced, as I was on the same hospital ward as patients with that condition. My illness affected my mobility. I was in hospital—the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery on Queen Square—for five months. I was unable to stand, let alone walk, and spent a year using a wheelchair. It was during my five-month stay in hospital that I first learned about the Access to Work scheme. Without my physiotherapists and occupational therapists, I would not even have known that it existed. I worry that patients in other hospitals might not necessarily receive the guidance that I did at the National. The Access to Work team worked closely with my then employer, making adjustments to my office environment to make it wheelchair friendly and helping to access funding to pay for taxis to and from work and to meetings outside the office. That support was crucial in allowing me to go back to work after my illness. Without it, I do not know what I would be doing now or whether I would have managed to achieve elected office. Recent reports, however, suggest that I was lucky then and even luckier compared with people now trying to join the Access to Work scheme. Stories and personal testimony mount of a scheme increasingly letting customers down, with more than 66,000 applications remaining unprocessed. Last month, I was proud to write the foreword, alongside the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), to a report by the Disability Policy Centre, the UK’s only disability think-tank, about the Access to Work scheme. The research showed that, without the scheme, up to 50,000 disabled people across the country could find themselves out of work. At a time when the number of people out of work due to long-term illness is at a record high, I want to join hon. Members in urging the Government to give Access to Work significantly more funding, so that it can achieve faster processing and much greater visibility for its potential users.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of whether the capacity savings from serving officers not having to serve on the court—because under the amendment they would be replaced by retired officers—are perhaps exceeded by the burden on the service justice system of having to track and maintain some kind of database of the retired officers that it would call on to serve?

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I feel that the hon. Member is perhaps trying to fix something that is not broken. In the evidence we heard about the service justice system, was there anything that implied that there was a large-scale problem with delays and scheduling? I ask because I thought I was hearing about a system that was relatively efficient and speedy compared with the delays that we all know are afflicting the civilian justice system. There was just one instance—I think it was of a general who had done something inappropriate regarding funding for school fees. It was almost a sui generis incident where it had been difficult to put together a board. Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some danger that the amendment is attempting to fix something that is not broken in a system that is actually working rather well?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Homes: Furnished Tenancies · Hansard source

  More

  Karbon Homes, which is the dominant social landlord in North Durham, provides furnished tenancies to ensure that vulnerable low-income tenants can access essential furniture and white goods. What steps will the Minister’s Department take to ensure that other social landlords across the UK adopt this approach, to greatly improve the quality of life for the least well-off people?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Social Homes: Furnished Tenancies · Hansard source

  More

  16. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the availability of furnished tenancies for social homes.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for introducing the debate, and my constituency neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist) for her excellent speech. I pay tribute to the family of Maya Chappell, including her great-aunts, Gemma and Rachael, for their tireless advocacy on behalf of children up and down the country. I have been contacted by constituents horrified by the tragic death of Maya Chappell in County Durham. Existing frameworks, which often focus on adult victims rather than child-specific risks, failed to protect Maya. There is clearly a gap that needs to be filled to ensure that we are protecting children from non-sexual physical abuse risks. The cost of inaction could not be higher. When the system fails to pick up on the risks facing a child, the most devastating consequences can follow and young lives can be lost. Maya’s death ought to compel us to do better to protect children. In my constituency, more than 6,000 people signed the petition that led to this debate, which is the second highest number of signatures in any constituency in the country. I am grateful to them for using their voices to raise awareness of what happened to Maya and to prevent it from happening ever again. County Durham is a place with a proud tradition of strong communities that look out for each other. That has been demonstrated by the strength of feeling made clear by my constituents and the constituents of neighbouring MPs about this tragedy. Today’s debate is an opportunity for Parliament to match that spirit with concrete action to safeguard children, not only in County Durham but across the country. That is why I am backing my constituents’ call for the introduction of a child risk disclosure scheme that would be similar in structure to previous steps forward in protecting people from violent crime, such as Clare’s law and Sarah’s law, but explicitly tailored to children. Such a scheme would mandate proactive information sharing among police, social services, health and other bodies about the risk of caregivers committing such awful crimes before it is too late. Alongside more than 100,000 people across the country, this campaign is backed by the Durham police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, and the North East Mayor, Kim McGuinness. Today, I join colleagues from the north-east of England and across the country in calling on the Government to introduce a child risk disclosure scheme, so that no family have to endure the heartbreak that Maya’s family have suffered, and we all do everything that we can to protect children.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  Across the country, an estimated 1 million pensioners are losing out on pension increases that they ought to be entitled to, simply because the hard shift that they put in to pay into their pensions happened to occur before an arbitrary date in a calendar. That is not good enough. I have secured this debate to shed light on the injustice of the lack of statutory increases for pre-1997 defined-benefit pension schemes, and to ask the Minister what the Government are going to do about it. Prior to 6 April 1997, defined-benefit pension schemes in the UK were not legally required to increase in line with inflation. That oversight left pensioners, who had worked hard for their whole lives to pay into a pension guaranteeing security in retirement, at risk of seeing their hard work outstripped by the rising cost of living, reducing their financial position in retirement. The Pensions Act 1995 sought to address the problem, introducing statutory limited price indexation, meaning that those pensions were mandated in law to rise as inflation eroded their real value. However, the change applied only to pension contributions made after April 1997. Almost 30 years on, pre-1997 defined-benefit pensions are subject to the same injustice identified and partially resolved by the Government all that time ago. It is up to the trustees of these pre-1997 funds to decide the level of pension increases granted. I have secured this debate, during which I am aware that a number of right hon. and hon. Members will seek to intervene, to challenge the Government to finish the job, started almost three decades ago, of ensuring that every recipient of a defined-benefit pension scheme has the dignity and security in retirement that they have worked so hard for. The Pre-97 Pension Justice campaign group of over 400 pensioners, who I pay tribute to for their persistent campaigning on this issue, has informed me of at least 13 companies where this spell of zero increases—effectively real-terms cuts to pensions every year—stretches to a decade or more. Top of the list, sadly, is Nissan, which has not increased these kinds of pensions for a quarter of a century. In those 25 years, the price of goods has almost doubled: the contents of a shopping basket worth £100 in 2001 would now cost £194. Prior to this 25-year period, the trustees of the Nissan pension had set a precedent that when the pension scheme delivered a surplus, a discretionary increase would be passed on to members. Between 1992 and 2001, when the scheme was in surplus, increases of between 2% and 3% were granted. This pattern was disturbed after 2001, when the scheme went into deficit, but when the scheme returned to a surplus in 2022, the trustees broke with precedent and refused to grant an increase. The same has happened again every year since, which leads the pensioners to fear that there is a new policy by the trustees that no discretionary increases will ever again be handed to the retired Nissan workers holding these pensions.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I have had written communications and met with constituents who used to work alongside my hon. Friend’s constituents at Nissan. Sadly, in the case of Nissan and countless others, trustees have proven themselves not to be accountable enough for the decisions that affect those holding pensions. Evidence submitted to the Pensions Ombudsman shows multiple cases in which trustees have not even considered key factors when deciding discretionary increases.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely share that concern. My understanding from the constituent I met is that Nissan’s trustees include a majority of company appointees who outvote the trustees representing the members of the scheme. Key factors have been ignored, from ignoring inflation to overlooking member contributions. For that reason, I believe that statutory intervention is urgently required.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for that very useful contribution. I was not aware of that, and I am shocked. It is a further injustice if pensioners in the UK are treated differently from pensioners who worked for the same company in other territories. While the Pensions Ombudsman can establish whether procedure has been followed, only politicians can decide whether outcomes are fair. Will the Minister set out what scope he sees for his role in ensuring fairness over defined benefit pension schemes? There is another injustice in the way that the Nissan scheme treats its pension holders. Members across the House will be aware that most people take up the option to take a quarter of their pension as a tax-free lump sum. That money is vital to kick-starting retirement, allowing people to pay off their mortgages and other major debts or make major purchases when they first become pensioners. However, the split between pre-1997 and post-1997 pensions means that this scheme, which should be hugely beneficial for those retiring, can be and is being used against them. The Nissan pension scheme has been paying out its lump sums from those parts of people’s pension funds where the payments would have increased with inflation and leaving in their pension pot the pre-1997 part where the benefits will not track inflation. The impact of that means that, once a lump sum has been taken, the parts of the pension that are left will receive lower or no annual increases. That is clearly unjust. Worst of all, this change was not even directly communicated with pension holders. My constituents knew about what is frankly an accounting trick only as they noticed their pension increasing by less than anticipated over the years. Because of that, I hope the Minister is able to set out what the Government’s position is on which part of these kinds of pensions should be paid out as a lump sum. Will he work to protect pensioners from quirks of sum calculation being used to deny them the increases that they need to keep up with the change in the cost of living? I want to recognise that Nissan is otherwise an excellent employer and a hugely important contributor to our regional economy in the north-east and, indeed, to the British manufacturing industry as a whole. I am sure that my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), who also has many constituents working there, agrees. Not only has Nissan employed people, it has provided jobs deep into the supply chain. Given its status in the region as a very much admired employer, it is a real shame that it seems to be forgetting that its success, bringing employment and regeneration to the north-east over the past 40 years, comes from its loyal workforce. These cost-saving exercises on the pension scheme are no way to treat employees who have worked so hard and deserve a decent retirement. Crucially, discretion over what increases pension holders receive currently lies with the trustees. However, the most common long-term target for a pension scheme is buying out with an insurer, an outcome that takes decisions of that nature out of the hands of trustees. When a scheme is bought out, trustee discretion disappears entirely, meaning that without legislative reform, thousands of pensioners will lose even the faint hope that the trustees might give them an increase. Given that the Government have made clear their desire to put more power into the hands of trustees of pension schemes, I would appreciate if the Minister could set out whether the Government have made any assessment of that risk, and whether they intend to take any action to benefit those pension holders affected by insurer buy-out. To illustrate the financial impact of this injustice, I will tell the House about a constituent of mine. Steve, who I have met, started working for Nissan in 1985, meaning that a considerable amount of his pension contributions were made before the 1997 cut-off. He retired in January 2016. Since his retirement, consumer price index inflation has totalled 40.3%, while Steve’s pension has increased by only 8.3%, the minimum legally required for his post-1997 contributions. In real terms, Steve’s pension has decreased by a staggering 32.5% in just nine years. Meanwhile, the state pension has increased by 48% since 2016, when Steve retired. We are right to be proud of the increases to the state pension we have delivered, including £575 this year for the new state pension. If we believe in the importance of protecting state pensioners—a belief we have backed up with real money out of the door—why should we not apply the same standard to defined benefit pension schemes? Steve is just one example of someone being short-changed by this anomaly. My hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery), for Blaydon and Consett, for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), for South Shields (Emma Lewell), for Easington (Grahame Morris) and for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne), along with others, have all been advocating for constituents involved in the dispute with the Nissan pension scheme. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has been fighting for the hard-working people at Nissan as the constituency MP for the site. I congratulate her on her very recent and well-deserved promotion to ministerial office, which unfortunately precludes her from participating in the debate. Nissan is not an isolated case; it is indicative of a much wider problem, where the state is failing to stand up for fairness and the value of a pension is drastically determined by which side of an arbitrary cut-off date contributions were made. Parliament has already been presented with a clear solution to this matter. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith) on tabling new clause 22 to the Pension Schemes Bill, which would have legislated to address this issue. Disappointingly, the Government indicated opposition to that amendment, and it was not put to a vote. Will the Minister elaborate on why the Government were unwilling to support my hon. Friend’s amendment? I am aware that Ministers have previously cautioned against retrospective changes to pensions that would go the full way to correcting this injustice. While I do not agree that we should accept an injustice just because it has already happened, I hope the Minister will consider whether a statutory increase to pre-1997 defined benefit pensions could be enacted from this point forward, even if it cannot be retrospectively applied. Earlier this month, I co-ordinated a joint letter with colleagues whose constituents are missing out on money to which we feel they are entitled. That letter calls on Ministers to address the problem I am raising today by supporting my hon. Friend’s new clause 22, or by committing to bring forward similar measures before the Pension Schemes Bill achieves Royal Assent. The Pension Schemes Bill now sits with the other place, where my predecessor, the now Lord Beamish, will make the case for those adversely affected by this oversight in the law. I urge the Government to accept any forthcoming amendments on this matter, and to commit to working with those of us advocating for a fair resolution for our constituents. I understand that the Bill is completing its final stages, meaning that time for action is running out. Increasing pre-1997 pensions would not only benefit the more than 1 million pensioners in question; it would also mean greater tax receipts for the state, thereby boosting public services and allowing more investment in communities like the one I represent. The Government have already taken limited but welcome steps to address the injustice for holders of pre-1997 pensions. They have announced legislative changes to allow the pension protection fund and the financial assistance scheme to start paying inflation-linked increases, capped at 2.5%, on pre-1997 pensions—something that had previously been prohibited under the law. Ministers have confirmed that this change will benefit around a quarter of a million PPF members by improving their payments by an average of £400 a year, with the earliest increases expected from January 2027 once the legislation is in place. The Government have also stated that the reforms in the Pension Schemes Bill, particularly those relating to surplus release, are intended to give trustees more flexibility to address this issue in future. Have the principles that have guided the Government in making those welcome adjustments been applied to the remaining pre-1997 pension holders who have been left behind? I hope that Members will agree that there is no justification for why the constituents I have mentioned today should not receive a pension that keeps up with the rising cost of living. I know the House is committed to dignity and security in retirement as a key part of the social contract that we seek to uphold. I have even heard anecdotal evidence that pensioners affected by the change have had to return to work after they have retired, or have downsized from their family home to make ends meet. No pensioner should see their dignity and security eroded by an accident of timing. I therefore urge the Government to do more to apply the current values to pre-1997 pensions. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Minister on this matter.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that particular anomaly.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I see that my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour wishes to intervene.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Pre-1997 Pensions: Discretionary Increases · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) first.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Worker Protection: Hazardous Medicinal Products · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister consider developing a clear statutory definition of “hazardous medicinal products” and subsequently mandate the development, publication and ongoing maintenance of a comprehensive UK list of hazardous medicinal products?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Worker Protection: Hazardous Medicinal Products · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps he is taking to improve the protection of workers against exposure to potentially hazardous medicinal products.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Type 1 Diabetes: Infant Testing · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. Does my hon. Friend agree that the ELSA study proves the need for wider screening, because of the 17,000 children screened, seven were already living with undiagnosed type 1 diabetes severe enough to require immediate treatment and a further 160 had early-stage type 1 diabetes? The study results from Birmingham show that screening needs to be rolled out across the country to save lives.

• 4 Mar 2026 · Ministry of Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chair of the Defence Committee on securing this important debate. I find it disappointing that parties have been missing and have not contributed to it—Reform, which has an ambiguous position on the threat from Russia; the SNP, which does not support our nuclear deterrent; and the Greens, who do not support our nuclear deterrent and have an ambiguous position on NATO. How did we end up in this frankly terrifying situation? Well, 14 years of austerity did not just wreck every other public service; it wrecked the fundamental public service that protects everything else we do as a society. It has put us in a very risky situation where we do not have enough air and naval platforms to be in every place that we need to be in, as we can see from a ship not already being in position in the eastern Mediterranean. We do not have enough mass in our Army. We do not have enough reserves. We do not have enough air and missile defence assets—we know the impact of that; we can see what it does to civilian targets, both in Dubai and in Ukraine—and we do not have deep enough magazines of missiles and munitions. Depth of magazines is causing problems for the United States, let alone us. However, I do not think anyone should be in doubt about the political commitment of this Government to increasing defence spending, because we already took the very difficult decision to slash our overseas aid budget in order to increase spending on the MOD. That was a painful decision, but we will need to take other painful political decisions in the future. I welcome the Prime Minister making all the right noises in Munich about moving the 3% target forwards from his original deadline. My primary plea in the minute I have left is to move forward with the defence investment plan. The strategic defence review contains excellent proposals about capabilities we need, but every month that we drag on with this is a month in which industry does not have certainty about their order books and businesses are perhaps laying off people with skills when they should be recruiting people. More to the point, it is a month where, three years down the line, we might not have the kit in the hands of our troops that they will need in the event of a hot war with a potent opponent that can rearm to the levels of February 2022 if it has a three-year gap after the combat in Ukraine. 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 and the message that further delay is not acceptable to Members across the House.