Luke Akehurst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Feb 2025 · Benefit Fraud by Criminal Gangs · Hansard source

  More

  Does my right hon. Friend agree that tackling fraud against the taxpayer is key to setting the country’s finances on a sustainable footing and allowing the investment in public services that my constituents are so desperate to see?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) for securing this debate, which, as is shown by the number of hon. Members wishing to participate, is incredibly timely—not least because later today, coincidentally, I will present a petition to the House about the potential closure of Chester-le-Street post office in my constituency of North Durham. Chester-le-Street is one of the 115 Crown post offices at risk of closure following Post Office Ltd’s announcement that it is reviewing the future of its directly managed branches. This is worrying not only for those who are employed in those branches, but for the many people who use post office services, and for the high street—in Chester-le-Street, we would say the “front street”—businesses that rely on the footfall and passing trade that post offices bring. The post office in Chester-le-Street has been at the heart of the community in North Durham since 1936; indeed, it is one of only a tiny number of post offices that bear the cypher of King Edward VIII. Chester-le-Street has lost most of its high street banking branches in recent years, so it is more important than ever that this vital hub and delivery office remains open and accessible for my constituents. Over 650 people have signed the petition that I will present later, which calls on the Post Office to ensure that the Chester-le-Street branch remains open. The Post Office’s corporate website rightly describes the corporation as “an anchor of UK communities for centuries”, and says that it is “driven by a strong social purpose: to be here, in person, for the people who rely on us.” I could not agree more. We must ensure that in Chester-le-Street and the other places that hon. Members have mentioned this afternoon, post office branches remain open “in person”—to use the words on the Post Office’s corporate website—on our high streets and in our town centres, so that they can provide the services that local people rely on.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way to a number of Members during his important speech. On the proposal to replace Crown post offices, does he agree that franchised post offices are no substitute? In fact, that is a huge risk. WHSmith, which often takes on the franchises, announced this week that it is closing 17 of its high street branches. The move to franchises could be one step away from the complete loss of post office facilities.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I think that is a different subject to the one we are debating. If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will proceed on the subject of proportional representation. We do not know how voters would behave if they were confronted with a different voting system. We cannot say that because Labour got 34% of the vote in 2024 under first past the post, it would therefore have got 34% if the 2024 election had been run under a proportional representation system. Voters change their behaviour to fit the voting system. There might also be new parties that would grow under a different voting system. With tactical voting in its current form, we do not know how many Labour-identifying voters back other parties for tactical reasons in particular seats—the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) mentioned voters who had spoken to her about doing so. We do not know how many supporters of other parties voted Labour for tactical reasons, or what the net impact of unwinding those factors might be on each party.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Members who secured this important debate. I have been debating on this subject outside the House for, unbelievably, nearly 40 years, so I have had some time to assemble my thoughts on it. During that time, I have often heard people argue for or against proportional representation or first past the post based on the immediate advantage for their political party. I urge against such an approach to questions of democracy and electoral systems. One benefit of engaging in this debate for so long is that I have been able to see the political cycle change over time; an electoral system that might benefit a party at one point may work to its disadvantage later. The party that gets a massive boost in seats from first past the post in one election may get a disproportionate kicking from the electorate under another system. The volatility of the modern electorate makes that particularly pertinent. The core bedrock of support for both major parties is a far smaller group of voters than it ever used to be, and demographic and political change is accelerating that. No party—mine included—should think that the current coalition of voters that it has assembled is here to stay, and that it should design its preferred electoral system around maximising the number of seats that that coalition of voters can win.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I do share my hon. Friend’s viewpoint, and I will come to that later in my remarks. We do not know how much turnout would increase in areas where it is now depressed because the outcome under first past the post appears to be a foregone conclusion. My hon. Friend anticipated the next thing I was going to say. The current fracturing of the party system, with five parties getting more than 5% of the vote—the number is higher in Scotland and Wales—is probably here to stay. That means there are more marginal seats, more three or even four-cornered fights for marginal seats and more Members of Parliament elected on relatively low vote shares by historical standards. Ironically, that improves the range of viable choices for voters in many seats, and their chances of influencing the result in a meaningful way, because there are fewer safe seats. However, it is trying to pour a multi-party system into an electoral system designed for two parties, so it inevitably leads to more and more disproportional results, where the relationship between vote share and number of seats completely breaks down. For instance, as has been mentioned, the Liberal Democrats got 72 MPs despite receiving more than half a million fewer votes than Reform, which got only five MPs. I do not blame the Liberal Democrats or my party for seeking to maximise seats rather than votes—that is the game we are supposed to be playing with our current system—but it is difficult to go out to the public and objectively defend such surreal disproportionality. It increases public cynicism about their ability to influence politics. My motivation for supporting a move to a more proportional voting system is therefore not that I think it will provide an immediate or long-term advantage to the party that I have dedicated my life to campaigning for, and I hope that Members of other parties would not be motivated by assuming that proportional representation will accrue immediate narrow party advantage at Labour’s expense. On the contrary, as a social democrat, my approach to any critical question is based on the core principles of social justice, democracy and equality. That leads me to support a more proportional voting system, just as it leads me to egalitarian and redistributive answers to social and economic policy questions. We should design an electoral system based not on whether it benefits us as individual politicians or our own parties at a specific moment, but on whether it delivers just and equitable outcomes that can logically be defended. In particular, we should apply the philosopher John Rawls’ theory of justice and try to measure the impact of each electoral system on the most under-represented party and the most under-represented voter, and argue for a system that treats parties and voters as fairly and equitably as possible and that gives voters as equal influence as possible over who represents them and who governs the country.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady accept that one of the great advantages of moving to a proportional voting system would be that there would be no need to put any bar charts on any leaflets—it would be highly misleading to do so—that there would be no “two-horse race” graphics or squeeze messaging, and everyone would be able to vote for the party they really wanted?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 30 Jan 2025 · Proportional Representation: General Elections · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. I have looked at compulsory voting, which was advocated at one point by Lord Watson of Wyre Forest. I am open to the suggestion, but basically that is about forcing people to vote when we should be trying to enthuse them to vote through both how we do politics and how the system works. All voters should have equal value wherever they live in the UK, but first past the post condemns millions of voters to living in electoral deserts where just one party dominates all Commons representation. There is no region or nation where that system reflects the diversity of the votes cast, and between different regions and nations it can benefit different parties. We need a system that sends to this place a mix of MPs from each region and nation who represent their political diversity and balance. First past the post privileges and makes powerful a relatively small number of swing voters in a small number of marginal seats, while giving little political power to the majority of voters in safer seats. That distorts our political process. Policies, campaign spending, where politicians visit, where activists travel to, messaging and advertising are all focused on swing voters in marginal seats, while elections in some safe seats can be quiet affairs. When parties are in opposition, first past the post makes them narrower based. In recent Parliaments when Labour was down to a small parliamentary party, it often appeared to be a sectional voice for big cities and university towns, which was unhealthy, even though we had millions of votes but few MPs in demographically different parts of the country. Now, the Conservative parliamentary party may appear to be dominated by rural interests as its votes in urban areas delivered few MPs. Both situations are unhealthy. Support for proportional representation is now the consensus position at a grassroots level in the Labour party: polling says that 83% of grassroots members support it, and the vast majority of constituency Labour party members backed it when our annual conference voted in favour of electoral reform. In fact, I think it is the topic on which the largest number of local Labour parties has ever submitted motions. Mixed Member systems used in places such as Germany and New Zealand prove that the undoubted merits of the constituency system, such as having a voice and champion for a specific geographical area in Parliament and giving voters greater access to us as local representatives, can be combined with a proportional element to produce stable and effective Governments—and, I would say, Governments who pursue the social democratic values that my party stands for. I hope that it will not be too long before the Labour Government align their stance on our voting systems with our guiding values of equality and democracy.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Chester-le-Street Post Office · Hansard source

  More

  I wish to present a petition relating to the potential closure of the post office in Chester-le-Street, which has been at the heart of the community in North Durham since 1936. The petition states: The petition of residents of the constituency of North Durham, Declares that Chester-le-Street Post Office, which provides vital services to local residents is at risk of closure; and notes that 658 people have signed a similar online petition on this matter. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage the Post Office to ensure that Chester-le-Street Post Office can remain open. And the petitioners remain, etc. [P003039]

• 27 Jan 2025 · Fiscal Policy: Defence Spending · Hansard source

  More

  Under the last Government, only two out of 49 major defence projects were being delivered on time and on budget. Will the Minister set out what the Government are doing to get to grips with the financial mismanagement and failed procurement system that we inherited in defence?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Child Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps she is taking to strengthen safeguarding for children.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Child Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  After the tragic cases of Star Hobson, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Sara Sharif, will the Secretary of State remind Opposition Members why those measures are vital if we are to protect children?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Child Safeguarding · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Leader of the Opposition dismissed safeguarding measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill as a distraction. [ Interruption . ]

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The tone of the hon. and gallant Gentleman’s remarks suggests that he does not really support the thrust of the Bill, and is extremely sceptical about the potential areas of involvement of the Armed Forces Commissioner per se. Having heard what was said from the Opposition Front Bench in Committee, I was under the impression that there was consensus across the House in favour of the thrust of the Bill and that today we would be talking about nuance and detail, so I seek reassurance from the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he does in fact support the need for an Armed Forces Commissioner.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise primarily to talk about amendment 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire). It was an honour to serve on the Bill Committee. I would have spoken to the amendment had it been tabled in Committee— I think a timetabling issue meant that it could not be. There is already a public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010 that would apply to the commissioner. When the commissioner undertakes their reports, they will be bound by that duty to have due regard to the different minority groups that form the armed forces and their families. More specific thematic reports about issues faced by minorities in the armed forces ought to be a matter for the commissioner to decide. As someone with a disability, I am perturbed by the absence of disabled people from the list of minorities that is cited. That is the problem when amendments are tabled with a prescriptive list of different minority groups: some can be missed out, and some can be made to feel that their concerns might be more valued than others. It is not completely incompatible with service in the armed forces to have a disability—clearly, some physical disabilities make service on the frontline difficult, but there are other roles that people legally defined or self-identifying as having a disability might be able to serve in. Indeed, the most famous admiral in the Royal Navy’s history was Horatio Nelson, who had two disabilities: he had one arm and one eye. It is unfortunate to have gone for a prescriptive listing, and unnecessary, for the reasons that I set out at the start of my remarks. I will not detain the House with my take on the other amendments, as I am sure other hon. Members will wish to come in on them. However, my general assessment would be that the amendments that have been tabled are well intentioned but unnecessary, because the Bill already deals with the concerns they raise.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Member give way?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that an easy way to measure morale is through retention rates? We are not recruiting and retaining armed forces personnel to the degree we would wish. Part of the motivation for introducing this Bill to address general service welfare issues—I am making sure that I use the correct language about what the Armed Forces Commissioner role covers—is to have an operational impact by making it easier to recruit people to the armed forces. And once we train them at great expense, we must retain them for the longest possible period of viable service.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has raised some interesting specific policy issues that are clearly of concern to large numbers of people receiving armed forces pensions, but the Bill makes it clear—and Ministers have been very clear throughout its consideration—that the independent commissioner will decide for themselves what is a general service welfare matter, and therefore whether they want to look into the issues raised by amendments 9 and 10. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the apparent contradiction between Opposition Members insisting in amendment 8 that they want reassurance about the independence of the commissioner, and their wanting to predetermine the very specific topics that the commissioner would investigate through amendments 9 and 10?

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) for ensuring that this important debate takes place. I especially wanted to put on the record my support for the Government’s nuclear triple lock, which demonstrates our commitment to the strategic nuclear deterrent and the industries that support it. It is really important that countries that might threaten us understand the strong support there is in Parliament for the strategic nuclear deterrent and the role it plays in protecting our country. The nuclear triple lock commits us to the construction of the four new Dreadnought submarines in Barrow-in-Furness, which supports a huge number of high-quality, high-status apprenticeships and jobs—42,000 in, I believe, 2,500 suppliers across the UK directly and indirectly. The supply chain benefits are felt in every corner of the country. Dreadnought will enable Britain to maintain the continuous at-sea deterrent 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, securing protection for the UK and for our NATO allies, and ensuring that countries that might strategically threaten us understand that, ultimately, we have the protection of the nuclear deterrent. The triple lock also commits us to the delivery of all future upgrades needed for the submarines to patrol the waters and keep our country safe. The submarine fleet as a whole is a fundamental part of UK defence both militarily and industrially, and is about the integration between those two parts. We have to keep the line of production going in Barrow to produce successive generations of submarines to carry the nuclear deterrent, and in the interim there is the much-needed attack submarines—each generation of SSNs—that we produce in the same facility. The two are dovetailed together, which means that the UK stays at the leading edge of submarine design and manufacturing. I reiterate that this provides extremely high-quality and highly skilled jobs and ensures the economic viability of a corner of the country that would otherwise be economically isolated, quite apart from jobs that extend into other parts of the country, such as in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson). I welcome the commitment to AUKUS and the opportunities it will bring. AUKUS will create new contract opportunities for hundreds of small and medium-sized firms and 7,000 new jobs in UK shipyards and across the UK supply chain, as well as reinforce our international partnerships with two extremely important allies. I repeat my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar. The debate has been a really important opportunity for a range of Members to reiterate their support for the UK’s submarine fleet.

• 15 Jan 2025 · UK Submarine Fleet · Hansard source

  More

  Can the hon. Lady confirm something for me? Her remarks suggest that the Liberal Democrats now support the continuous at-sea nuclear deterrent, but I remember a review when Nick Clegg was the leader of the Liberal Democrats that suggested scrapping the continuous at-sea deterrent and using coastal-launched cruise missiles, or aircraft operating from aircraft carriers, which I thought was most dangerous. I would be very reassured if it is now the case that the Liberal Democrats support the continuous at-sea deterrent.

• 17 Dec 2024 · Off-road Bikes (Police Powers) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to give police powers to enter a private dwelling for the purpose of seizing an off-road bike that has been driven in an anti-social way or without insurance; and for connected purposes. Members across the House will be starkly aware of the menace of off-road bikes being driven in a dangerous and antisocial way, whether through parks, on pavements or in other public spaces, causing not just a nuisance, but in some cases damage and injury. I am introducing the Bill following conversations with local police in my constituency of North Durham. They have told me that there is a loophole in legislation around their power to seize these off-road vehicles. Off-road bikes include a range of vehicles, such as quad bikes and motorbikes. Electric motorbikes in particular have become increasingly popular throughout County Durham, especially in rural areas. I am sure, from talking to colleagues, that that is replicated in other parts of the country. Last week, it was reported that crimes involving e-bikes and e-scooters have soared by more than 730% in the past five years. Durham constabulary uses officers on similar bikes to respond to reports, and uses drones to identify suspects. I pay tribute to them for taking those steps to track down the perpetrators of these crimes. Frustratingly, while the location of bikes being driven illegally may be known to the police, the bikes cannot always be seized. That is why I am introducing this Bill. The Road Traffic Act 1988 allows the police to seize vehicles being driven without insurance. In many cases, vehicles being driven antisocially are not insured. More prevalent forms of road-related antisocial behaviour can be dealt with under the Police Reform Act 2002, which creates the offence of vehicles being used in a manner that causes alarm, distress or annoyance. The Act also gives police the power to seize vehicles used in that way. Under both Acts, the police can seize vehicles from any premises that they have reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be on, but not from private dwellings, except for garages, other structures or land belonging to a dwelling. The Bill I am introducing would amend the Road Traffic Act to remove the prohibition on the police seizing from a private dwelling a vehicle that has been driven without insurance. The Bill would also amend the 2002 Act to remove the prohibition on the police seizing from a private dwelling a vehicle that has been driven dangerously or in a way that “is causing, or is likely to cause, alarm, distress or annoyance to members of the public”. I recognise that the right to enter premises, particularly a private dwelling, is an intrusive power, and it must be subject to rigorous legal safeguards and used proportionately, but while finding the right balance will be challenging, I do not believe that the problem is insurmountable. My predecessor and I have had many constituents raise this issue, and Members from all parts of the House have also had the issue repeatedly raised by constituents. It is repeatedly raised with me on doorsteps across North Durham, and I know it will be familiar to colleagues across the House. Tackling antisocial behaviour was a key pledge in this Government’s manifesto at the general election, and I know that the Government take it seriously. I welcome the fact that they intend to legislate, through the upcoming crime and policing Bill, to give police the powers that they need to quickly destroy off-road bikes that are seized, but I hope that consideration will be given to making it easier for the police to seize those vehicles in the first place, which is what this private Member’s Bill seeks to do. The illegal, dangerous and antisocial use of off-road bikes has been intimidating local people for far too long, and we must give the police the powers that they need to properly tackle it. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Luke Akehurst, Shaun Davies, Graeme Downie, Michelle Welsh, Yuan Yang, Adam Jogee, Dave Robertson, Jo Platt, Jodie Gosling, Will Stone, Dr Allison Gardner and Antonia Bance present the Bill. Luke Akehurst accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on 7 March 2025 , and to be printed (Bill 151).