Police Funding: North-east England

Alan Strickland Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for securing this crucial debate. Building on the powerful speeches by other hon. Members, I want to set out three reasons as a County Durham MP why this review of police funding is so important.

First, we must recognise the additional costs of policing areas that are both semi-rural and post-industrial, such as my constituency. Communities like the ones I am proud to represent have a strong industrial heritage of coal mining and other industry, but it is often forgotten across the public sector that they are, at the same time, largely rural. Of the population in County Durham, 43% lives in rural areas, and my constituency is entirely villages and small towns. They are often not farming communities, but former pit villages that still experience the serious, scarring effects of major losses in employment and social infrastructure in the ‘70s and ‘80s, while at the same time experiencing significant geographical isolation.

Those issues have caused a growth in county lines, organised crime and other very serious issues. Durham constabulary is dealing with complex problems across a sprawling county, which creates obvious policing challenges. Will the Minister consider how police funding can better take into account the challenge of increasingly serious criminal issues that one might expect in an urban area, but in rural settings that are much more expensive to police, and where effective neighbourhood policing, which can be important in preventing crime, is more difficult?

Secondly, there are ongoing challenges of deprivation in County Durham, without enough wider public sector support. We need to see it better reflected in funding. Durham constabulary works in communities with families affected by higher levels of complex need, intergenerational unemployment and poverty. For example, parts of Ferryhill, in my constituency, are in the top 1% of the most deprived communities in the country. Half of children are on free school meals. That brings significant challenges—social challenges and lack of opportunity—and with that comes greater crime, criminal justice issues and other problems.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham rightly pointed out, that creates a dual challenge for the police in my area, with more difficult issues to tackle while a higher number of households in the very lowest council tax bands reduce the funding available. The complexity of some of the families that Durham officers are working with can mean that officers are not just dealing with criminal justice matters but have increasingly had to step in to fill gaps left by cuts to social services, mental health support and addiction and homelessness services caused by the deep austerity cuts of the last Conservative Government. Our police officers in Durham are to be congratulated for the myriad ways that they step up every day to support residents. But the message should be clear: the police cannot be expected to do everything.

I would be grateful if the Minister could set out how the Home Office can work with other Departments across Government to support more investment in family intervention projects, schemes to reduce youth reoffending and other measures outside of policing that could reduce and prevent crime.

My final point is about the growth in poorly regulated private landlords who too often allow crime and antisocial behaviour by their tenants to go unchecked. This is again creating more complex policing problems. I particularly urge Ministers across Government to put more pressure on authorities such as Reform-led Durham county council that are simply failing to act in many cases where irresponsible landlords are allowing their properties to become magnets for crime and disorder, often in previously quiet streets that had very low levels of crime. This is coming up again and again in my constituency. We know that council enforcement teams have got powers to tackle landlords who are refusing to take ASB seriously, but too often this simply is not happening.

I am pleased to report to the Minister that residents facing these serious incidents who I have met recently have been incredibly complimentary about the police force for responding quickly, but it is clear that the force is bearing significant costs, which the wider public sector could be helping with more effectively.

To finish, I support the calls for a review of funding. I would also like to echo the thanks given by colleagues to all serving police officers, but let us see what more we can do to make sure that our brave men and women in uniform have the proper resources they need.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Alan Strickland Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I strongly support the change to the law being proposed today, to better protect our nation and our fellow citizens from those working for foreign states that want to disrupt and attack our way of life. While there has been debate today about the timeline, I personally welcome the swift and decisive approach being taken to protecting our national security. As we have heard from colleagues across the House, state-backed threats are evolving incredibly rapidly, so it is critical that legislation passed by this House adapts at the same speed and keeps pace with the complex threat environment. If that puts me at the hawkish end of the political spectrum, to use the words of the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden), that is a badge I will wear with pride. Hopefully, through our discussions today, the House can send the clearest possible message: anyone who supports those backed by hostile states, glorifies or promotes their messages of hate, or is in the pay of foreign states that wish us ill can and should expect to face the full force of the British law. The Government and this House must always take firm action to defend our way of life and protect our citizens.

Why is this Bill so important? As we heard eloquently from my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), there is clear evidence that hostile states are actively trying to undermine our society by paying proxies to bring violence to the streets of Britain. We have seen this in the attacks on Iranian dissidents by criminal groups linked to Iran’s security services; in the attacks on Jewish volunteer ambulance services in London, for which an Islamist terror group with links to the Iranian regime has publicly claimed responsibility; and in the attacks on Ukrainian-linked property and the Prime Minister’s private residence by proxies linked to the Russian state. These acts are appalling, shocking and unacceptable. That is why I am pleased that, in addition to introducing the measures that we are discussing today, the UK Government and 23 other countries issued a joint statement on 10 June that condemned the egregious actions we have seen across Europe, North America and Australia by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and other organisations. As the statement said powerfully,

“Attempts to kill, kidnap, harass, intimidate, or otherwise attack people on our soil, undermines national sovereignty and international norms. These actions must stop immediately.”

What action must we take to tackle these serious and growing threats? As Members across the House have set out, the Bill before us seeks to give our law enforcement agencies and security services greater powers and flexibility to address these serious matters. The Bill includes three new offences related to supporting, assisting, or receiving benefits from activists or organisations that are threatening the UK. As colleagues have said, it builds on existing legislation dealing with non-state terror groups, following the recommendations of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation.

In a small way, I have seen for myself the growing challenges that we face in the wider threat environment. I am a member of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which involved the Royal Air Force last year and the Royal Navy this year. Together with colleagues from across the House, I have had the privilege of meeting senior military and security personnel at home and abroad. Having visited operational bases here at home, and been briefed by British and NATO force leaders in Europe, it is clear to me just how complex and rapidly evolving the range of threats we face in our country is. It is clear that conflicts on foreign shores are playing out on British soil. It is clear that the range and sophistication of the attacks we face—physical attacks, cyber-attacks and interference in democracy—have grown. It is clear that the military, the security services, the police and other law enforcement bodies needs to work in an increasingly sophisticated way to deal with those hybrid threats. It is clear that hostile activities from state and non-state actors are increasingly linked, and that our laws must evolve quickly to give those tasked with defending us the tools that they need in the modern age.

Before I conclude, I will raise some issues with the Minister; I would be very grateful if she would address them in her closing remarks. The first picks up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, and by other Members, about public knowledge. The tactics that we have been discussing are intentionally hybrid and hidden; they are designed to complicate and obfuscate, and in some cases, it takes our security services many months to work out exactly what is going on, and to give confident public statements. As right hon. and hon. Members across this House have said, it is critical that we can better explain the nature of the threat to our citizens, residents and constituents, so that the significant investment that we are making in our military and security services is understood, but also so that citizens can help defend themselves and this country, including from individual cyber-attacks and other measures.

My second question, which draws on a point made by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), is about integration. Given the complexity of what we face and the need for the police, the military, the security services and others—not just in our country, but across allied nations—to work together in a much more sophisticated way, are we confident that those organisations have the necessary resources, and is the Minister confident that they have the freedom to break down bureaucratic silos and work across organisational boundaries to get this done?

I hope that across the House today, we can be clear that state-backed aggression, attacks and disruption are not just attacks on people, property and organisations, as appalling as those things are; they are attacks on our way of life, on our values, and on democracy itself. I hope we can unite to show that we will take action—decisive action—and will take it today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alan Strickland Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We will be appointing a Windrush commissioner. This is something I feel strongly about. The hon. Member will know that as the Select Committee Chair, I asked many questions about the Windrush scandal. It is a stain not just on the Home Office, but on the British state, and it is important we right those wrongs.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

T3.   In 14 years of Tory government, police numbers were decimated across our country, including in my constituency. Durham constabulary lost 408 officers, a third of its strength. What steps will the Government take to put police officers back on our streets?

[The Minister for Policing, Fire and Crime Prevention (Dame Diana Johnson)]

As has been said a number of times this afternoon, the neighbourhood policing guarantee means 13,000 police officers, PCSOs and specials back on our streets to keep us all safe, after the reduction in police officer numbers of, I think, over 20,000 by the Conservative party.