Police Funding: North-east England

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 13th October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Pete Wishart (in the Chair)]

My apologies for my tardiness. I call Luke Akehurst to move the motion.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered police funding in the North East.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, MrI know that I will not be the only Member in the room who was deeply disturbed to see the scenes emerging out of Cleveland earlier this year. I pay tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough.

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I, too, would like to send my thoughts to the families of PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough. Matthew was a coach at my son’s football club. His loss and the loss of Tom have been felt very deeply across our region, but their tragic deaths did not come out of the blue. They were a result of systematic underfunding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the funding formula has become so perverse, so warped, so broken, that funding is now inverse to the levels of crime we are seeing in our communities, and that the north-east and Cleveland are losing out as a result?

[Luke Akehurst]

My hon. Friend has anticipated the general thrust of my remarks. I join him in paying tribute to PCs Matthew Blades and Tom Clough, who lost their lives trying to protect the public.

While the Labour Government were right to provide an additional £2 million for Cleveland police in response, it struck me that the challenges facing Cleveland are not unique in the north-east region. They are faced across the Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria police forces areas. Police numbers were cut in the years after 2010. Public safety has therefore deteriorated, and our constituents are paying the price. It terrifies me to think that communities like those I represent could ever face a breakdown in law and order of the kind that occurred temporarily in Cleveland. It drew me to ask the question: why was our region left so under-resourced that it became vulnerable to such pressures?

Sadly, I can only conclude that the answer lies in an ideological choice by the Conservative party during the 14 years in which it was in government that places such as North Durham were not deserving of the necessary police resources, despite the severe social and economic challenges that our communities have faced following decades of deindustrialisation. Frankly, that decision should be regarded as nothing short of a national scandal. As I hope to demonstrate today, it has reduced safety, security and opportunity for the people of our region. The numbers paint a damning picture of how badly the last Conservative Government failed the north-east of England. Our three police forces all sit in the top four across England and Wales in terms of percentage reduction in police numbers between 2010 and 2024.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I wanted to come along to support him in his demands, along with his colleagues from the north-east. Unfortunately, I am sorry to say that police underfunding does not just happen in the north-east; it happens to us in Northern Ireland as well. Our police numbers are down and our funding is scarce. At the same time, in the last year, the Police Service of Northern Ireland has been able to detain and seize £0.5 million-worth of drugs. I am a great believer in community policing, and I know the hon. Gentleman has the same belief. Does he agree that it will suffer? It is the frontline and the face of the police. Does he feel that the Minister’s response must place a real emphasis on community policing as a priority?

[Luke Akehurst]

Obviously, I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s knowledge and expertise of the unique policing challenges in Northern Ireland, but I appreciate his support for north-east England in this debate and his points about community policing.

I do not believe it is a coincidence that, over the same period, Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria recorded the three largest increases in crime, excluding fraud, of any police force areas in England and Wales. Today, County Durham still has 120 fewer police officers than in 2010, equating to 102 full-time roles and a decrease of 6.7%. Across the whole north-east, 578 officers have been lost since 2010, a fall of 7.8%.

In stark contrast, the areas that saw the greatest increase in police numbers were Surrey, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and Thames Valley. If one were being cynical, one might point out that those are all areas that, on the whole, had Conservative MPs when the Conservative party was in government, and generally greater levels of prosperity and lower levels of policing demand than many of the communities represented in this room.

Although officer numbers across the country sit 1.5% higher than in 2010, the regional disparity in which communities benefited from increased police numbers is clear and has grown. That prompts the question: why did successive Tory Governments deem those places to be most deserving of frontline police presence? Why did politicians in Westminster at that time decide that working-class families in North Durham were less deserving of police protection than people living in more prosperous areas with lower crime levels, where police officer numbers were increased?

To compare the demand that different police forces face, we can look at the measure of police recorded crime per officer. In County Durham, there were 42 recorded crimes per officer in 2025-26, which is much higher than the national average of 36. If our county received the same funding per recorded crime as the national average, it would be £29 million a year better funded. Not only are policing numbers on the ground lower than 2010, but our area faces more incidents requiring police time.

During July 2026, Durham Constabulary received more than 10,000 emergency 999 calls, an increase of 11% compared with the same month the previous year. Demand remained high throughout the summer, with crime-related incidents more than 14% above normal levels in August. Antisocial behaviour related to off-road bikes, e-bikes and scooters poses another challenge in policing in County Durham.

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy), who cannot be here, has been campaigning on this issue over the past year, as have many others in the room. I commend her for highlighting the support that police officers in our area need to tackle this issue blighting our communities. Just last week, she observed 70 illegal bikes and scooters being crushed after being confiscated by Durham Constabulary.

Police chiefs in our area tell me that there were more than 1,000 more incidents each month over the summer than for the same period in 2025, representing two full days of additional demand each month. In particular, high levels of deprivation in our county translate into higher police demand related to mental health crises, drug or alcohol abuse and cases of missing children.

In the Durham and Northumbria police force areas, officers face the especially challenging combination of high levels of deprivation and extremely rural areas. It takes more money to police rural areas, due to additional travel costs and the need to maintain smaller, less efficient police buildings. I hope the Minister will set out what consideration has been given to the additional needs of police forces in rural areas that also have high levels of deprivation, and how the Government are supporting them with the unique challenges that that combination poses.

Although the Durham force has managed to maintain performance in responding to public requests for help, despite severe challenges, in other areas demand is affecting performance. According to the latest inspection, Durham had the highest rate of repeat domestic abuse incidents per thousand of the population of anywhere in England and Wales. Of 188 priority domestic abuse incidents, 118 did not meet the attendance target. That is shocking evidence of the scale of demand facing our police force and why it needs the resources to do more to protect vulnerable people and prevent abuse. Can the Minister please set out what assessment the Government have made of this particular problem and say how they will ensure that those experiencing domestic abuse in my constituency and across the region receive the same level of support as domestic abuse victims anywhere else in the country?

My message to my North Durham constituents is this: I will not allow our area to be denied the support that it needs and deserves from the state. A Labour Government will always stand up for our area and I look forward to hearing the Minister set out how we are doing that later on in the debate.

Having told Members what the numbers show, let me tell them what the impact is on typical constituents in North Durham. For a family in Stanley, it means worrying about their children being the victims of antisocial behaviour on their walk home from school. For a small business on Chester-le-Street Front Street, it means accepting that shoplifting is an inevitable cost of doing business. For a farmer near Lanchester, it means having no support to fend off perpetrators of agricultural crime who damage or steal their expensive machinery. For residents of Craghead, it means worrying that stretched police resources might prevent the prompt response and support they deserve when a crime occurs.

The consequences of stretched policing resources were hammered home to me in Parliament just last month when I hosted a group of women and girls from the Just for Women Centre in Stanley and St Bede’s school in Lanchester. In our discussion, the group highlighted their public safety concerns, recalling that they no longer feel safe walking home at night. They were clear that rather than simply catching perpetrators when awful crimes happen, our priority should be to prevent harm in the first place. I firmly believe that visible neighbourhood policing has an important part to play in preventing violence against women and girls, and in helping women to feel safe in their communities. I would be grateful if the Minister could specifically reflect on the safety of women and girls in the north-east of England and update the House on efforts in our region to tackle the scourge of VAWG and on any assessment that the Government have made of the gendered impact of the previous policing cuts in our area.

Of course, policing is not just about officers patrolling the streets in our neighbourhood; when the worst happens, it is also important to have enough officers in the response team to deal with the fallout. Too often, police shortages have meant that when major incidents occur, officers are pulled out of neighbourhood policing to respond, leaving our communities with a reduced police presence. In County Durham, such support for response teams from neighbourhood policing was provided on 129 occasions in August and 233 occasions in September. Will the Minister set out the Government’s thinking on the balance between neighbourhood policing and response teams, in particular explaining how she will ensure that when incidents occur, the towns and villages in my constituency and across our region are not stripped of their neighbourhood policing?

I now come to the rallying cry of this debate. As MPs from across the north-east of England, we are here today to call for more resources from central Government to deal with the challenges that our communities face. What we need is recognition that, because of decisions by previous Tory Governments, we are starting from a lower baseline of officer numbers than we should be. That is why I am calling for Ministers to deliver additional police numbers to the north-east on top of what is already promised through the neighbourhood policing guarantee, to reverse the cuts to policing in our area that have compromised our safety since 2010.

I welcome the Labour Government allowing Durham exceptional flexibility over our policing precept in order to prevent further avoidable cuts to our policing presence. I commend our police and crime commissioner, Joy Allen, for her consistent advocacy for policing across County Durham and Darlington, and for taking the difficult decision to propose a modest precept increase to ensure that residents are protected from crime and ASB. However, she has rightly pointed out that because our area has a low council tax base, the amount of money that we can raise locally to invest in policing is very limited. About 70% of County Durham properties are in council tax bands A and B, and I note that I am standing next to a proponent of council tax reform for those reasons, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). Although a 1% council tax increase generates £1.9 million in Surrey, the same change in County Durham would raise only £500,000. The safety of my constituents should not depend on the value of property in their postcode. In fact, it is areas such as ours that need investment most desperately.

I know that the Police Federation, which represents 145,000 serving officers, has highlighted that reliance on council tax precepts risks a postcode lottery of funding. The Police Federation has called for a long-term funding settlement that takes that into account. Does the Minister think it is fair that local areas are expected to raise money for policing themselves when the areas that have the least ability to raise money are the same that, because of their levels of deprivation, need a police presence most?

In making this case, I am optimistic about our Labour Government, who have already shown that they care about these issues and want to deliver a fairer settlement for the north-east. Nationally, the Labour Government have been robust in making the case for a visible police presence on our streets to improve public safety, backed by a neighbourhood policing guarantee to deliver a named police officer for every community. Police funding is increasing, and after the unrest in Middlesbrough the Government acted swiftly and firmly to deliver more funding for Cleveland’s police force. The Home Secretary is also committed to a wider review of the police funding formula to ensure fairness. Will the Minister confirm when that review will happen, whether it will consider incidents of crime and ASB and whether we will see a real cash increase in funding for our north-east police forces during this Parliament?

As the Minister responds, I urge her not to lose sight of the fact that the north-east is still dealing with the consequences of years of disproportionate policing cuts. I hope she can outline what role that context plays in the Government’s thinking on the fairness of the current formulas, and how she is ensuring that this review properly takes into account the policing demand and lack of funding so clearly presented by our region.

Our constituents are not asking for special treatment; they demand that they are afforded the same level of protection as people elsewhere in the country. The safety of a family in Stanley, Chester-le-Street, Annfield Plain, Sacriston, Pelton, South Moor or Craghead should matter to politicians just as much as that of a family anywhere else in the country. That is why the Government must ensure a fair funding settlement that accounts for the challenges facing our communities to ensure policing that the public can have confidence in. Today, we are sending a clear message: the Government must do more to ensure that policing in the north-east of England is adequately funded to deliver for our constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

I am grateful to the Minister for her remarks and for getting to the crux of the matter, which is that the funding formula was ripped up under previous Governments. I am grateful to the shadow Ministers, the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson), for at least understanding that the problem is low levels of funding in the north-east, but I regret that they were not able to bring themselves to explain that Conservative Governments, and a coalition Government including the Lib Dems, ripped up the funding formula.

I am grateful to my hon. Friends on the Government Benches for the eloquent way in which they have expressed the extreme pressures that policing is under in the communities that they represent, and some of the tragic events that have happened partly due to that pressure. With that, I am conscious of the need to sit down before the turn of the hour.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered police funding in the North East.

National Security (State Threats) Bill

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

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.

Asylum Policy

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

Order. Before I call the next Member, can I just make a plea that we keep questions and answers concise?

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

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

[Shabana Mahmood]

The totality of the reforms will, we believe, lead to less pressure on accommodation, so I think the short answer to my hon. Friend’s question on HMOs is yes. I recognise the problems he notes, because HMOs are a big problem in my constituency too.

Asylum Hotels: Migrant Criminal Activity

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Diana Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman’s comments on behalf of his constituents were measured, and he is absolutely right that our first thoughts should be with those affected by what happened in Epping—the victims and their families. It is important for the House to note that. I also want to reiterate that this Government are committed to closing all asylum hotels by the end of this Parliament.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome the shadow Home Secretary’s concern about crimes linked to the asylum system—that is a concern held across the House. Why does the Minister think the Conservatives and Reform voted against the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which allows the tagging of asylum seekers who pose a threat to public safety?

[Dame Diana Johnson]

I have absolutely no idea; it is for the shadow Home Secretary to explain that one. Clearly, I would expect all hon. and right hon. Members in the House to want to do everything to keep our communities safe.

Immigration

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

rose—

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

I cannot give way—I have no time.

Ordinary Labour voters have good, liberal values, but just now they have a party that is not representing their views. That is why they are moving on.

In Scotland, we take on Reform. We are one of the few parties across the United Kingdom that has steadied its own position, and we have even improved it slightly. There is a big gap between us and Reform. That is because we take on Reform’s arguments and we do not appease the party or go on to its agenda. I encourage Labour colleagues to think about that.

We now have an immigration policy that is the exact opposite of what we need in Scotland, and it is contrary to our national interest. Scotland is in the early stages of the population and demography crisis, and it will only get worse because of what this Government are going to impose on us. We will soon have too few working-age people available to look after an ever-increasing older population.

For all three parties—Labour, the Conservatives and Reform—immigration is a burden and is out of control. For us in Scotland, it is essential to the health of our workforce and our economy. That is why we will never stop calling for a separate Scottish visa. We need the tools in our country to face up to our crisis. I will leave the Government to get on with their grotesque race to the bottom and to pander to Reform in a vain attempt to get some votes, but Scotland does not need their new “island of strangers” policy. It is contrary to what we want, so please leave us right out of it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to respond to this important debate, which I welcome, because it is time to restore control over the UK’s immigration system. Coincidently, that is the title of our 76-page White Paper, which is a serious plan, and one that the Conservatives should have thought more about bringing forward when they were in government.

Let me reassert the fundamental point made by my hon. Friend the Minister for Border Security and Asylum in her opening speech: the Government are picking up the pieces after years of chaos and dysfunction. The Conservatives can talk all they want, but they cannot rewrite history. When it comes to small boats, the worst day, the worst week, the worst month and the worst year all took place on their watch in 2022—after the Rwanda deal had been signed. They gave us record net migration, they gave us record small boat arrivals and they gave us record numbers of asylum hotels, so we will take no lectures from them.

It bears repeating that what we inherited was, by every possible measure, a failing system. Net migration had risen to record levels, driven in large part by overseas recruitment, despite the public being assured that it would come down. Order and control utterly vanished from the legal immigration system as net migration has quadrupled in recent years to record highs. That was at the same time as investment in training went down: total investment in training per employee fell by 19% in the decade to 2022. It is this Government, in the spring statement, who announced £625 million to go towards skills training. Those important points were made by hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash).

I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for talking about this issue. There is a debate to be had about cause and consequence, but we cannot deny that apprenticeships in engineering halved while visas doubled on the Conservatives’ watch. That is a serious issue, which the White Paper is tackling. I urge the Conservative party to engage with the substance of that White Paper and the serious reforms we need to make.

The dramatic increase in net migration has had serious and far-reaching implications across a range of areas, from public services and community cohesion to housing stock, the economy and our domestic labour market. Perhaps most damagingly of all, it has badly dented the confidence of our constituents, who want an immigration system that is fair, controlled and managed. They want to see opportunity for themselves and for their families.

Migration is an important part of our national story—none of us should deny that—because for generations people from all over the world have come to Britain to live, to study and to work, from members of the Windrush generation who helped rebuild our country following the second world war, to the doctors and nurses working in our NHS. Indeed, they enrich our society and culture, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) outlined, but recognising the value and contribution of legal migration is not the same as having no controls. For far too long, a persistent and abject failure to exert control has undermined the system, with grave consequences. That is the situation we inherited on legal migration, and we must now have the important debate about why that has been the case and what we must do to bring it down.

The picture on illegal migration and border security was no better. Under the Conservatives, small boat crossings grew in number from a few hundred in 2018 to tens of thousands. Hotel use peaked with 56,000 asylum seekers in 400 hotels in the autumn of 2023 when the shadow Home Secretary was at the Home Office.

[Luke Akehurst]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. This has not been touched upon in the debate, but there is an issue of asylum seekers not just in hotels but in houses in multiple occupancy. That is causing a lot of community cohesion problems, with unscrupulous landlords buying up HMOs in cheap terraced housing in the towns and villages of County Durham. Does the Minister accept that that is also a problem that rose and rose under the previous Government?

[Seema Malhotra]

That is indeed an issue that the Minister for Border Security and Asylum is working on with local authorities, so that there are caps and we have a well-managed process.

National Security Act 2023: Charges

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I thank the hon. Member for her comments and her support for the police and the intelligence and security agencies. She asked about the IRGC. In his report, Jonathan Hall states specifically that, under the existing legal framework, there are significant challenges when it comes to trying to take restriction or banning action against state-backed and state organisations—there are legal challenges to doing that—and he refers particularly to the IRGC in that context. That is why he set out the need for new powers, and we are committed to bringing those in. Obviously, we will need to follow the process by bringing in the new legislation, but I continue to be concerned about the IRGC.

The hon. Member is also right to highlight threats from Russia and the different kinds of threats and challenges from China. In his report, Jonathan Hall identifies other areas where powers could be strengthened, including stop and search, cordons and post-charge questioning in specific circumstances. We will be looking at the detail in order to take forward all the recommendations and the issues that are raised.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The charging of Iranian nationals raises alarming questions about the extent of Iranian state activity in the UK. We know that Tehran uses the IRGC to push its influence around the world, including by supporting attacks against Jewish people and Israelis around the world. What assessment have the Government made of the threat posed to the British Jewish community by Iranian operatives? What steps are being taken to protect the community and eliminate those threats?

[Yvette Cooper]

My hon. Friend is right to mention the importance of security for our Jewish communities, which should never be compromised either domestically or by any kind of foreign state influence or activity. That is why we work very closely with the Community Security Trust on a range of issues around support and protection for the Jewish communities across the UK, and why we take immensely seriously any malign Iranian influences that are targeted towards Jewish communities.

Immigration System

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

This Government have increased returns since the election; there have been 24,000 returns since the election. That includes an increase of more than 20% in failed asylum cases. It also includes action we are taking to deal with people who claim to have lost their papers and to ensure that we can deliver those returns. We will continue to support other policies, including working with the EU on issues around returns hubs. The Conservatives had two years to run their Rwanda scheme. They spent £700 million and sent four volunteers. That was a waste of money, a failure for the taxpayer and a failed delivery.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I welcome this statement, particularly the measures outlined to streamline deportation processes and ensure that they are fast, fair and effective. Can the Secretary of State remind the House what happened to levels of removals, including of foreign national offenders, on the Conservatives’ watch?

[Yvette Cooper]

Returns dropped by around a third under the previous Conservative Government. I think that is very damaging; I think the rules should be respected and enforced. We have inherited a system in which it seems the only people they tried to remove or to get information on were those who had been convicted and had prison sentences. We believe that we need information much more widely and a faster process to ensure that the rules and the laws are upheld.

Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on both counts.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

The concern is not just the glorification of violence against MPs, and the impact that has on the families of MPs who have been murdered in terrorist incidents, including Jo Cox and Sir David Amess; the same band has expressed support for Hamas and Hezbollah, which are proscribed groups, and that has an impact on the feeling of safety and security in the Jewish community. The rhetoric that the band uses represents a return to an ugly rhetoric about communal differences in Northern Ireland—a return that I know will cause fear and pain to hon. Members from Northern Ireland who lost friends and colleagues due to terrorism.

My main concern, however, is about the impact on democracy as a whole. Calls for violence against politicians of any party have a chilling effect on the willingness of any normal citizen to think, “I could run for council,” or “I could run to be an MP.” They think that they will put themselves and their family at threat of violence. Does the Minister agree that it is vital for the future of democracy in this country that people feel that they can engage in public life without putting their life and safety in danger?

[Dan Jarvis]

My hon. Friend made two really important points. I completely agree with his remarks at the beginning of his question. He is also absolutely right to raise concerns about the chilling effect that there could well be on our democracy. I am sure that all of us in this place know exceptional people who, for reasons that we all understand, have decided not to step forward to serve in public life. This House, local councils and police and crime commissioners are not getting people who could otherwise make a significant contribution to public life.

It is a tragedy for our country that some people might feel that they should not step forward because of the risks, pressures, harassment and intimidation that go with service in public life. That is precisely why we take the defending democracy taskforce so seriously, and are working with colleagues across Government, in local government and in the devolved Administrations to ensure that people do not feel that politics is too dangerous for them. It would be terrible for our country if we got to that point. I am absolutely determined, as is the Home Secretary, to make sure that the defending democracy taskforce is as successful as possible in ensuring that nobody feels that they do not want to step forward because of the risks.

Antisocial Behaviour and Illegal Bikes

Luke Akehurst Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Antonia Bance]

I absolutely agree. Digging up pavements, creating ruts, noise and disturbance, and shooting around the corner with no warning are precisely the sorts of things that may make elderly people afraid for their safety when they are out and about, which is something that none of us wants. That is why, as we promised when we stood for election, we will recruit 13,000 extra neighbourhood police officers. Every area will have a named officer. Neighbourhood policing is coming back and we are returning funding to frontline policing, with an overall police funding increase of £1.1 billion this year. In my area of the west midlands, that is £43 million, and I hope that there is more to come.

Our new Crime and Policing Bill will give police new powers to immediately seize these bikes, which cause havoc in our communities.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend for supporting my ten-minute rule Bill about police powers on this issue, which I presented in November. I appreciate that the particular powers that I asked for were not exactly where Ministers wanted to go, but I like to think that they have been inspired by my Bill in choosing the additional powers that they have put in the flagship Crime and Policing Bill. I am thinking particularly of the measure that removes the need for the police to issue a warning before seizing these illegal vehicles when they are used antisocially. I thank the other hon. Members who supported the ten-minute rule Bill, and I thank hon. Members for continuing to highlight this very important issue.

[Antonia Bance]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. His work and leadership on this issue are exemplary, and I know that Ministers will have taken note of what he said when presenting his ten-minute rule Bill. Our Crime and Policing Bill will say, “No more warnings” and “No more selling them back to the people they were pinched from”—it is time to crush illegal bikes used for antisocial behaviour. This Government are taking real action, just as we promised at the election, to stop these bikes making people’s lives a misery, so that people living nearby can enjoy Brunswick Park, Jubilee Park, Victoria Park, the Cracker and the Railer, Sheepwash nature reserve, our playing fields, our towpaths and all our green spaces across Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley.

At the election, I stood on doorstep after doorstep, sometimes with bikes roaring down the street behind me, telling residents that Labour would stop them. I am prouder than I can tell you to say: today we will.