Luke Akehurst
MP for North Durham · Labour · United Kingdom
“I add to the tributes to Sir George Howarth. All of us who served with him on the Labour party’s national executive committee very much admired his courage in taking on and rooting out antisemitism. I welcome the success of our forces in the middle east in counter-UAS work during the recent conflict there.”
“I am particularly concerned about missile and drone threats to the UK, so I welcome the £790 million in the DIP for additional air and missile defence capabilities. Could the Secretary of State give a little more detail about what additional capabilities will be added to our existing layered air defences?”
“Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey); the promoted Minister for the Armed Forces, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Sandher-Jones); and the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, my hon.”
“Russia could aim to take advantage of perceived societal weaknesses and political divisions, knocking us out of a conflict early by making continuing to fight a political impossibility. I appreciate that I have taken quite a lot of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I can see you indicating that I should wind up.”
“I know that it behoves Members like me, who have consistently made the argument for increased defence spending, to also make the argument for where that money should come from. I understand the political point the Opposition are making about looking to welfare for this funding.”
“However, when compared with the immediate need to keep our country safe, it is hard to see why those projects ought to be prioritised in the short term over ensuring that our armed forces have the kit that they need to defend the nation from threats that are here or coming in the near future.”
The complete record
Every one of 349 lines we hold for Luke Akehurst, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 7.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. Would the right hon. Gentleman be able to give the Committee an idea of the annual cost of a King’s counsel, so that we can have an idea of what percentage of the proposed budget that would be? Why he is choosing to be prescriptive about the need for this particular element of staffing? That seems to contradict earlier pushes in amendments to safeguard the independence of the commissioner. If we are appointing a commissioner, surely we should trust them to determine the configuration of their staff.”
“On one level, I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman for finding an opportunity to raise this issue in the context of the Bill Committee. It is one for which I have a huge amount of sympathy, as I represent a constituency with a large number of retired service personnel. On the other hand, it is a little cheeky to use a Bill Committee to raise a substantive policy issue that could have been raised on the Floor of the House—perhaps in Defence questions.”
“I am sorry—I will be as brief as I can. I am getting used to being brief. What led the right hon. Gentleman to suspect that this issue might be in any way excluded? I hope the Minister will clarify that the Bill is designed to be permissive and broad, and to allow the commissioner to define what a general welfare issue might be. I do not think there is any attempt to exclude—”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. I will try to be more pithy this time. I thought there was a separate proposal for a veterans’ commissioner. Should not matters that affect former service personnel after the point when technically they have ceased to serve, or their families if they are deceased, sit in the purview of a veterans’ commissioner, not the Armed Forces Commissioner?”
“Would the hon. Gentleman not concede that morale is important to being able to deliver lethal force, and that this kind of system, which enables welfare issues to be addressed, might contribute to higher morale? In the event of combat, such morale could mean that troops perform better.”
“The post office in Chester-le-Street has been at the heart of the community in North Durham since 1936, and offers vital services to my constituents. Does the Minister agree that keeping those services accessible is vital to keeping footfall on our high streets and encouraging other businesses to locate themselves there?”
“The first responsibility of our Government is to protect our people and defend our freedom. I fear that further delay in outlining the action we are going to take and, crucially, the budget to deliver it, brings only greater risk of catastrophic failure in fulfilling that fundamental responsibility. Addressing that capability gap needs to be an urgent political, funding and industrial priority for Government. I hope the Minister feels that this debate helps her demonstrate the political support in Parliament for tackling it.”
“Our armed forces are among the best and most capable in the world but, unfortunately, the defence they can provide today against significant airborne threats to the homeland, such as missile attack, is very limited. We have highly capable equipment but not enough of it to protect the significant amount of critical infrastructure across the length and breadth of the country, and to defend troops deployed on operations overseas. Principally, that is because we spent most of the previous few decades focused on expeditionary overseas missions rather than active homeland defence. We have been too slow to adapt to the changing threat picture. The lack of active homeland defence is fundamentally a strategic failure. I hope the ongoing strategic defence review will deem it such and outline how it can be urgently addressed.”
“Ministers will be acutely aware of everything I have said but, as I said at the start of the debate, I do not think many of our colleagues, including across Government outside the Ministry of Defence, appreciate the scale or seriousness of the issue. The defence analyst Francis Tusa has compared the current situation with that found by General Frederick Pile in 1937 when he was appointed commander of the 1st Anti-Aircraft Division. General Pile highlighted the severe lack of anti-aircraft batteries to defend civilian and military locations. His analysis led to an increase in personnel in anti-aircraft roles and the mass production of anti-aircraft artillery.”
“The previous Government’s early retirement of E-3 Sentry left a capability gap in airborne early warning and control, which has only been compounded by delays in the E-7 Wedgetail programme. Airborne early warning and control will be crucial in monitoring the western and south-western coasts of the UK, where ground-based radar is limited, to detect potential submarine-launched threats. We also need to take seriously the potential for radar evasion along the east coast, particularly by UAVs or projectiles passing through wind farms. The Government are actively working on deconflicting windfarms and existing air defence surveillance systems. I would be grateful if the Minister could speak briefly about that.”
“I am aware that the UK signed a letter of intent to launch the integrated air and missile DIAMOND initiative in October, alongside six allies: France, Germany, Latvia, Norway, Poland and Sweden. That is clearly welcome, as it shows the seriousness with which the threat is recognised, but there is no clear timetable of key milestones associated with the DIAMOND initiative. I would be grateful if the Minister could provide an update. It is not just our ability to take down hostile airborne threats that we must consider; there is also our ability to detect them in the first place. It is no secret that we have only a limited number of fixed and mobile land-based radars on UK soil, which would probably be among the first targets vulnerable to air attack.”
“Belgium, Cyprus, Estonia, France and Hungary are jointly buying around 1,500 Mistral short-range air defence—SHORAD—missiles. Latvia and Estonia are jointly procuring IRIS-T for medium-range interception, and Finland has ordered the David’s Sling system. To fill capability gaps and ensure interoperability, we should be working with our European NATO partners on joint procurement. The Government have said that the UK is engaging with the European Sky Shield initiative, which seeks to establish a ground-based integrated European air defence system with anti-ballistic missile capability. There are clearly different views across Europe about which systems it should comprise to ensure not only interoperability but to develop and maintain Europe’s defence industrial base.”
“In the past decade, France and Italy have jointly developed the medium-range SAMP/T air defence system, which can intercept ballistic missiles, drones, fighter jets and other targets. In September, France ordered eight new SAMP/T NG systems, capable of intercepting hypersonic missiles. The first ones will enter service in 2026. Italy also ordered 10 of these new systems, which will utilise upgraded Aster 30 missiles. Many European countries already utilise the American Patriot air defence system. To bolster that, existing operators Germany, the Netherlands, Romania, Spain and Sweden are procuring 1,000 additional Patriot missiles between them. Poland has signed contracts worth £4 billion with UK industry to deliver the NAREW next-generation air defence system.”
“We know tragically from the war in Ukraine that Russia has no compunction about hitting civilian targets such as hospitals, shopping centres or concentrations of housing, purely to terrorise the civilian population and degrade national morale. The previous Government’s integrated and defence reviews slowly started to acknowledge the threat from air attack. The 2023 Defence Command Paper described the threat as being “at its most acute for over thirty years”. Clearly, the resources have not yet been put into upscaling equipment and filling the gaps in capability that we need to counter that. Other European countries have been taking the issue seriously and placing orders.”
“To consider only the military critical national infrastructure that would be vulnerable to air attack and would need adequate protection, we have the three main Royal Navy operating bases at Portsmouth, Devonport and Clyde; seven RAF bases, including Lossiemouth, Marham and Coningsby; and the major Army garrisons. We have radar sites, ammunition depots, and overseas sites, including the sovereign base areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia in Cyprus, which are in range of Iranian ballistic missiles, unlike sites in the UK. Major defence industrial sites would also presumably be at risk. Then there is a plethora of significant civilian infrastructure that could be targeted, including nuclear power stations, large transport hubs, industrial sites and Government buildings.”
“That is very welcome, but given that we have only a few Type 45s in service at any one time, the coverage that they can provide in defence of homeland targets against ballistic missile threats is limited. To defend London against ballistic missile threats, a Type 45 destroyer would have to be permanently moored in the Thames estuary, which would mean that it could not do anything else. In particular, it would be unavailable for its primary role of protecting one of our aircraft carriers from air and missile threats. That alone makes the case that some form of new or upgraded ground-based air defence system that provides protection against threats, including ballistic and hypersonic missiles, is needed.”
“I know the business case for more Sky Sabre launchers has been approved, but orders have not yet been made. Bizarrely, no business case has been made for ordering more missiles for Sky Sabre, despite such orders taking longer to fulfil. Crucially, Sky Sabre cannot defend against ballistic or hypersonic missile threats—it was not designed to do so. The only defence the UK currently has against ballistic missiles is Sea Viper, which utilises Aster 30 missiles on our six Type 45 destroyers. Sea Viper can currently track potential threats at ranges of up to 250 miles, and eliminate them within about 70 miles. I know that Sea Viper is being upgraded over the next decade, with initial operation capability in 2028.”
“The UK’s current air defence capabilities against such threats are primarily made up of Sea Viper on Type 45 destroyers, utilising Aster missiles, Sky Sabre ground-based air defence, and quick reaction alert Typhoon fighter jets. Typhoons on quick reaction alert at Coningsby and Lossiemouth can intercept potential hostile airborne threats, including aircraft and UAVs. The Sky Sabre ground-based air defence system can intercept multiple cruise missiles, aircraft and UAVs up to 25 km away. However, there are only about six Sky Sabre systems in service with the British Army, and at least two are deployed overseas, to the Falkland Islands and Poland. Clearly, many more such systems would be needed to provide sufficient cover to a larger number of critical military and civilian national infrastructure sites across the UK.”
“In October, Iran launched almost 200 ballistic missiles against Israel following its previous attack involving 300 missiles and drones in April, but, unlike the UK, Israel has a sophisticated and multi-layered air and missile defence system to counter wide-ranging aerial threats. The Iron Dome intercepts short-range rockets of the type fired by Hamas and Hezbollah. David’s Sling can intercept medium to long-range rockets, as well as ballistic and cruise missiles, and Arrow 2 and Arrow 3 can intercept long-range ballistic missiles. Recently, we saw the deployment of US THAAD—terminal high altitude area defence—batteries to bolster defences against ballistic missile threats.”
“The second concerning report in recent days relates to the presence of unidentified unmanned aerial vehicles around three RAF bases—Lakenheath, Mildenhall and Feltwell—between 20 and 22 November and overnight on 25 November. I do not expect the Minister to go into too much detail about that recent incident or about what counter-measures are in place at our bases, but both reports show that short-range and long-range threats to the UK are very real, very diverse, and we need to be able to defend ourselves against them. If we look at events in the middle east, we can also see the diversity of short to long-range aerial threats. Israel has faced rocket, drone and ballistic missile attacks from Iran and its proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen and Syria.”
“Indeed, according to reports from earlier this year, NATO states can provide less than 5% of the air defence capacity deemed necessary to protect allies in central and eastern Europe against a full-scale attack. Unlike Ukraine, the UK has some obvious geographical protection from attacks by ground-based short-range missiles and drones, but two significant and concerning reports over recent days show once again that there is no cause for complacency. First, Russia is now prepared to use intermediate-range hypersonic ballistic missiles against targets in Ukraine. This is the first successful use of that type of missile with conventional warheads in combat. They are harder to intercept and represent a significant escalation.”
“About 80% of them have been intercepted, thanks to different air defence systems protecting military and civilian infrastructure, but that still means that thousands of missiles have impacted, often to devastating effect. Earlier this month, over the course of just one week, Russia used more than 800 guided aerial bombs, about 460 attack drones and more than 20 missiles of various types against Ukraine. During the cold war NATO’s air defences were a largely static system arrayed in belts around a unidirectional and well-defined threat of manned aircraft from the Soviet Union, but today’s environment is less predictable. The range of air and missile threats is larger and the threat can come from any direction.”
“The world is more unstable today than at any point since the cold war, but sadly, despite a changing threat environment, I fear our defences have not been adapted quickly enough to deter or protect against it. The House of Lords International Relations and Defence Committee’s report published in September, which analysed the lessons we can learn from Ukraine, laid out in stark terms the significant weaknesses in European defences. Key among them is the fact that our air and missile defences are, frankly, inadequate. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine not only brought conventional warfare back to mainland Europe, but has shown in stark terms the importance of credible and robust air and missile defences. Nearly 12,000 missiles have been launched against Ukraine by Russia since February 2022.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered UK air and missile defences. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I am pleased to have secured this debate to highlight a critical weakness in our national defences. I am sure it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that I say this, but I sincerely believe that outside this place, and even among many of our colleagues, it is not appreciated that the diversity of the threat we now face from air attack, and the lack of our defences against it, is at its most serious in decades. This debate is about defences against conventional air and missile threats, not nuclear threats—for that we maintain our continuous at-sea strategic nuclear deterrent.”
“There were important contributions from Members who have an industrial interest in their constituency. From Thales to MBDA, we have some excellent technologies around the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) made an excellent contribution about the wider industrial concerns. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made another insightful contribution, based on his service in the armed forces— Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).”
“Actually, I think it is appropriate that the time has been used by the Minister, because getting those reassurances is extremely important. That is what we all wanted to hear. I am particularly pleased that she recognised that the purpose of the debate was to demonstrate the support across the House, as well as the knowledge of the set of threats. I welcome her saying that a key part of the SDR will be to look at preparedness against missile threats. I reassure the shadow Secretary of State that he need have no concerns about support for the nuclear deterrent. A recurring theme of my entire political life has been getting stuck into the arguments for the sustaining and renewal of the nuclear deterrent. It is part of my political brand. I am sure we can have that debate another time. I thank all hon. Members who contributed.”
“It is another action towards fulfilling the Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve, and I therefore welcome the Bill.”
“I would be grateful if the Minister outlined how many staff he envisages the UK Armed Forces Commissioner having. The Defence Committee has raised questions about how we can ensure that the commissioner is truly independent from the Secretary of State, and I would welcome further clarity on that. The Bill fulfils the commitment in our manifesto to introduce an Armed Forces Commissioner. It acknowledges the need for change to better support serving personnel, with new powers to carry out investigations, visit defence sites unannounced and report to Parliament. The role outlined in the Bill will clearly have a greater impact than the existing arrangements, to the benefit of service personnel and their families and ultimately, therefore, to the benefit of the morale and the retention rates of the armed forces and the defence of the country.”
“Replacing the ombudsman with a new Armed Forces Commissioner who can launch their own investigations and make broader recommendations is therefore a positive step forward. Indeed, that has been called for by successive Service Complaints Ombudsmen themselves. A new Armed Forces Commissioner will give service personnel and their families a direct contact to reach out to, in order to raise issues that impact service life, from equipment to accommodation and unacceptable behaviours. I note that the Government expect the budget for the Armed Forces Commissioner to be between £4.5 million and £5.5 million a year. The German armed forces commissioner—the role on which the Secretary of State has said this new role is based—has 60 parliamentary staff to support them.”
“That is why it is so important that this Bill will create the first ever independent champion, not just for serving personnel but for their families. The Bill is not only about the welfare of those who serve today; it is about making service life more attractive so that our rates of recruitment and retention in the armed forces improve. We currently have the Service Complaints Ombudsman, established by the Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Act 2015—but, as the Secretary of State said, their remit is too narrow and reactive. The ombudsman can investigate individual complaints only after the service complaints process has finished, and they do not have the remit to consider broader matters impacting the welfare of serving personnel.”
“The Bill is a key part of renewing the nation’s contract with our armed forces because for too long, morale and satisfaction with service life among our armed forces have been falling. According to the latest armed forces continuous attitude survey, nearly six in 10 personnel rate their service morale as “low”, and this figure has sadly been increasing for the last few years. Just one in 10 personnel rate their service morale as “high” and a third of personnel do not feel valued. We know that service life impacts not just those in uniform but their families, too. Whether it relates to housing, employment or the effect on their children, military spouses often have a negative view of the impact that service life is having on them and their family.”
“It is a great honour to speak in this debate, and I welcome the bipartisan tone and constructive approach taken by the Opposition parties in their contributions. It is fitting that we are debating this Bill for the first time so soon after the Remembrance events held over the last few weeks. The members of our armed forces who put their life on the line for the safety and security of our country and our people give the greatest service it is possible to give. Over 5% of the adult population of my constituency of North Durham have served in our armed forces. As someone from a civilian background, I pay tribute to every one of our men and women in uniform, including the many hon. and gallant Members on both sides of this House who have served.”
“Patients tell me they cannot get access to community mental health nurses, putting huge pressure on GP practices and leading to people going to A&E in desperation. Can the Minister confirm whether the 8,500 extra mental health staff pledged in Labour’s manifesto will include much-needed nurses in the community?”
“Almost a third of children in the north-east live in poverty. The problem is particularly acute in the region. Will the Secretary of State work with our Mayor of the North East, Kim McGuinness, on her excellent regional plans to reduce child poverty?”
“They were people straining every sinew to bring about peace and who believed in a two-state solution. I cannot stop thinking about the horrors that were visited on them that day. I thank my hon. Friend for giving us the opportunity to honour the memory of the people who suffered on that day.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate on this profoundly sad occasion. I wish to draw attention to a thread that has gone through everything he said, which relates to the nature of the communities on the Gaza border that were attacked. One of the tragic ironies is that this was an attack on communities that were almost all kibbutzim and moshavim. These were idealistic communities founded on a co-operative ethos, the residents of which practised what they preached about co-existence and peace. I visited such communities in peacetime. They are bucolic and idealistic. The people there spoke about sending money across the border to people they knew in Gaza through third countries, in order to support them. They organised transport to hospitals for people from Gaza.”
“I look forward to contributing to debates here and to fighting tenaciously for the cause of North Durham and its people and the wider north-east.”
“On Friday, I visited Sacriston academy, a primary school, and was horrified to find excellent teachers delivering high-quality education, but in a setting that was literally falling down, with ceilings held up by scaffolding joists and whole classrooms, built in 1910—indeed, famous former pupils include Bobby Robson—now unusable due to water penetration through the ceilings and walls. Local children deserve so much better. Public transport in the constituency is not fit for purpose. We need more frequent and reliable buses and more trains stopping at Chester-le-Street. We also need the economic regeneration of local town centres. The once thriving Front Streets of Chester-le-Street and Stanley are run down and need new life. I thank the House for listening to me today.”
“It needs investment and procurement decisions by the Government to be targeted at creating jobs where they are most needed. North Durham needs a fairer distribution of public spending. Changes to the local government funding formula over the last 14 years have been unfair and removed resources from authorities such as Durham county council that are dealing with the highest levels of deprivation, and hampered their ability to deliver effective local services. That urgently needs to be changed in the next local government funding settlement. Capital spending on public services is also urgently needed.”
“Almost every village has a pit wheel memorial; many also have memorials to terrible mining disasters, and many have lodge banners that are paraded at the Durham gala. The decline of the industry over many decades and its eventual destruction in the 1980s, along with the closure of other major local employers, left terrible economic and social scars and a sense that some communities in the constituency have been left behind. Levelling up, if it reached anywhere, did not reach the proud communities that elected me. That brings me to the local importance of the topic of today’s debate: economy, welfare and public services. North Durham needs economic stability and growth. It is a travesty that there are so many families dependent on food banks. It needs new skilled and well-paid jobs in the industries of the future.”
“Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), who previously represented Lanchester, Burnhope and Castleside in the North West Durham constituency in the last Parliament, and who has been most courteous and helpful in handing over responsibility for those fine communities. I urge hon. Members to visit North Durham. As well as fine towns and villages, it has stunning countryside and attractions including Beamish, the world-famous open-air museum that brings the history of north-east England to life, and Durham county cricket club’s Riverside ground. Kevan always described North Durham as a rural constituency with urban problems, and that remains the case. Mining is at the heart of the history and previous economy of North Durham.”
“However, that long Labour history does not mean that North Durham is a safe seat. In every characteristic other than never having been lost, it is a red wall seat and has been electorally competitive in the last two contests. Indeed, this most recent election campaign was rather livelier than I would have preferred. Chester-le-Street is only one part of North Durham under its current boundaries, however, with the other major town being Stanley. The constituency is rural—surprisingly so. Aside from the two main towns, there are numerous villages. I may get into trouble for not listing some of them, but I will try to list the major ones: Sacriston, Tantobie, Tanfield, Beamish, Bournmoor, Lumley, Pelton, Pelton Fell, Craghead, Ouston, Lanchester, Burnhope, Castleside and Annfield Plain are just some of them. I wish to thank the right hon.”
“Members will know that Kevan is a keen photographer, often capturing and sharing the beauty of North Durham. Countless voters and local organisations have told me how much they have been helped by Kevan. He is held in high regard not just across this House but across North Durham. I have been elected in a long line of Labour Members, all, as far as I can discern, from the same moderate tradition in the party that I stand in, and including distinguished Front Benchers such as Giles Radice and Jack Lawson, who served as Attlee’s Secretary of State for War in the closing days of world war two. The Chester-le-Street part of my constituency has a unique distinction in the history of the Labour party, having returned a Labour Member to the House continuously since 1906—so no pressure on me to keep winning at all.”
“He was the longest-serving member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, a vice-president of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, and a commissioner of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. That is highly appropriate, given the number of veterans in the North Durham constituency—particularly people associated with the Durham Light Infantry. I am sure that in the other place Kevan will continue to work on defence and other issues, such as the sub-postmasters’ campaign for justice. His continued work on the Horizon redress advisory board will give reassurance to victims. Kevan will continue to pursue an outcome for sub-postmasters who used the Capture software in the 1990s, which is currently the subject of an independent investigation that was commissioned by the Government earlier this year. Many hon.”
“I also thank my family for their huge support, including lots of campaigning and lots of patience, as my speech has come rather late in this debate. I thank the electors of North Durham for voting for me to represent them in this House. I promise that I will always fight for their interests, and I could not want to represent a finer constituency. I follow into the House the right hon. Kevan Jones. He is an extremely tough act to follow, and I wish him well both in overcoming his health troubles and in his new role, having been elevated to the other place. Kevan was elected MP for North Durham in 2001, and served the constituency and this House with distinction for 23 years. He was utterly committed to the defence and security of our country, serving as a Defence Minister, with multiple stints on the Defence Committee.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) on a fine speech, and a very impressive description of her constituency and her motivations for coming to this place. It has taken me some time to get elected to the House. I first stood in a general election back in 2001, so no one can accuse me of being a young man in a rush. I am humbled to finally be here, having done some other things in party politics along the way. I pay tribute to my late mum and dad, who inspired me to get involved in politics. They gave me my Labour values, and I am sorry that they just missed out on the chance to see me get here.”