Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which stands in my name. Many members may be unaware that the fare cap that applies to single bus journeys does not apply to services that are provided exclusively to take children to and from school. That is why my new clause calls for the national £3 bus fare cap to be extended to all school routes, and for any future changes to the cap to be applied to school-only transport, too. I am grateful to the Members from across the House who have added their names in support of my new clause. In Poole and across England, the exclusion of school routes from the fare cap has left families paying more simply to get their children to school—that cannot be right. Local parents, especially those who might have two or more children attending different schools in the area, have complained to me about the unfairness and additional financial pressures that they face as a result. I have raised that with the local bus provider, Morebus, and although it is sympathetic to the arguments, it will not act unless instructed to do so in legislation. I have also raised the matter with the Department and with the Minister, but, as he will recall, I was told that my proposal was too difficult to achieve through the Bill. I therefore urge him to reconsider that approach when he responds to the debate. I am sure that Members will recognise the very obvious unfairness. The cap applies for a child who gets on an ordinary bus that takes them past their school, but for a child on a school-only bus, the fares are higher. As well as that unjustifiable situation, parents are concerned that they cannot buy their school tickets in instalments and often have to fund the entire cost of their child’s bus journey on a termly basis. That can be expensive and discourages many families from using the bus as their preferred means of school transport. I see bus services in the way I see most policies: through the lens of making life easier for families in Poole working hard to get by. The Bill offers significant steps towards building a transport network that is genuinely accessible, affordable and reliable. The Government must also be guided by their mission of ensuring that every child has the best start in life. That mission cannot be confined to a single department or a handful of policies. It must run like a thread through Government Departments and be hardwired into how we set priorities and deliver change. Labour values must underpin everything we do. Extending the £3 bus fare cap to school routes is one practical way that the Government can ease the everyday struggles that parents face and make family life that little bit easier. This simple but impactful measure would reduce the cost of getting children to school, particularly for families with multiple children, and free up parents who would otherwise drive as part of the school run. It would mean lower costs for working families and less pressure on parents juggling a daily mountain of responsibilities. That also lines up closely with the Minister’s ambition to get more people out of polluting cars and into public transport, which I am keen to support. I recognise that putting more money in the pockets of working people requires broader change, but measures such as extending the bus fare cap to school routes could make a tangible difference to day-to-day life while building a fairer and more accessible transport system for everyone. I therefore urge the Minister to consider new clause 21 seriously and to see how the Government can address the unfair anomaly on school-only bus travel.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any employment status that traps workers in those conditions has to be addressed, and the proposed extension of the ILR period from five years to 10 will potentially trap those workers in what we can only describe as long-term exploitation. The immigration White Paper also suggests sweeping changes to the skilled worker visa system. A constituent of mine, Olabanjo, wrote to me: “If implemented, this proposed change would create unnecessary instability for thousands of families, including mine. It would prolong uncertainty, increase financial and emotional strain, and discourage people who are already working hard, paying taxes, and contributing positively to the UK. Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.” Olabanjo is right to point out that the plans to retrospectively change the settlement rules feel like a betrayal. The suggestion that we can change the rules halfway through is grossly unfair. Behind the debate about immigration are real people, and the proposed changes have caused considerable upheaval for many overseas workers who are already here. In fact, virtually all migrant workers will in some way be affected by the changes to salary thresholds and new visa conditions. The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that these workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. That is why I urge the Government to reject the negative rhetoric around immigration, retain the five-year route for ILR, scrap plans to apply extended qualifying periods retrospectively, and reform the visa system to ensure that sponsorship is sector-wide, rather than linked to an individual employer.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Some months ago, I led a debate in this Chamber on the merits of a certificate of common sponsorship in relation to the social care sector. In that debate, I highlighted the unfair and precarious nature of having an employment visa linked to a single employer, rather than to the sector as a whole. I mention that because that campaign, which is ongoing, is of course linked to today’s debate on indefinite leave to remain. Overseas workers have made, and continue to make, a massive contribution to the UK’s health and social care sector. Because of those dedicated staff, we have been able to provide much-needed care for some of our most vulnerable individuals, but the proposed changes to the ILR rules could put all that at risk. The adult social care sector is already experiencing a crisis in recruitment. In England, for example, 7% of roles are unfilled; that represented about 111,000 vacancies in March this year. These proposals will make filling those vacancies even more difficult. I have raised before with the Government how the current sponsorship arrangements leave migrant workers open to abuse. Some are locked into unfair contracts; when they raise concerns about their working conditions, they can be threatened with deportation. Employers already have undue power over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  Tackling poverty should be a key priority of any Government who wish to see their people thrive. The Equality Act 2010 includes a socioeconomic duty on all public bodies to address inequalities “when making strategic decisions”. When will that duty be enacted in England?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The latest evidence shows that the gap between average wages and rent in my constituency of Poole is one of the widest in the country. Can the Minister explain how we will ensure that the new homes that we build will be truly affordable and not subject to excessive rent increases?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That intervention is further evidence that our welfare system is not working. I understand that some Members may consider voting for this Bill tonight because of the proposed uplift to the standard rate of universal credit. Disabled groups that I have met are clear that that is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which has raised serious concerns that the Bill will deepen the signs of regression in disabled people’s human rights. The answer therefore remains that clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill need to be removed. We should allow the Timms review to look at all aspects of the benefits system and report back next year. That is what disabled people and their organisations want, and that is what I will vote for.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to call for the removal of clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill, because I think they get to the heart of the unfairness contained within it. There can be no doubt for those of us who were here last week that trust was eroded between the Government and disabled people’s organisations—that trust will need to be slowly rebuilt over the coming months. We should therefore recognise that a positive step in that direction is the Government’s decision to pause on the issue of PIP reform and to place those decisions in the hands of the Timms review. However, that is not enough, because the Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for more than 750,000 future claimants. From next April, we will have created a two-tier benefits system based not on health needs, but on the date when a claim was made. In fact, there are already nearly 4.8 million disabled people living in poverty today across the country. That is a damning indictment of our welfare system and should be a wake-up call to bring that number down, not to make it go even higher. The numbers are stark. Taking £3,000 a year, or £250 a month, from disabled people’s income will force families to a crisis point and into further reliance on food banks. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation claims that if the cuts are not removed, an additional 50,000 people will be forced into poverty. Even before this cut, three quarters of all universal credit health element recipients are already experiencing material deprivation and are unable to afford the essentials on which to live. If we are serious about genuinely reforming the benefits system and putting disabled people and their organisations at the heart of any changes, I cannot see why the health element of universal credit would not also be part of the Timms review.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is quite right. Trade unions do sit on many of the LGPS committees. I was making the point that it is on the pools where there is less representation for those member voices to be heard, and that is extremely important. Finally, I want to talk about the pre-1997 pensioners. We know that those who have seen the biggest drop in income are those who built up pensions before 1997. They have not received an annual inflation-linked increase to their pension and, over time, particularly when inflation is high, the value of their pension is eroded. Some 80,000 Pension Protection Fund members, mostly older people and disproportionately women, including some of my constituents, find themselves in this position. I hope the Government will therefore consider legislating to provide inflation protection on pre-1997 benefits, and to give the PPF greater flexibility to use its surplus to give discretionary improvements to members. In conclusion, the idea that workers’ pension funds can be used to build much-needed social housing and invest in green technology and jobs is something that a progressive Labour Government should be proud of, and I hope we can ensure that the Bill delivers a win for pensioners, a win for our environment and a win for society as a whole.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think that what the hon. Member raises is the creativity that we need on this issue, so that we look beyond the obvious investments towards some that perhaps have more social worth. I hope that the Bill will allow for that. For pension savers to have a secure future, we will need to phase out investments in fossil fuels. As the Chancellor has recognised, all financial sector regulation and legislation should integrate climate and nature. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore address whether there will be legislative action, not just voluntary commitments, to phase out the destructive environmental investments that pension funds currently make, and to introduce an element of the Bill that acknowledges the connection between green investments, environmental protection and decent pensions. Turning to the local government pension scheme, governance structures vary widely across the existing pools, and reporting has been inconsistent. Pooling arrangements have not always provided the power to influence investments, which is why the TUC, for example, is calling for a thorough review of the performance of existing pools to identify best practice in the relationship between funds and pools, as well as in governance arrangements, and for the introduction of clear and consistent reporting requirements before any acceleration and further consolidation takes place. It is also important to point to the democratic deficit that exists within the scheme as a whole. While the role of member representatives within the LGPS is a great strength, they are largely absent from pool governance structures at present, and this legislation does not specify a role for those people. Given that pension funds are the deferred wages of the workforce, we must ensure that there is greater member engagement and democratic oversight by those involved in the scheme. Not only should this stretch to having guaranteed places on boards with full voting rights, but it must ensure that scheme members can have their say as to where their money is invested. There will undoubtedly be occasions when members are concerned about investments in particular industries, or, I would add, in particular countries, and they should have a mechanism by which those views can be expressed.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Bill represents a timely attempt to create a system whereby fewer and bigger pension funds can provide better value for members and do more to support the UK economy. Key to this, though, will be ensuring that pensioners get a decent income in retirement, alongside creating the conditions that allow pension funds to invest in ways that benefit the UK, support good jobs and finance a just transition to a low-carbon economy. The Bill needs to acknowledge, in the direction it takes, the scale of the task that we face. One in six pensioners today lives in poverty. Only 62% of pensioners receive an occupational pension of any kind, and those who do get an average of just £210 a week. Half of defined-contribution savers—around 14 million people—are not on track for the income they expect, and the 2017 auto-enrolment review recommendations have still not been implemented. Those challenges need to be addressed, along with the unfairness of the current rules around tax relief, which benefit higher earners and need reform. As has been mentioned this evening, the Bill does not consider the specific issue of adequacy, and how the state pension interacts with defined-benefit and defined-contribution schemes. Given that the aim of a pension is to provide an income in retirement, it is vital that we look at pensions in the round, not just those associated with occupational or private schemes. A statutory review into retirement incomes every five years would give this and future Governments the oversight needed to regularly assess the adequacy of our pension system, including the opportunity to look at contribution rates for employers and employees. I am aware that the second stage of the pensions review will consider those points, but I would be grateful if the Minister gave a little more clarity on when that is likely to begin. The Bill needs to be strengthened on the issue of climate change and the destruction of nature. UK pension schemes continue to hold around £88 billion in fossil fuel companies, including those involved in new coal, oil and gas exploration, and have investments in companies linked to deforestation around the globe. Over 85% of leading schemes lack a credible climate action plan. Consolidating smaller pension pots into larger megafunds provides the ability to invest in long-term infrastructure projects, but that must not be at the expense of the environment.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I wonder if she will reflect on whether the Bill before us tomorrow is the best way of making welfare policy. Would it not be better to withdraw the Bill and wait for the Timms review to complete its important work?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for disabled people in poverty. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Most hon. Members present will be aware that this debate takes place in the shadow of the publication of the welfare Bill, probably tomorrow, which could usher in some of the deepest and most severe cuts to disability benefits since 2010. We already know that the current benefits system is not working. Some 700,000 families with a disability are already living in poverty, and 75% of people who turn to food banks are disabled or live in a disabled household. Figures from the Department for Work and Pensions in March this year revealed that 4.7 million people in disabled households are facing hunger, and unsurprisingly, women make up the majority of those disabled people and carers.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution. I will later talk about the evidence that we need to see before we come to a vote.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We make a mistake if we say that we can do only one thing and not the other. We can tackle discrimination in the way that he rightly argues, but we do not have to make people poorer in the process. A false argument is being put forward. There is also a misguided view that cutting expenditure and tightening belts brings savings. We know that that approach shrinks the economy and leaves everybody worse off.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I will give way to somebody who has not already spoken.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  We absolutely have to look at our taxation system and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders carry the biggest burden, rather than saving money on the back of disabled people. Even the Government’s own assessment shows that the changes are likely to have a significant financial impact on claimants. For example, tightening the eligibility criteria for personal independence payment so that individuals will be required to score four points in at least one category will mean that 800,000 people lose the daily living element of PIP, with an average loss of £4,500 a year. The points system is already deeply flawed, especially for those with dynamic disabilities such as multiple sclerosis or myalgic encephalomyelitis. The domino effect of tightening PIP eligibility will be severe, because it acts as a passport to other support—150,000 people are set to lose their carer’s allowance if someone they care for no longer qualifies. That could mean a loss to a household of £10,000 a year. We know that having a disability is expensive: on average, households that have someone with a disability need over £1,000 a month more to have the same standard of living as non-disabled households. The proposed changes to the health element of universal credit will freeze the benefits of over 2 million people, and an estimated 730,000 new claimants will get a lower rate of £50 a week.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I have not seen that evidence, but what I have seen points me in a different direction. We already know that PIP is an underclaimed benefit, as I think my hon. Friend would acknowledge, and that fewer than half of the disabled people who are eligible to make a claim do so. I would therefore argue that the recent increase in the number of claims is largely the result of declining public health in this country combined with the increased financial hardship that disabled people are facing. The Government have suggested there has been an unsustainable rise in the benefits bill, but as a percentage of GDP, we are spending the same amount on working-age benefits as we were in 2015. Cuts to social security are not an economic necessity; they are a political choice. It has been suggested in the media recently that the transitional arrangements for someone who loses their PIP will be extended from four to 13 weeks, but that only delays the fact that the Government will be making people permanently poorer. It is right for Ministers to say that work can be a route out of poverty, and that disabled people should be supported to find a job, but the proposed £1 billion of support comes in only at the end of the Parliament—three years after the cuts have been introduced. The Learning and Work Institute estimates that only 45,000 to 90,000 people might find work through that proposed employment support, which cannot possibly offset the 3.2 million people who are having their benefits cut. It is a completely false equivalence. As hon. Members know, PIP is not an out-of-work benefit, so cutting it is likely to undermine efforts to get people into employment, rather than supporting them into gainful work. Too often, the attitude of employers is the real barrier to disabled people finding a job. Reluctance to offer flexible working patterns, harsh sickness absence policies and disability discrimination are the blockers that many disabled people face. Tackling those would be an important place to start.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. All the things I described need to be addressed, but the fear among disabled people is that the changes outlined in the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper, which may or may not find their way into the Bill, amount to piling more cuts on to an already broken system.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has foreseen what I was about to say. According to the New Economics Foundation, the Government’s projected savings could be entirely wiped out due to depressed economic demand in local communities. Cutting disability benefits will also inevitably lead to increased costs elsewhere through rising pressure on the NHS and local authority social care. Most of all, people who are already under financial pressure will be even worse off. That is why virtually all major disability organisations are critical of the Government’s proposals. I am sure that I am not the only one who believes that the Government are rushing these proposals through, with MPs being asked to vote in a couple of weeks’ time, before the OBR’s estimates of the employment impact, the review of the PIP assessment, and the Keep Britain Working review into tackling health-related inactivity have been published. Recognising that the benefits system needs to change, we should halt any proposals for cuts, redesign the system with disabled people and their organisations, and provide up-front investment to support those who can get into meaningful work.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Veterans, like every disabled individual, should get the support they deserve. Labour created the modern welfare state, underpinned by universalist principles, to provide dignity and fairness to people when they need a helping hand. That, in my view, is what we should be doing now.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. I will come on to that later in my speech. Those individuals I mentioned—the 730,000 new claimants who will get the lower rate of universal credit—will see an average loss of £3,000 a year. The health element of universal credit will also be cut for those aged under 22, removing vital support that helps young people into work, education and training. The Government cannot claim to want to help young people into work while taking away their safety net. People in all those groups are already struggling to make ends meet so, in reality, the figures are likely to be an underestimate of the scale of the pain being proposed. A recent freedom of information request revealed that 1.3 million people who currently get the standard daily living award will no longer qualify, which is significantly higher than the Office for Budget Responsibility’s estimated 800,000 people. As a result, 350,000 people will be pushed below the poverty line. In total, over 3 million households will lose out, with as many as 100,000 children being pushed into poverty. I have heard Ministers repeat the claim that only one in 10 PIP recipients will be affected by the proposals, but that is based on the false assumption that people will get better at filling in the claim forms and that more people will be successful in scoring four points. There is absolutely no evidence to show that that will be the case. The one in 10 figure also does not take into account the potential new claimants who will lose out.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes an excellent point, and it is certainly a campaign that I would put my weight behind.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I agree, and later I will talk about disabled people and how employment may be a route out of poverty. Any losses through changes to benefits will overwhelmingly fall on those who are already the poorest in our society. The Government are right that the social security system is in need of reform, but benefits are far from generous, and they often fail to cover the essentials of living. The process of claiming support can also be extremely complicated and confusing, and that often leads to individuals incorrectly filling in the forms or finding the process too difficult to even start. The assessment process, which is outsourced to five private companies, can be slow and is often open to appeal.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The current system is broken, absolutely, but I do not think that hard-pressed planning officers are the problem. I think developers are the problem, and that is the point that I am coming on to make. Last year, less than 2% of new homes were social rents delivered through the planning system. Private developers prioritise maximum profit with high-end luxury builds, particularly in constituencies such as mine. At the current rate, we would need to build over 5 million homes to deliver just 90,000 social rent properties, yet there are over 1 million people on waiting lists. That is why I signed new clause 32 to introduce binding quotas for affordable and social rent homes. If we are serious, as I believe Labour is, about getting families out of temporary accommodation and off waiting lists, local authorities need the power and funding to lead a new generation of council house building. We also cannot ignore the fact that the developer-led model creates conflict with nature, as under-resourced councils are forced to accept whatever sites developers propose, regardless of how suitable or unsuitable they are for sustainable development. There is no amount of killing badgers or red tape bonfires that will fix that. It is too simplistic to argue that this is a debate of builders versus blockers. The overwhelming majority of planning applications are approved, which is why we had more than a million planning permissions approved in the past decade that have yet to be built. Developers continue to drip feed developments into the system, prioritising properties that maximise profit and are far from affordable for local people. It is time, therefore, to move away from the failed market dogma and, I believe, to return to Labour values. The post-war Labour Government built millions of homes supported by the planning system our party created, and it is time we did it again.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of amendment 69 and new clause 32, which were both tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff). I commend him for his work on the Bill. I believe the Government have got it wrong with their changes to nature protection. I appreciate that Ministers will say that they come from a genuine desire to address the housing crisis, but the Bill removes the foundations of our nature laws, including the mitigation hierarchy that requires developers to avoid harm. Nearly every major conservation group opposes the Bill and the Government watchdog, the Office for Environmental Protection, says that it degrades nature protections. Amendment 69 offers practical improvements, ensuring that environmental delivery plans achieve their stated purpose of making developers pay to offset damage to nature. It ensures that plans result in an improvement to the specific feature being harmed, so that the Bill does not give a green light to degrading irreplaceable habitats.