Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes a positive point on something that has been overlooked in Government debates until today. We need to recognise the differences between the various parts of our country, celebrate those differences, but also recognise the unique problems that they all face.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Member’s point. As I mentioned earlier, the current funding formula is inadequate for communities such as ours. I should also just say that if anybody else wants to intervene, I have two more paragraphs to go. Finally, I want to turn to hospitality, which is a key driver of many coastal towns’ economies. Hospitality is suffering. In Poole, 486 hospitality businesses generate £239 million in annual revenue and employ 5,738 local people, but the lowering of the national insurance threshold and the removal of business rates relief, alongside new revaluations on premises, are forcing many of them to consider whether they can carry on at all. My town needs places where tourists can buy an ice cream, have a meal or enjoy a drink. What we do not want are hollowed-out high streets that offer vape shops and little else. We need a vibrant campaign for people to holiday in Britain and the necessary support for hospitality that brings the high street to life. There are suggestions that the Government are looking at a “nice pub tax”, which would hit landlords whose premises are on the waterfront and would kill off towns like Poole. I urge the Treasury to think again about such a proposal. Coastal communities may not grab headlines the way that cities with a proud industrial heritage do, but there are over 5 million residents living in 169 coastal towns across England and Wales, and they all deserve a voice and a future. They deserve a Labour Government who recognise the challenges that they face and whose policies will ensure a rising tide that lifts all the boats, not just the super-yachts.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I always welcome contributions from the hon. Member, and I often find myself agreeing with him, as I do on this occasion. The expensive apartments that have sprung up in my constituency and others are unsuitable for young families in the area or are out of the reach of many local people. While I support the Renters’ Rights Act 2026, we must also go further and look at rent controls to ensure fair play. That brings me to the health challenges that coastal communities face, and the excellent report from the chief medical officer published in 2021, in which he recognised that coastal communities have some of the worst health outcomes in England, with low life expectancy and high rates of many major diseases. While coastal communities are not all the same, many share similar characteristics, which should help in developing some common policy responses. Fishing or port communities such as mine have particular challenges, and a national strategy informed by those common experiences will help reduce health inequalities in those areas. For example, many coastal communities were created around a single industry that has since moved on, meaning that work can often be scarce or seasonal.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to know that I have not lost the ability to lose the room, Madam Deputy Speaker. Like all hon. Members who represent a coastal constituency, I have a huge pride and privilege in representing Poole. When I get off the train at our local station after spending time in Westminster, the smell of the sea reminds me how lucky I am to live in such a beautiful place; it has the world’s second largest harbour, some of the best blue flag beaches in the country and a surrounding coastline that is simply stunning. We cannot eat scenery, however; like other coastal communities, Poole faces a number of key issues that need Government attention. Since becoming MP for the area, I have been running a project called Positive About Poole, asking local residents for their ideas on how we can make our town an even better place to live. They have highlighted ongoing problems of traffic congestion, a lack of youth services and, of course, the lack of affordable housing. Average gross median weekly full-time earnings in Poole are £764, but monthly rent is around £1,400, meaning that half of someone’s wages immediately goes on housing costs, not to mention council tax, energy bills and food. Nearly one in four children in Poole are living in relative poverty after housing costs, further suggesting the impact that high rents are having on the cost of living crisis.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely support my hon. Friend’s contribution. Let us be clear that we are not going to get the kind of society that we want until we eradicate inequality. I believe that with a much more equal society, we will see more compassion, care and community.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the beaches are first-class in Poole; if your constituency had beaches, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that they too would be first-class. The nutrients that go into the water system come from a number of sources, including both treated and untreated sewage, as well as agricultural sources including poorly managed soils, animal waste and fertiliser. Sewage discharge has grabbed the headlines in recent months; as well as the nutrients from treated discharges, outdated infrastructure and regular system overflows in stormy weather can result in untreated or partially treated sewage entering our rivers. In Poole harbour, that can lead to shellfish contamination, as well as direct health risks that put restrictions on the local fishing industry. The Environment Agency monitors water quality at designated bathing sites from 15 May to 30 September, but not all year round, and only in the areas that have been officially recognised as suitable for bathing. In Poole there are many different types of water users, from paddleboarders to windsurfers, who are excluded from those forms of oversight. That is why we need to expand the definition of bathers, monitor water quality all year round and have a serious conversation about bringing water back into public ownership. Finally, I want to consider the issue of tourism and its impact on the local economy and public services. Like most coastal communities, Poole relies on tourism as a key part of our local economy, but with that comes a number of challenges. The local council no longer has a dedicated tourist office promoting the area or funds the kind of events on the quayside that would attract visitors, and the idea of a tourist tax or levy is contentious in my town. Government funding also fails to take account of the seasonality that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) mentioned earlier. With the influx of additional people and the extra demands the area faces in terms of car parking, public order and even litter collection, both our police and fire services regularly witness a seasonal surge in demand.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Coastal Communities: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  Yes; I agree with my hon. Friend’s point and I will develop it further. Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, towns such as Poole are desperate for good quality, affordable and secure housing—I would argue council housing—for local families, rather than the developer-led luxury waterside apartments that have sprung up.

• 21 May 2026 · Middle East: Economic Response · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome my right hon. Friend’s announcement, but I ask her to look further at introducing a package of emergency measures to keep down energy bills in a number of ways, including through an essential energy guarantee for all households, a nationwide social tariff and extending the windfall tax on the energy sector’s excessive profits.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Growing Britain’s economy is vital if we are to raise living standards and improve our public services. However, we need to recognise that growth that fails to tackle social inequality will mean that all the economic gains remain at the top of our society. In fact, between 2010 and 2019, the UK’s GDP grew by 1.9% every year, but the wealth gap widened by nearly 50%. Very few of us felt better off during that time, despite the figures showing that the country’s wealth was growing. Poverty is not just unfair; it is economically reckless as well. Reducing income inequality to the level of more equal OECD nations would save the UK up to £128 billion annually in reduced costs in areas such as crime and imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health and improving healthy life expectancy. But none of that will be possible if we continue to use the same austerity-driven measures of the past. Put simply, we cannot cut our way to growth; it takes investment. In my view—I have mentioned this in the Chamber before—our pension funds offer one way to achieve that. We should remember that these funds represent the deferred wages of millions of workers. Directing pension funds toward socially beneficial projects is one way that our Labour Government can rewire our economic model so that it delivers for ordinary people.

• 18 May 2026 · Backing Business to Create Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The point that the hon. Gentleman makes assumes that investing in green technology and social housing will not give a decent return, but the evidence is to the contrary, so I think that he is wrong in his premise. Workers’ money should be invested in things such as green technology and social housing because they are stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. I know that Ministers are looking to the AI revolution as another way to grow our economy. There is little doubt that AI is a transformational technology that will bring with it many benefits to our society, but in order to fully realise those benefits, it is important to put in place safeguards to ensure that the technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole—rather than simply being a vehicle by which large tech companies make even bigger profits. That is why we need the democratic shaping of technology. We need to work with innovators, workers and unions to steer UK research towards automation that creates or improves jobs. Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public. I have already raised with the Government the prospect of considering some kind of employment levy on companies that replace large-scale workforces with AI, and I hope that they will give that some consideration. That links to my belief that we need to rebalance our entire taxation system. Capital gains could be taxed at the same marginal rate as wages. There are also windfall taxes that could be levied on banks, utilities and other corporations that are making excessive profits. We could also have a wealth tax on those with assets of more than £10 million. Our economy needs to grow, because all the evidence shows that the more unequal a society is, the higher its risk of becoming dysfunctional. As income differences widen, people are less likely to trust one another, and we see a breakdown in social trust between our communities. Getting the right kind of growth in our economy is therefore essential—not just to make people better off but to create a more equal society that works in the interests of every one of us.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Public Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps he is taking to improve transparency in public procurement.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Public Procurement · Hansard source

  More

  Since 2015, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth of Government contracts. This highlights everything that the public dislike about politics. Does the Minister therefore agree that for the sake of transparency and accountability, it is time to break the link between big-money donors and the Governments they pay to elect?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Hamworthy Fire Station · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to present a petition in support of my constituents in Poole who are opposed to the threatened closure of Hamworthy fire station. This petition sits alongside an online campaign led by the Fire Brigades Union, signed by over 16,700 people, and relates to wider proposed closures across Dorset and Wiltshire of eight stations, which risk longer response times for residents and more dangerous conditions for firefighters. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to work with Dorset and Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority to find a solution that will prevent the closure of Hamworthy fire station. Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the United Kingdom, Declares that Hamworthy Fire Station provides essential emergency cover not only for Hamworthy, but also for Upton, Lytchett Minster, Turlin Moor and the wider Poole area; and further declares that Hamworthy Fire station must remain open to support the local community. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with Dorset & Wiltshire Fire and Rescue Authority to withdraw Hamworthy Fire Station from the closure consultation and to abandon any proposal to close it. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003190]

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Today’s statement may well be about process and procedure, but surely the real issue for the Prime Minister is why, when Peter Mandelson’s reputation was already known, he was ever considered for such an important role.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In fact, I raised something very similar when the Bill passed through this House. The investments that we could make through our pension funds could go into green energy, which is the growth engine of the future, as well as into affordable and social housing, which is so needed in this country. That should be underpinned by greater democracy in our pension funds, so that workers have a say in where their money is invested. I believe that if that was the case, they would certainly choose to put it not into arms manufacturers or fossil fuels, but into decent homes for them and their communities. The crisis in the middle east has exposed the fragility of our dependence on fossil fuels. A break in the supply chain thousands of miles away has a catastrophic cascading effect here, driving up costs and deepening the cost of living for our constituents.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to focus my remarks on Lords amendments 1 and 27, which I believe limit the Government’s ability to direct pension schemes away from what I regard as high-risk assets with an uncertain future. Ministers will recall that I put forward a series of proposals as the Bill passed through this House, including on divestment from fossil fuels, which is what I will focus on this afternoon. The local government pension scheme currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, so we can see quite clearly that the voluntary approach to divestment has failed. Even now, ordinary working people’s wages—their hard-earned savings—are being channelled into accelerating a climate crisis that hits the global working class the hardest. Lords amendments 1 and 27 prevent the Government from setting down binding targets on certain investments, which makes it politically harder to bring down investments in fossil fuels. We know there is no retirement for any of us without a liveable environment. It sounds obvious, but that reality is not reflected in how pensions are currently managed, and the Government know this. Ministers in the other place acknowledge that investments in thermal coal—one of the most harmful fossil fuels—are high risk from both a climate and financial viewpoint. They are bad for the planet and bad for pension holders, who need stable, long-term investments. This country removed thermal coal from the grid in 2024, because it has no future. Alarmingly, however, we know from written questions that neither the Government nor the Pensions Regulator have a clear picture of how much is still invested in this soon-to-be stranded asset. Even funds that are held up as leaders on climate, such as Border to Coast and the universities superannuation scheme, have hundreds of millions of pounds invested in thermal coal. That is why we need to get a grip on this issue. There are no existing requirements on schemes to report on any fossil fuel investment, and hardly any do so voluntarily. The first step is to provide full transparency on such investments, followed by decisive action to phase them out. Will the Minister commit to writing to the biggest 50 pension schemes to get more detail on their level of thermal coal exposure, and will he follow it up by setting a time-bound expectation for schemes to exit such assets, starting with thermal coal? That may seem like a distant issue, but if workers are left exposed to stranded assets in their pensions, they will not forget the politicians who chose to look the other way. This Bill was a major opportunity to redirect billions of pounds in workers’ pensions away from arms manufacturers and fossil fuel giants, and into investments that benefit the very people who are paying in. That means green energy.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  In my speech I asked the Minister a very specific question: whether or not he would write to the top 50 pension schemes to ask them about the scale of their investment in thermal coal. I wonder if he might consider that.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Would the hon. Gentleman like to make an intervention?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Okay. We must accelerate the transition away from fossil fuels, even though some Members on the other side of the House seem to disagree with that. We must deliver long-term energy security and bring down bills through domestic green energy, but not only that. In this moment of deep crisis, the Government must pull every lever they can to lift the weight of the cost of living crisis, and that must include gearing our pension funds towards a fairer, more prosperous future.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hidden Credit Liabilities: Role of the FCA · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for securing this debate on an issue that has long been overlooked. I want to take this opportunity to tell Members about James and Becky Glanville, who are in the Public Gallery today. They built a successful nursing home business, and their story shows how hidden credit liabilities attached to interest rate swaps destroyed a family enterprise. The Glanvilles’ experience is a stark and deeply troubling example of how hidden credit liabilities attached to interest rate hedging products have devastated viable businesses. What began as a successful, family-run nursing home enterprise, built with life savings and years of hard work, was ultimately destroyed by undisclosed risks embedded within complex financial products sold by NatWest, which was part of Royal Bank of Scotland Group at the time. The family were never informed that these swaps carried significant liabilities, which would be treated as secured debt against their businesses, eroding borrowing capacity and triggering breaches of loan-to-value covenants as interest rates fell, as my right hon. Friend mentioned. The hidden exposures escalated dramatically, putting the companies under severe financial strain and ultimately pushing them into restructuring and insolvency processes. Despite clear regulatory requirements for transparency and informed consent, the risks were not disclosed. Subsequent treatment within restructuring units, including asset devaluation and agreements that allowed the bank to profit further from the family’s losses, compounded the damage. I will provide some background to the Glanvilles’ case by way of context. The family started their nursing home business in 2002 with their lifetime savings and a mortgage of £744,000. By 2007, the business had grown and needed further borrowing. That is when NatWest insisted that they take out interest rate hedging products as a condition of the loans. The family entered two base rate swaps, but what the bank never told them was that the swaps carried large undisclosed contingent credit line obligations, which were treated as hard secured liabilities on the company’s credit file and counted against the 70% loan-to-value covenant. The hidden credit lines ballooned as rates fell, triggering covenant breaches and damaging the business’ credit standing. Such products were classed by the Financial Services Authority, as it was then, as a complex financial instrument that should normally be purchased only by investment professionals, yet they were sold to inexperienced clients such as the Glanvilles as free, no premium protection against interest rate risk. The additional costs and credit risks had to be disclosed to comply with the FSA’s conduct of business rules. Those rules stated that a firm can grant credit for such products if the customer has given prior consent in full knowledge of any resulting interest and fees. James and his family did not know of the risks or provide any written consent for them. That raises the issue of the FCA’s role, which has already been mentioned. The FCA’s redress scheme failed to account for the impact of those hidden credit lines. By excluding that critical feature from the regulatory review, the system denied victims fair compensation and meaningful justice. The interest rate hedging products review was allegedly set up to compensate victims such as Mr Glanville and to put them back in the position they would have been in had the swaps not been sold in breach of the rules. All the banks signed an undertaking that the FSA rules would be complied with in the review, but instead the FSA and FCA agreed separate sales standards with the banks, which specifically excluded any mention of hidden credit liability and its effect. The regulator therefore effectively colluded with the banks to keep this undoubted fraud covered up and reduce compensation costs. In 2019, Mr Glanville’s legal team calculated that, with the losses on the properties that were sold under value, the consequential losses and the interest, the family were owed £6.3 million. What they have received to date from the bank is absolutely nothing. As people know, the Glanville family case is not isolated; it reflects a wider systemic failure that affects thousands of SMEs. That underscores the urgent need for a full independent investigation into hidden credit liabilities and the associated regulatory failures, which must lead to the establishment of a fair and comprehensive redress scheme. Businesses and families that have suffered such a profound harm deserve accountability, transparency and ultimately justice. I hope the Minister will reflect on that in her response.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Local Housing Allowance Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The gap between average rents and wages in Poole is among the widest in the country. Freezing the local housing allowance has clearly made that position worse. Will the Minister outline when the freeze will end and when we will see the allowance increase to reflect the actual housing costs that people face?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the measures announced today to tackle foreign interference in our elections. Will the Secretary of State go a step further and support my proposal to break the link between wealthy donors and the parties they help to elect by banning their firms from subsequently holding Government contracts?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  I led a debate in this Chamber some months ago on the need for a certificate of common sponsorship, which would make sure that individuals coming over to this country and working in the care sector were not tied to a single employer and could move between employers, giving them the power rather than the employer. I hope that the Government will look very seriously at that point. It is wrong fundamentally to pull the rug out from people and change the rules halfway through the process. What message does it send about the kind of country we are if our laws and promises hold no meaning and if the British Government can make a deal with someone on a Monday, but by Wednesday, we could have changed our mind? That is part of why these policies have provoked such a reaction: they run against our values. British people believe—and Members across the Chamber have said today—that if a person works hard and plays by the rules, the Government should tread lightly on their life. What someone gets out should be what they put in. Labour must be clear-eyed about where the real value in our economy lies. It is not with the billionaires and bankers, but with the workers—wherever they come from—who keep this country running every day.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing a very timely debate. In fact, it took only hours after the Home Secretary’s announcement on settlement rights for messages from worried constituents in Poole to start flooding in. One of them, my constituent Olebanjo, put it very powerfully. He said: “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.” I think he is right. The idea that making life harder for people who are already here, working, raising families and contributing somehow improves assimilation or cohesion simply does not make sense at all. The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that those workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. In Poole and across the country, our health service relies on thousands of workers from around the world. In social care, the changes risk turning a staffing crisis into a catastrophe. We cannot tackle that problem by punishing the migrant workers caring for our relatives and providing dignity and warmth to our elderly. The problem, then, is that migrant workers are being made to pay for issues that they did not cause. The outcome will be, I fear, depressingly predictable. When care homes, particularly those outside big cities, struggle to fill vacancies and care worsens as a result, right-wing politicians and their media outriders will not admit that punishing migrant workers has failed; they will double down and the clamour for harsher measures will grow. Our Labour Government must challenge that approach.

• 9 Mar 2026 · Immigration Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Last week, the Home Secretary mentioned that our immigration policy needed to be based on the idea of fairness. Is it fair to change the rules on indefinite leave to remain for those who are already making a contribution to our society and came here under the old rules? Will the Minister give those individuals some assurance that they will get some transitional protection?