Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Jan 2026 · Poverty and Welfare Policies · Hansard source

  More

  I will come later to the debate we had about PIP. I absolutely agree, and all the evidence shows, that disabled people are much more likely to face poverty and hardship than able-bodied people. At its core, poverty prevents people from playing a full and meaningful role in our society. That is why there is both a moral and an economic case for taking action, and why tackling poverty should be central to any serious strategy for economic growth, as well as a key part of a progressive Government’s agenda. According to the Equality Trust, reducing income inequality to the level found in more equal OECD nations would save the UK up to £128 billion annually in reduced costs in areas such as crime, imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health and welfare. However, none of that will be possible if we continue to use the same austerity-driven measures we have used in the past. For example, the proposal to means-test the winter fuel allowance was based on the ill-judged view that a pensioner living on little more than £12,000 a year was well off. The attempt last year to reduce disability benefits by £7 billion was based not on people’s needs, but on the Treasury’s demand for cuts. Even the very welcome and long overdue decision to lift the two-child limit still leaves the overall benefit cap in place, and fails to uprate the threshold in line with universal credit. As a consequence, an estimated one in 12 children will still be caught in deep poverty.

• 6 Jan 2026 · Poverty and Welfare Policies · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, and I cover the JRF’s demands for an essentials guarantee a bit later in my speech—it will be one of the key points I make when I sum up. Short-term support measures are of course vital for people in need, but they will only go so far. What we need is a social security system that is fit for the future. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) pointed out, some have argued that our benefits system is too generous, compared with those in other European countries. However, the rate of our benefits, such as unemployment benefit and the basic state pension, is incredibly low. According to a recent report from the Public and Commercial Services Union, unemployed workers in countries such as Ireland, France and Germany are entitled to more than double what UK workers get if they lose their job. It is no wonder, then, that almost a third of adults say they are unable to keep their home at the recommended minimum temperature of 18°C; that more than one in 10 UK households experienced food insecurity last year; and that the amount the poorest households have left after the bills have been paid has fallen by 2.1% in the last 18 months. However, the weight of the cost of living crisis will not be lifted by boxing clever on single policies. One of the major structural changes we need in order to move beyond sticking-plasters and towards lasting change is the introduction of a protective minimum floor in our social security system, as supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust and others. The principle is simple: if our welfare state is meant to be relied on when people need it, it has to cover the essentials they need to survive. Right now, five in six low-income households on universal credit are going without essentials, and nearly 90% of people referred to food banks are receiving a means-tested social security payment.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Over the past few weeks, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who work in the health and care sector, because they are concerned about the proposed changes to the rules on indefinite leave to remain. These individuals came to this country to do a job that we asked them to do, and then we decided to change the rules halfway through the process. Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to be a proud, rules-based nation, going back on our word to people who are contributing to our society and building lives here is not only unfair, but profoundly un-British?

• 17 Dec 2025 · Draft Public Order Act 2023 (Interference With Use or Operation of Key National Infrastructure) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. A significant number of my constituents have contacted me recently with their concerns about today’s statutory instrument. They believe—and I support them—that reclassifying animal testing facilities as national infrastructure will allow the use of sweeping injunctions and protest restrictions that are designed for airports, major roads, utilities and energy networks. Those powers were never intended to shield private industries from lawful public dissent. Animal testing facilities do not meet any reasonable definition of key national infrastructure. As other Members have said, the country would not grind to a halt, nor would national safety or economic stability be threatened, if protests took place outside such sites. Treating them as equivalent to the M25, power stations or airports is clear and unjustified overreach. There is no legislative gap that the statutory instrument needs to fill. As others have said, existing laws provide robust protection against criminal damage, harassment, threats, trespass and intimidation. Police already have extensive powers to intervene when protests become unsafe or disruptive, including new powers that were introduced to cover persistent or cumulative disruption. This amendment to the Public Order Act 2023 is therefore unnecessary as well as disproportionate. I am particularly concerned that the measure appears to be targeted at specific facilities, rather than addressing any genuine national risk. Using secondary legislation to quietly expand protest restrictions undermines parliamentary scrutiny and public trust. I want to pick up on the comments of the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich about timing. In November, the Government published their long-awaited strategy for phasing out animal testing, which was welcomed as a step towards greater transparency and ethical progress. Restricting protest and public scrutiny of animal testing at the same time sends out a contradictory and deeply concerning message. The objections are not about condoning unlawful behaviour, but about protecting the long-standing democratic right to peaceful protest, especially on issues about which public information is tightly restricted and ethical concerns are significant. That is why I believe that the whole House should debate and vote on the measure. I hope that the Minister will consider that in her response.

• 10 Dec 2025 · AI Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Butler. I thank the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) for securing this timely and important debate. There is little doubt in my mind that AI is transformational technology that will bring many benefits to our society. To fully realise the benefits, however, it is important that safeguards ensure the technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole, rather than simply being vehicles by which large tech companies make even bigger profits. One of the key challenges with AI is the need to protect people’s privacy and livelihoods. That is essential to both our economy and our democratic institutions. It is also crucial that we remain in control of this technological revolution, rather than ending up with the technology controlling us. Currently, a handful of AI companies are making decisions on the future of humanity without democratic input and behind closed doors. That is why Governments across the globe need to work together and at pace to address this democratic deficit. The challenge is stark: tech leaders are already making worrying predictions about how AI will shape our future. Elon Musk—I do not often agree with him, to be honest—recently said: “AI and robots will replace all jobs. Working will be optional”. Of course, automation is not new; we have been here before, but the current wave of AI represents a major technological shift, and potentially a fourth industrial revolution. We have complaints from our creative industries expressing concerns about the way in which their work is being used to train AI without giving them proper recognition and compensation for use of that work. 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 an employment levy on companies who replace large-scale workforces with AI, which would mean the loss of national insurance and income tax from our economy. That cannot simply be allowed to happen without the state gaining some kind of financial compensation. The UK has an opportunity to lead on these issues but, with the development of technology, AI and even ASI, it is essential that our Government develop a comprehensive strategy that acknowledges the international dimension to this issue and the need for broad global agreement. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed those concerns about safeguards and controls. The benefits of AI may be great, but so too are the pitfalls. We have an obligation to get that balance right.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Welfare Spending: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the child poverty strategy published on Friday. Will the Secretary of State outline what more needs to be done to end child poverty for good?

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to a number of amendments tabled in my name. I thank the Pensions Minister for discussing them with me yesterday. I look forward to his comments later in the debate. I spent a number of years as a regional trade union official with responsibility for the local government pension scheme, and I think it is important that we see pensions as a force for social good. My amendments aim therefore to make our occupational pensions more progressive. We should remember that such funds represent the deferred wages of millions of workers, and directing pension funds toward socially beneficial projects is one way in which the Government can rewire our economic model, so that it delivers for ordinary people. In my view, workers’ money should be invested in sectors such as green technology and social housing—stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. Whether this is done through an expanded National Wealth Fund, which could direct investment into socially useful projects, or some other mechanism, it would clearly boost much-needed growth and GDP. What could be more progressive than using workers’ pension funds to build the council houses we so desperately need? That would be a tremendous step forward which not only ensured a solid investment for the funds, but provided decent homes at affordable rents. I designed new clause 5 to address this issue, and I hope the Minister will do more to encourage schemes to redirect their investments in that way. Likewise, amendment 3 recognises that the voluntary approach to disinvestment in fossil fuels has not worked. The LGPS currently invests over £16 billion in fossil fuels, while 85% of all pension schemes lack a credible climate action plan. The environmental crisis is the great challenge facing us all. Workers’ wages should not be fuelling the climate catastrophe. Fundamentally, there is no retirement without our environment, and I hope the Government will emphasise that position to trustees more forcefully. We need a commitment from all LGPS schemes and pools to having a five-year plan to end their relationship with these harmful investments. The overwhelming majority of the public would also be horrified to learn that their savings were invested in illegal wars abroad, such as the genocide in Gaza. We know that over £12 billion of LGPS funds are invested in companies that support the illegal settlements in some way, or produce arms or fuel for fighter jets used in the war. We must ensure that pension funds are not complicit in war crimes and human rights violation, whether in Gaza or elsewhere in the world. The Minister will have noticed the strong cross-party support for my amendment 2, and I urge him to give a statement in the strongest possible terms that the LGPS should not be involved in funding breaches of international law in any form. I understand that many of the pools have money in tracker funds that are connected to arms companies, but that needs to be challenged. If that means disinvesting from arms manufacturers implicated in these breaches, so be it. That brings me to the important matter of worker representation. Having a seat at the table is one way in which we can influence how money is invested. That is why it is important that we ensure trade unions have a voice on all future pension boards and committees, as outlined in my amendment 1. There is currently no requirement for worker representation on the boards of LGPS pools; the Government reducing the number of pools to six gives us an ideal opportunity in law to guarantee proper worker representation. Fundamentally, it is vital that the workers who pay into the funds have a fair voice in decisions on how their money is invested. I hope the Minister will begin talks with local government trade unions to see how we can bring that about. Last week’s budget announcement on the pre-1997 pension indexation was welcome, and many have already quoted that this afternoon, but only those whose schemes were eligible for indexation and are members of the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme will see the benefit. Hundreds of thousands of retired workers whose pension funds were taken over by other companies, such as Hewlett Packard in the case of some of my constituents, and are still in operation will not be protected as was intended in the Budget for that other group; and the money they put into their company pensions before 1997 will continue to be frozen. I know the Minister recognises that over this period their pensions have become virtually worthless. That is why the Government must put pressure on trustees of all schemes to pay some of their surplus funds and ensure that their former staff get the pensions they deserve. The Pension Schemes Bill offers a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to help the environment and society more generally by the way we invest. The £3 trillion in UK pension funds could be used to address the historical transfer of wealth away from ordinary working people toward the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our society. Given that pensions account for 40% of wealth in this country, change must include consideration of how this vast pool can be used to improve the lives of those whose payslips created it. The call to use our money and make pensions more progressive is therefore overwhelming. I look forward to hearing the Minister set out in the strongest possible terms the commitments the Government are making to bring that about.

• 3 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to press the Minister slightly more on the need for UK pension funds not to invest in companies that could be guilty of war crimes and breaking international law. Would he like to reflect on that?

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home. A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency. A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now.

• 25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that housing is a key determinant of public health, and that we should see a right to decent housing as a crucial part of any civilised society?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  To enable the safe transfer of aid, we must uphold the right to provide humanitarian relief to people in need. My constituent, Louie Findlater, was on the recent aid flotilla that came under drone attack. Louie returned safely, but other volunteers were kidnapped and wrongfully detained. My other constituent, John Chapman, was delivering food with World Central Kitchen when his convoy was struck by an IDF missile. There has been no formal apology for his death, no compensation for his family and little accountability for what happened to him and the other British aid volunteers who have died. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that humanitarian norms and red lines are not set in concrete, so if we fail to secure accountability for those crimes, and all the horrors of the last two years, the legacy of genocide in Gaza will be a concerning shift to a more dangerous world?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a powerful case about fuel poverty. In my constituency, around 5,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty—about one in 10 homes. We know that three factors affect this issue: the energy efficiency of a property, the household’s income, and the cost of keeping warm. Given that last year alone, energy companies made a profit of £61 billion, does she agree that it is time we revisited the idea of a nationwide social tariff, which would bring down bills for all low-income households and those living in fuel poverty?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  More than 2,000 wildlife crimes were recorded last year, but fewer than 50 resulted in convictions. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on strengthening the Hunting Act 2004. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions she has had with departmental colleagues to ensure effective enforcement of any forthcoming legislation? Will the Home Office consider making key wildlife offences, including foxhunting, notifiable crimes so that these crimes are recorded and prioritised by police forces?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was about to come to that very point, and how serious people feel this issue is. The Wildlife Trusts have nearly 1 million members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members, and the National Trust has more than 5 million members. There is a massive base of people in this country who care deeply about nature. If we get this wrong, the risk is not just environmental, but political. People will not take it kindly if their local chalk stream is degraded, for example.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Because of the nature of the constituency I represent, I know that chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national inheritance, and we are their custodians. I really hope that the Government will take further steps to align this Bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend intervened on me, mentioning the Corry review, and then he cited it in his own contribution. I am sure that he would like to acknowledge that the review specifically warns about a bonfire of red tape and supports targeted changes. Does he agree that amendment 40 aims to support pragmatic reform, limiting EDPs to where they can make a positive impact, rather than where they will do harm?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature. As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments. The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As several hon. Members have already mentioned, we have to find the correct balance between building the houses that we so desperately need and protecting our vulnerable nature and the habitats that we want to preserve. The Wildlife and Countryside Link states that “some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere. Once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely ever to return.” If we want the Bill to be a genuine win-win for development and for nature, and to keep our manifesto pledge to reverse nature’s decline, environmental delivery plans must be limited to where there is clear evidence they can actually work.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may remember that on Report, I tabled a number of amendments in the hope of safeguarding the public from seeing their bank become an arm of the state. Today, I will speak about Lords amendment 43, which deals with the scope of the eligibility verification measure. The EVM would give the DWP power to give certain financial organisations an eligibility verification notice. That notice would require the receiver to identify relevant accounts that specified benefits are paid into, assess those accounts against eligibility indicators and, where there is indication that incorrect payments have been or may be made, share specified details of those accounts with the Department. The Bill includes provision for an independent reviewer to conduct an annual review of the Secretary of State’s powers under the EVM. Lords amendment 43 seeks to expand the scope of that review to ensure that the costs to banks are proportionate, and that any unintended adverse consequences to benefit recipients are identified. At the moment, the independent review of the EVM need only consider the extent to which the Secretary of State and the financial institutions in receipt of a notice have complied with the requirements when exercising the measure, and whether the EVM has been effective in assisting in identifying incorrect benefit payments. It does not require the independent reviewer to also consider whether the EVM is being used proportionately, which is the key to Lords amendment 43. It is essential that any consideration of the proportionality of the EVM takes into account the potential harm to individuals. In Committee, several witnesses warned that the EVM could result in serious harm to benefit recipients. For example, there is the possibility of an algorithmic error when automated systems are used on a population-wide scale. If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated.

• 3 Nov 2025 · Huntingdon Train Attack · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Home Secretary’s comments and the tributes that have already been paid in the House. She will know, though, that the British Transport police is facing an unprecedented funding deficit that threatens safety on our railways. There is currently a shortfall of £8.5 million and a threat to nearly 300 jobs. Will the Home Secretary therefore meet the Transport Secretary to discuss how we can fully fund the BTP as a matter of urgency?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this important debate. It is only right that, as the Member for Poole, I should speak today. My constituency is the location of the RNLI’s headquarters, including the lifeboat support centre and the RNLI college, where crew and lifeguards are trained in their important work. It is no surprise that, as a coastal town, Poole has a special relationship with the sea. The first lifeboat was stationed in Poole harbour in 1865, and this year the local station celebrated its 160th anniversary. Like other hon. Members, I have had the pleasure of visiting my local lifeboat station on a number of occasions since being elected, to see the tremendous work the station does 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It has 30 seagoing crew, with another 30 or so managers, medical advisers, water safety officers, administrators, fundraisers and those who look after the boat house.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I shall pick up where I left off when the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rudely interrupted me. In 2023, the Poole lifeboat crew launched 146 times. It launched 102 times last year, and 109 times so far this year. I therefore pay tribute to all those at Poole lifeboat station, and place on the record my admiration and respect for their tremendous work. Those volunteers also work extremely hard to raise the funds they need to make all that possible, while also raising awareness of sea safety and encouraging people not to take risks in the water. An issue they have noticed recently is that, because many children no longer have swimming lessons in school, the basic safety messages are needed more than ever. Those volunteers still perform that vital role, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said. Poole station costs about £83,000 a year to run, and every shout that the crews attend means refuelling, replenishing medical equipment, carrying out mechanical repairs, training crew and paying for things such as radio licences, utility bills and general equipment that the crews need. In fact, Poole is one of the busiest coastal stations. The whole effort relies on volunteers and donations from the public to keep going; it is important that we understand that it does not have the largesse of a national organisation. Locally, although the RNLI pays for lifeguards’ training and equipment, the council pays the lifeguards’ wages. Regrettably, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council is considering stopping that. That would place local water users at risk, so I urge the council to think again. Figures show that 98% of all RNLI rescues are within 10 nautical miles of the shore. What makes the charity and the movement generally special is their mission to save those in need at sea, irrespective of their bank balance or their country of origin. We would do well to remember that approach. I appreciate that RNLI is not lobbying for Government funding, because it is concerned that that might impact on its independence, but the National Independent Lifeboat Association has a different framework and it is calling for funding to be reinstated, as we have heard this afternoon. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response to that call. We have heard today about the lifesaving work carried out by independent lifeboat charities across the country, almost entirely crewed by volunteers. Our duty in this place is to lift that burden where we can and help to keep those boats ready to launch whenever the call for help comes.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Children’s Hospices: Ringfenced Funding · Hansard source

  More

  4. Whether he has made an assessment of the potential merits of increasing ringfenced NHS funding for children’s hospices to £30 million by 2030.

• 21 Oct 2025 · Children’s Hospices: Ringfenced Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely welcome the Government’s announcement last week that funding for children’s hospices will be extended for the next three years and will rise in line with inflation. Julia’s House is one such hospice that serves families in my constituency. However, children’s hospices still face challenges in accessing funding from local NHS bodies and councils, addressing workforce shortages and holding integrated care boards to account for the way in which they commission children’s palliative care, so what reassurance can the Minister give that children’s hospices will benefit from sustainable financial support both now and in the future?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Of course, there is also a wider impact on our society from the failings of the current system, because if we do not get the education system right, these children will not be able to access work in the future. Lack of action now will create a bigger problem for us further down the line. It often feels like too much is being left to parents to do to fight for their children rather than there being external scrutiny on those who are letting them down, such as schools, local authorities or the NHS. Through my work, I am convinced that there are certain principles that we need to adopt in any new system. First, there must be an assessment process that can identify the scale of needs and the appropriate setting in which education can be delivered, acknowledging that early intervention is always best. Secondly, legal rights should be given to all those with needs, regardless of the severity of those needs, and there should be a way of confirming those rights by way of an entitlement, as we currently have through EHCPs. In my view, all children should have an educational guarantee that sets out what they are entitled to receive from the state. We need better training and facilities in mainstream schools, but we have to reject tokenistic warehousing just to say that SEND children are in a school, and any new system must avoid that. We also need wider acknowledgment that, even with this investment and a wider offer, mainstream education will still not be suitable for all children, and some will still need provision. We need state investment in specialist provision, rather than relying on the private and independent sector. We need a commitment to fund the new system properly. The transitional arrangements that move us from where we are now to where we will be must ensure that existing recipients of support are protected in that transition. There is no doubt in my mind that SEND families feel that they are often unseen and unheard, and that is why it is our duty to ensure that any new system has their voices at the heart of any change.