Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  As I am a keen universalist, I have to agree with my hon. Friend. There is also a bureaucracy to navigate. It takes massive amounts of time, effort and knowledge of process for parents to navigate the system to get the support they need. That puts parents with lower educational attainment, complex personal needs or busy working lives at a disadvantage. It is no wonder that 62% of parent-carers of SEND children are not in paid employment.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. It is with a great sense of pride that I speak in this debate, because it was my constituent, Rachel Filmer, who launched this petition, which has secured over 100,000 signatures. It is great to see Rachel in the Public Gallery today. Some weeks ago, I held an event in my constituency with SEND families to discuss the challenges they face and to hear what needs to change. Some specific issues arose. First, class is a huge issue in the current system. Many parents resort to private diagnosis after waiting for extended periods, which has concerning implications for low-income families who might not have the resources to get such a diagnosis.

• 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.