Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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

  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

  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

  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

  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 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome today’s statement. As one of the MPs who spoke against the decision to means-test the winter fuel payment last year, I pay tribute to all the campaigners who have lobbied hard for a change in policy. Does the Minister agree that means-testing has once again failed and that effectively what we are seeing today is the return of Labour’s commitment to universalism and to using the taxation system to get money back from those who are better-off?

• 20 May 2025 · Pensions: Expatriates · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Dowd. I congratulate the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate on an issue that is often overlooked, as I think we would all agree. It is fair to say that successive Governments have ignored this issue for decades and, understandably, many UK citizens are unaware of what would happen to their state pension if they were to relocate to one of the countries affected by this regressive arrangement. It seems completely arbitrary that someone could emigrate to America and continue to receive an annual uprating in their state pension, but not if they went to Canada. We have heard that the blight of frozen pensions affects nearly half a million British citizens living overseas, despite the fact that they paid national insurance contributions for much of their working lives. The impact of this arrangement is absolutely shocking. We have already heard that four in 10 frozen pensioners report that they struggle to afford items such as food and fuel. In my view, our state pension system is already insufficient to meet the needs of millions of existing and future pensioners, but let us imagine how inadequate it would be if the pension failed to rise at least in line with inflation or earnings for more than 20 years of someone’s retirement. Most pensioners in this position were never informed that their state pension would be frozen in this way. The scandal therefore has a number of parallels with those behind other campaigns, such as that affecting women born in the 1950s, who argue that they saw their state pension age increase without due notice. Such measures only end up hurting the most vulnerable in our society. Taken alongside recent decisions to means-test the winter fuel allowance, which was mentioned earlier; the refusal to pay compensation to the WASPI women; and the proposed cuts to disability benefits, it could appear that the Government are trying to balance the country’s books on the back of some of the poorest members of our society. Although there will always be a cost to Government decisions, I ask the Minister to consider that beginning to uprate the frozen pensions at a future date would cost only around £55 million a year. Most commentators would understand that that is not beyond the realms of possibility. It would be a significant step not only in showing that the Government are on the side of older people who have made a contribution to our country, but in unravelling a long-standing anomaly that the public simply cannot understand. Finally, the Government should also consider that with changes to the overseas voting rules, as was mentioned earlier, many of the UK pensioners affected by the frozen pension scandal are now in fact registered voters in the UK.

• 12 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Eligibility Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  Helping those who can work to find meaningful employment is an important way to tackle poverty among disabled people, but it will require investment in employment support programmes, incentives for employers to recruit disabled people and enforcement of anti-discrimination rules. Given the importance of these measures, is it not appropriate that Members are asked to vote on any changes to the benefits system only after all the information about the impact of the proposals has been provided?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Wealth Tax: Potential Merits · Hansard source

  More

  Analysis from a number of disability groups shows that the “Pathways to Work” Green Paper will have a detrimental effect on more than 3 million people, while polling from Oxfam shows that 77% of the public would rather the UK Government increased taxes on the very richest than cut the benefits of the poorest in society. Should we not be looking at raising funds from those with the broadest shoulders?

• 8 Apr 2025 · Wealth Tax: Potential Merits · Hansard source

  More

  14. What recent assessment she has made of the potential merits of introducing a wealth tax.

• 19 Mar 2025 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am on record previously as calling for more support for hospices, but I have been contacted by a number of constituents about the issue of home-to-school transport for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. That relates to Lords amendments 3, 6, 11 and 15, and I wish to consider those today. For many children with SEND, their school transport is a lifeline to education, friendships and independence. Without it, these children risk being cut off, left behind and denied opportunities that they deserve. If these Lords amendments are rejected, local councils and transport providers will struggle, families will face uncertainty and, I believe, the fundamental right to education will be compromised. This is not just a technical change to national insurance rates and thresholds; it is a direct threat to the futures of vulnerable children and their families. These dry words on a page have a massive impact in the world outside this place. There is a genuine fear that the cost of removing these Lords amendments, which will ultimately see more children kept out of school, will actually be greater than the additional revenue raised through the national insurance changes. In reality, to exempt SEND school transport from the national insurance rise is not going to bankrupt the UK. We know that local councils, even with additional funding, are already struggling with the impact of 14 years of austerity. I believe that we could certainly raise the money we need if we had a wealth tax and introduced other changes to capital gains tax. I would appreciate it if the Minister explained why we are unable to compromise on this issue and find a way to exempt SEND school transport from the changes he proposes.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having been a trade union activist for 40 years and a regional official, I have a genuine sense of pride in seeing the Bill make its way through Parliament. It is truly transformational and seeks to address the imbalance that has existed in the workplace for far too long. Many of the amendments before us strengthen existing rights so as to ensure that unscrupulous employers are unable to frustrate, delay or act unreasonably when dealing with their workforce, either collectively or as individuals. Other amendments, such as new clause 101 in my name, seek to introduce new rights and protections for groups of workers who have hitherto been forgotten or overlooked. My new clause calls for the establishment of a regulatory body for foster carers. Currently, those who employ foster carers—local authorities, charities and independent fostering agencies—also serve as de facto regulators, with the power to register and de-register workers. That puts too much power in the hands of the employers, and, according to the foster carers branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, it illustrates a structure within the sector that fails to bring consistency, transparency, fairness or decent outcomes for the children and young people in their care. A new regulatory body would therefore accredit educational institutions to provide standardised training courses. Once completed, those courses would remain on a carer’s work record. At the moment, every time a foster carer starts with a new provider, they are required to do the training again. That is both unnecessarily costly and time consuming. The body would also be responsible for maintaining a central register of foster care workers, and would ensure proper standards of care and deal with fitness-to-practice cases. As with the very best regulatory bodies, it would include those with lived experience of foster care. One of the key roles of that proposed body would be to standardise the employment rights available to carers, such as maximum working hours, entitlement to statutory sick pay and protections against unfair dismissal, while also considering the important issue of collective sectoral bargaining. Through that, we would hope to see improvements in pay, minimum allowances, holidays and pension entitlements. As the UK continues to lose foster carers at an alarming rate, now is the time for that basic oversight, which will help to ensure we have enough safe and loving homes for the vulnerable children who need them. My amendments 316 to 323 relate to the issue of redundancy. Over the years, I have negotiated with a number of employers over hundreds of redundancies, and I am seeking to improve the legislation based on that first-hand experience. Amendment 316 would require an employer to hold meaningful consultation even if they were preparing to make fewer than 20 staff redundant—something that many good employers already do, of course—whereas amendments 317 and 318 would introduce greater sanctions for those who fail to consult properly. Amendment 319 would treat workers dismissed under fire and rehire as having been made redundant and would ensure that they receive greater remuneration as a result. Amendments 320 to 323 all seek to improve the level of redundancy pay by removing the 20-year cap on entitlements; by ensuring that someone with 10 years and six months’ service, for example, receives 11 years’ redundancy pay rather than 10; by basing the statutory redundancy calculation on months rather than weeks; and by ensuring those with less than two years’ service also have the right to redundancy payments. Of course, there are many reasons why redundancies occur, but at the moment, the rules and sanctions around this issue enable some unscrupulous employers to exploit the situation and treat their staff unfairly. These amendments seek to address that imbalance, and I hope the Government will consider ways in which the issues I have highlighted can be included in the legislation.

• 6 Mar 2025 · Political Finance Rules · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my fellow Dorset resident, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton), for securing this important debate. It goes to the heart of the concern that the public have, namely that economic dominance leads to political influence. Money is used to influence politics, and politics is then used to enable those people to make more money through changes in laws or regulations. This is the issue that worries the public. We also know that civic participation diminishes if people feel that they have no influence compared to those with large amounts of money. Public trust in our political system is at an all-time low. That flows in part from a sense that politicians are unable properly to represent those who elect them, that money in our politics exerts undue influence that is often obscured from public view, and that those who break the rules that do exist are not adequately punished. Nearly 60% of the public think that funding of political parties is not transparent, and only 30% think that political parties that break the rules will face any action. That is why Labour’s manifesto made the welcome pledge to “establish a new independent Ethics and Integrity Commission, with its own independent Chair, to ensure probity in government.” The commission must be empowered to challenge the corrupting influence of not only the developer lobby but other big money donors, including those from the oil and gas industry. We should also close loopholes to ensure that overseas trips for parliamentarians are funded only by trusted sources, and publish clearer guidance on the acceptance of gifts and hospitality. It is worrying, too, that UK political parties are relying increasingly on a small number of extremely wealthy people to bankroll their election campaigns. The last Government increased national campaign spending limits from £19 million to £34 million, which has intensified the demand for donations across all our political parties. As the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) said earlier, Transparency International UK claims that between 2001 and May 2024, £42 million came from donors alleged or proved to have been involved in corruption, fraud or money laundering. Political parties should therefore be required by law to identify the true source of funds as part of a risk-based approach to donations, and a donation from a company should not be allowed to exceed its net profits generated in the UK within the preceding two years. A UK-registered company is permitted to make donations using money raised overseas, which is why political parties should be required to conduct checks on donations to assess and manage their risks. There are real concerns about unincorporated associations. Such associations are not required to check that those who donate to them are permissible, which means that they could legitimately make donations using funding from otherwise impermissible sources, including from overseas. As other Members have said, the Electoral Commission should therefore be given powers to investigate candidates’ compliance with the rules and to impose sanctions. Finally, banning companies that win public contracts from making political donations would end the potential conflict of interests that this creates and the perception that political friends have received political favours.

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department of Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I acknowledge the £25 billion of additional funding allocated to health and social care in the autumn Budget. We are already beginning to see improvements in waiting times, the number of dental appointments and access to treatment. That is absolutely what my Poole constituents wanted and needed to see from a Labour Government.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Fuel Poverty: England · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing this timely and important debate. According to National Energy Action, one in 10 households in my constituency live in fuel poverty, with the worst affected likely to be low-income households, the unemployed and, of course, pensioners. There is no doubt that fuel poverty is inextricably linked to financial poverty. For example, 1.8 million carers struggle with their fuel bills, and the same people often have to use food banks or to cut back on food in order to pay for their gas and electricity. Many of those carers are themselves older; as we know, it is essential to keep warmer for longer when we get older, as we become less active and more sedentary and our blood circulation becomes poorer. That is why the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance was wrong and needs to be reversed. Department for Work and Pensions figures show that 880,000 older people were eligible for pension credit but did not claim it. Since the decision to means-test the winter fuel payment, around 47,000 pensioners have come forward to make a claim, but that leaves over 800,000 older people without a winter fuel payment they previously would have received. Let us be under no illusions: these are among the very poorest pensioners in our society. There is considerable evidence that when a benefit such as the winter fuel payment is specifically named for a purpose, recipients are more likely to use it for that reason—they put it aside to pay the next bill that comes in. It comes in the winter, because that is when the largest bills arrive; however, for this group of pensioners, the bill came but the winter fuel payment never showed up. Universal payments also reach the people who need them most; it is more efficient to make payments to everyone and then to use the taxation system to redistribute from wealthier pensioners who might not need the payment. According to the Carers Trust, at least 180,000 unpaid carers over 65 will have been negatively impacted by the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance. That group is also shut out of much of the other support available from Government. For example, eligibility for carer’s allowance does not qualify people for the warm home discount, which is based on a property’s type, age and floor area, not on someone’s actual bill. Likewise, an underlying entitlement to carer’s allowance does not qualify individuals for cold weather payments. The drive for a clean energy transition is an opportunity to tackle the problem by lowering bills and insulating our homes, but the energy market, with the role of private companies, is broken. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth mentioned the obscene levels of profit being made, and they need to be addressed. As a minimum first step, we need to introduce social tariffs for low-income households to guarantee lower bills for those who need them. We also need to consider making assistance with fuel bills available as a form of social prescribing. Health professionals who consider that it would have a recognisable health benefit could then enable patients to get cheaper fuel. Finally, we need to reverse the cruel decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance. In one go, we reduced support for 10 million pensioners. That needs to end.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Sunseeker International is a luxury boat-building company in my constituency, and it employs around 2,000 people in the local area. Just before Christmas, it issued temporary lay-off notices to more than 100 workers, with the promise that they would come back to work on 27 January. As that date approaches, those workers now fear the worst. Throughout this difficult time, the company has failed to tell its staff what is happening. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our Employment Rights Bill will ensure that employers must consult and inform their workers when they face such challenges, and will she agree to a debate in Government time on the role and importance of shipbuilding in the UK economy?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Certificate of Common Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s debate, which was very positive. I also welcome the Minister’s contribution, and acknowledge both her understanding of the exploitation taking place in the sector today and her willingness to address that through existing and future measures. On regional support hubs, however, the evidence we have heard—that only 5% of people losing their sponsorship are able to gain another role within the 60-day period—is proof enough that the system is not yet working adequately. I acknowledge that there are efforts to be made, but that does not address the problem that migrant workers face. They are in vulnerable positions and precarious employment, and when that is threatened and taken away, it is very difficult to find another sponsor. I would like the Minister to take that on board further. Finally, my view is that strong trade unions are the key to exercising rights at work. Migrants should be represented in a union in their workplace. We also need a sympathetic legal underpinning that helps individuals and workers generally to exercise those rights. I am hoping that the Employment Rights Bill and other proposed legislation will do that. I am hopeful, ultimately, that the Government will see the economic and social benefit of introducing a certificate of common sponsorship. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship.

• 22 Jan 2025 · Certificate of Common Sponsorship · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Before I start, I pay tribute to Unison South West, which has been at the forefront of this campaign. It has a number of care workers and members in the Gallery to listen to the debate. The stark reality for migrant workers in the UK is that they are under-protected by our employment rights framework and victimised by our immigration rules. Migrant social care workers are particularly vulnerable to this kind of ill treatment because of the hostile environment in which they find themselves. Any worker who challenges bad practices by their employer puts their ability to live and work in the UK at great risk. This is a real danger in a sector with high levels of staff turnover. It is fragmented and privatised, characterised by many small employers running on tight profit margins—some of the profits are extracted from the companies for shareholder dividends. This important debate therefore draws attention to the power that employers are given by our visa system. As the visa sponsor, employers have ultimate power over the lives of workers. Unscrupulous employers have greater powers over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status. If they lose their job, they will lose the right to work and live in the UK. The only way to avoid that currently is if they can find another job with an eligible social care employer within 60 days. As migrant workers, they are not eligible for any kind of support if they are dismissed. Many employers are well aware of the fear and vulnerability that these workers experience and do not hesitate to use threats to secure their compliance. The sponsorship relationship with the employer is particularly harmful in the social care sector. As many Members will know, the care sector is one of the most precarious sectors in the UK. Firms regularly go under or lose their council contracts. The consequence is that staff find themselves without work and in financial hardship. For migrant care workers, the situation is even worse. Workers are fearful of raising concerns about employment practices, because they know that the same employers can remove their visa sponsorship. Unscrupulous employers can use the threat of removal to a care worker’s home country to victimise migrant workers who whistleblow or complain about their treatment. Workers do not only risk deportation by speaking up or challenging an employer. Many face total financial ruin in their home country, because they have sold all that they have to come here, and illegal recruitment fees demanded by predatory recruitment agencies are rife in the sector. According to the Work Rights Centre, one in three people on the health and care worker visa said that they had to pay a large recruitment fee to secure their sponsorship. The value of fees averaged £11,000. The latest report from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority indicates that the care sector is the most reported sector for labour exploitation, making up 60% of all reports. The most common vulnerability to exploitation indicated by potential victims of forced labour is being tied to a visa under the existing sponsorship system. The Care Quality Commission has noted that workers are being exploited through the immigration system. Research last year by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre found that the current visa system creates hyper-insecurity, which increases workers’ vulnerability to exploitation. Workers routinely suffer low wages, high recruitment fees, inappropriate salary deductions and the threat of deportation. One care worker, who wishes to remain nameless, said: “We are not treated with dignity at all. Last month I was paid just £1,300 with no explanation as to why my wages had been reduced. Most carers are scared to take their leave for fear of losing shifts and when you get sick, the company deducts money from your salary”. One of my constituents in Poole, Nicola, explained that many sponsors have failed to meet their promises of providing adequate hours, which leaves workers in precarious situations. This not only undermines their rights, but often subjects them to poor working conditions and substandard housing. Some of the stories these workers tell are truly heartbreaking and highlight clear violations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. For example, many migrant healthcare workers are expected to sign contracts containing draconian clauses which often include a requirement to pay back recruitment and training costs if they leave their posts within a few years. Workers have effectively been blackmailed into staying because their employers have threatened them with a large debt should they leave. Migrant care staff have also been invoiced for administration costs. One employer billed staff £65 an hour for meeting and greeting a new employee at the airport when they arrived in the UK. Another worrying trend is workers being charged fees that the Home Office explicitly forbid employers to pass on. These include the immigration skills charge that the Government require employers to pay when they agree to sponsor a worker from overseas. Government interventions to address these issues have failed thus far. In 2023, the then Government announced that care providers could only sponsor migrant workers if they were undertaking activities regulated by the CQC, but this failed to recognise that many registered companies were already exploiting their workers. In 2024, a rematching programme to help workers find another sponsored role when things went wrong was symbolic of acting after the problem had arisen, rather than seeking to change the structure of the system. Although welcome, stricter licensing requirements and greater sanctions do not address the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of the employee sponsorship system. That is why I hope the Government will agree to a review of immigration policies that increase the vulnerability of migrant workers to exploitation and modern slavery. Vital to that is a re-examination of the visa sponsorship relationship with the employer in the social care sector, moving towards a sector-wide sponsorship scheme run by an independent body with a health and social care focus. That would enable overseas staff to leave bad employers and find work with better ones. Sector-wide sponsorship would also mean that workers and employers did not incur new costs every time a worker moved jobs. That would alleviate the pressure on the worker and reduce the impetus from some employers to enforce repayment clauses. Any visa scheme reform will stand or fall on whether it enables overseas workers to live their lives free of exploitation. This requires a fundamental shift in our immigration rules, so that the hostile environment is replaced with a rights-based framework and migrant workers are treated with dignity and respect.

• 14 Jan 2025 · Renters’ Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would like to echo the comments of my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale), and the references that she made to the housing problems in our area. Today marks a once-in-a-generation moment, with the biggest change to private renting since the Conservatives’ Housing Act 1988. The Thatcher reforms aimed to rejuvenate private renting by making it more attractive to landlords, but instead they helped to sow the seeds of the housing crisis we see today. England’s 12 million private renters face some of the worst-quality housing in the developed world, with shocking levels of damp and mould and low rates of insulation resulting in health problems and unaffordable energy bills. Instead of producing competitive and affordable housing, decades of tipping the scale towards landlords has resulted in homes that are insecure, eye-wateringly expensive and often short term in nature. While renters in countries such as Germany enjoy secure, long-lasting tenancies with rights to redress when things go wrong, tenants in England can be put out on the street by a no-fault eviction if they complain about a leaky roof or a broken boiler. I rise to speak in support of new clause 3, which would limit rent in advance of tenancy; new clause 7, which would limit proposed rent levels; and new clause 9, which covers the right to have home adaptations made to a property. We know that this legislation will end the exploitative bidding wars that drive up rental prices, stamp out discrimination on renting to families with children or those on benefits, and give renters the right to request pets in their home. With section 21 finally consigned to history, tenants will also benefit from longer notice periods, giving them more security in their homes, and we will hold landlords accountable for health hazards in their properties. No longer should tenants and their families suffer damage to their health because a landlord refuses to act. However, to truly deliver a more secure future for renters in England, the Bill needs to close a loophole that would allow no-fault evictions to continue via rent hikes. Amendment 9, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), would cap in-tenancy rent rises. It would introduce a cap on the amount a landlord can raise the rent of a sitting tenant, so that no one has to face a rent hike higher than wage growth or inflation. Everyone deserves to have basic security in their home, whether they rent or own. People with mortgages tend to have relatively predictable costs. Tenants have no such peace of mind. Today, there is nothing to protect tenants from extortionate, unjust rent hikes. The Renters’ Rights Bill does not do enough to change that. Last year, a Government survey of landlords found that rent increases of 15% or more when renewing or extending a contract are common. Despite the Bill’s passage, renters who cannot afford extortionate rent hikes will continue to have no alternative but to move, fall into debt or face eviction. There is a real danger that landlords will continue to evict tenants or threaten them with eviction at will, with unfair rent increases taking the place of section 21 evictions. The Bill’s provisions to allow renters the right to appeal to a tribunal that can determine a market rate increase are insufficient. By definition, market rates are already unaffordable for many renters. Only capping rent increases will give renters genuine security in their home and stop landlords threatening vulnerable people with unaffordable rent hikes or homelessness. Beyond security, the biggest issue most renters face is the fast-growing cost of having a home to live in. The amount of income that families in this country are losing to rent is rapidly becoming unsustainable. Nearly two thirds of working renters in England struggle to afford their rent, according to recent research by Shelter. Rent produces almost zero social benefit. It takes money away from working-class people who could otherwise spend it in their community, and it passes that money to property owners. What simpler, more effective way could there be to ease the cost of living crisis for millions of people and put money back in their pockets than by limiting their largest outgoing? Rent stabilisation measures are common across Europe. In France, the annual increase is limited to 3.5%. Meanwhile, in England, rent has been rising faster than wages for well over a year, and the average annual increase reported in December was 9.3%. A cap on rent increases has the support of housing charities, renters’ organisations and major unions. It also has strong public support. When it comes to the housing crisis, we must keep all options on the table, and I hope the Government will back these changes to the Bill. Ultimately, we need to increase the supply of council housing at affordable rents. In my constituency of Poole, we have some of the highest rents relative to wages in the country. Change, therefore, cannot come soon enough for those renters, and this Bill is a welcome first step.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend accept that any fair taxation system should place the biggest burden on those with the broadest shoulders? That means taxing the wealthiest in this country, rather than hospices and the charitable sector.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Inflation: Pensioner Living Standards · Hansard source

  More

  The poorest pensioners in our society are those who are eligible for pension credit but do not claim it, and those who are just a few pounds above the threshold and miss out on passported support. Means-testing, by its very nature, is simply not the best way to get help to those who need it most, so will the Minister reconsider the recent decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance?

• 5 Nov 2024 · Income Tax (Charge) · Hansard source

  More

  I should place on record that my wife is a hard-working NHS employee, and she will thank me for saying that. I have today met representatives of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, which has raised serious concerns about the waiting times that children with conditions such as motor neurone disease face in accessing community services and hospital treatment. I am hopeful that children’s health will be targeted for additional resources in the Budget, because if we can tackle children’s health early, we can help to reduce poor health in later years. I welcome the key point in the Budget, which is the recognition that increasing public spending—on health, for example—benefits those on lower incomes the most. Likewise, the Budget concentrates increases in tax on the households with the highest incomes, as it should. I have received representations from hospices in my constituency about the increase in national insurance contributions for employers, and I urge the Chancellor to consider granting hospices an exemption, in recognition of the difficult and much-needed work they do. The announcement of £1 billion of additional funding for SEND is to be warmly welcomed, and I am keen to see how that funding will be distributed to benefit the children and families who have been struggling for so long. The announcement of compensation for victims of the Post Office Horizon scandal and the infected blood scandal is a welcome step in recognising those injustices, but I urge the Chancellor to see what similar support can be given to women born in the 1950s who were never properly informed about the changes to their state pension age. I also recognise the £600 million grant funding for social care for local authorities, but the entire sector urgently needs reform, especially if we are to realise the Government’s stated aim of moving healthcare from hospital to community. Finally, I again express my concerns about the decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance. I am looking forward to meeting the Minister with responsibility for pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), tomorrow to discuss that further. I hope we can explore what further support we can give to those who are just above the pension credit threshold. There is much to welcome in this Budget, but those with the broadest shoulders need to carry the heaviest burden.

• 29 Oct 2024 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  This Government have inherited a Britain that is now the most unequal country in the G7 bar America. The UK’s 50 richest families own 50% of the country’s wealth, and our tax system exacerbates this inequality with unfair loopholes that benefit those who have wealth rather than those who go to work. What steps—

• 25 Jul 2024 · Code of Conduct and Modernisation Committee · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. I congratulate you on your recent election, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) on an excellent address. I look forward to hearing many more such passionate and powerful contributions from her in future. I would like to place on record my sincere thanks to the parliamentary staff who have provided such excellent support and guidance to me, and I am sure to many others, over the past two weeks. I am sure that you can recall, Madam Deputy Speaker, what it was like when you first arrived here. Having the support of those staff has made the transition to Westminster much easier. As a newly elected MP, I have to say that this is unlike any other workplace I have ever attended. That is why I wholeheartedly support the proposal from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a Modernisation Committee that will look again at the culture and working practices of the House. I hope to support its work in whatever way I can. I would also like to express my thanks to my predecessor, Sir Robert Syms. He and I share a pride in representing the constituency of Poole. He served the House and his local residents for 27 years. Even in defeat, he was generous enough to offer me his assistance in acclimatising to parliamentary life, and for that I am very grateful. I also owe him an apology. After an exhausting three recounts, which lasted until 11 o’clock on the morning of 5 July, I forgot to thank him properly for his service. I hope I can rectify that today and wish him well for the future. Having listened to a number of maiden speeches over the past few days, I am aware that new Members wax lyrical about how beautiful their constituency might be, and I will not deviate from that format. Anyone who has visited my constituency as a tourist knows that the beaches at Branksome Chine and Sandbanks are world class. Poole Park is a superb example of Victorian municipal pride, winning awards for its well managed green spaces, which are much needed in today’s busy world. The park borders Poole’s magnificent harbour. The harbour area has been inhabited since the iron age. It became a major trading centre with Newfoundland in the 16th century, and by the 19th century nine out of 10 workers were involved in some kind of harbour activity. We even had the odd pirate. The link to the sea played its part in world war two, when Poole was the third largest embarkation point for the D-day landings of Operation Overlord, and the local Marine base played a key role in the Falklands conflict. Today, the marine industry continues to play a significant role in the town, whether through the manufacture of yachts, the fishing industry or associated tourism. Of course, the most famous nautical connection is the headquarters of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which is celebrating its 200th anniversary. I was happy to add my name to the early-day motion, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), on the RNLI’s anniversary, and to pay tribute to the men and women who have volunteered over the years to save others, irrespective of who they are or where they come from. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that a rising tide raises all boats. It is important for Members to understand that not everyone in Poole is a multimillionaire. Although the most expensive land in the country, known as Sandbanks, might be home to footballers and celebrities, nearly 7,000 residents in Poole struggle to cover essential costs from their monthly income, according to Citizens Advice. One in three of those are in work. In Poole, like the rest of the country, that got worse during the years of austerity and then the cost of living crisis. That is why I want to pay tribute today to people such as Mel Meadowcroft and her team of volunteers, whom I have had the pleasure of meeting, who run the community food store in St Gabriel’s church in Hamworthy. It offers local families a chance to buy the things they need at very low cost but, importantly, in a way that retains their dignity. Without that work, many more families would be in severe financial difficulty. That is why I welcome the King’s Speech and the commitment to make work pay, as set out in the employment rights Bill. As a former full-time trade union official used to negotiating with employers and representing members, I am well aware of the need to reset the balance in the workplace to enable working people to organise as a way of improving their terms and conditions, as well as making the improvements needed to address low pay and inequality in the workplace. Banning zero-hour contracts, ending fire and rehire, and giving day-one rights on parental leave, sick pay and protection from unfair dismissal will be significant achievements of this Government and will bring about lasting change that will benefit millions of working people, including those in my constituency. I will close by thanking some significant people who put me here today: the residents of Poole for having the confidence to vote for a Labour MP for the first time in the history of the seat; my wonderful Poole Labour family for their commitment to the cause and a tremendous sense of camaraderie; and my wife Helen for believing that this was possible. There is a great sense of pride in being here today and I will do whatever I can over the lifetime of this Parliament to repay the faith that the people of Poole, my party and my family have shown in me.