Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I congratulate the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) on securing this timely debate and on his interesting and balanced speech. In today’s digital age, a small group of technology giants wield extraordinary influence over the infrastructure, services and processes that shape our online lives. Although not all their market positions constitute illegal monopolies, their collective market power enables them to set the terms of digital engagement for billions of people worldwide. That concentration of power has profound implications for the rights to privacy, non-discrimination and access to information. It also has the power to undermine our democratic processes fundamentally, which is one of the points that the right hon. Member made in his opening remarks. The platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society often depends on using their services. That gives them enormous power to influence public discourse and to curate the information that we receive. We have in effect subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers. Nowhere is the danger posed to society greater than on the issue of AI. Without doubt, AI is a transformational technology that will bring many benefits to our society, but in order to realise those benefits fully, it is important to put up safeguards to ensure that those technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole, rather than simply as a vehicle by which large tech companies can make even greater profits. Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public. I have already raised with the Government the prospect of considering some form of employment levy, for example, on companies that replace large-scale workforces with AI. Tax is crucial to this debate, and I want to finish on it. Complicated corporate structures, offshore schemes and favourable tax systems allow companies such as Amazon and Apple to boost their bottom line. Given the lack of transparency about where companies make their money and pay their taxes, it is difficult to get an accurate picture of what is going on. Big tech is here to stay, but how we regulate it, tax it and control it are the big questions that our Government and society as a whole need to face.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that coastal towns, such as Poole, which I represent, rely on small businesses. Poole would not be Poole without its restaurants or ice cream parlours. Polling this week shows strong public support for higher levies on big tech. Could this be a way to raise revenue to cut business rates and support the bricks-and-mortar shops that give life to our high streets?

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

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend and neighbour, and I will make that point later in my speech, if colleagues will let me make some progress. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy are all lower in coastal areas, and the gap between more affluent and poorer areas continues to widen. Professor Whitty makes it clear that high levels of deprivation, driven in part by major and long-standing challenges with local economies and employment, are important reasons for the poor health outcomes in coastal communities. That means we need a new approach to dealing with the gap in life expectancy between those with limited incomes and those with large amounts of wealth. Tackling the social determinants of ill health such as housing, employment opportunities, access to healthcare and education is key to bringing about a healthier society. One of the key features linking all our coastal communities is the water that surrounds us. Poole harbour is both scientifically and environmentally important and it needs to be protected. The beauty of the harbour lies in the stark contrast between ecosystems, ranging from intertidal salt marshes and mudflats to freshwater marshes, reed beds and wet grasslands. Visitors will also discover a wide range of wintering, migrating and breeding birds. However, most of Dorset’s rivers suffer from high levels of both nitrate and phosphate pollution.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 15 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

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

• 3 Mar 2026 · Community Cohesion · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger) on securing this timely and important debate. Back in 2009, Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson wrote a book called “The Spirit Level”, in which they argued that material inequality harms a country’s social relationships and sense of community. They argued that it is generally people’s similarity in status that makes social trust possible, since people with similar incomes are more likely to relate positively to each other than those who are divided by vastly different experiences of class or wealth. People in egalitarian societies are more likely to share neighbourhoods and public space, which fosters a sense of community among them. In contrast, people in more hierarchical places are literally divided by their unequal incomes, which separate them geographically into starkly different neighbourhoods, and no-go areas for some. As income inequality becomes entrenched in populations, high earners can find themselves concentrated in wealthier neighbourhoods far away from lower-income individuals. It is therefore no surprise that the more unequal a society, the higher the risk it will become dysfunctional. As income differences widen people are less likely to trust one another, and when we have a breakdown in social trust within a community we see some clear outcomes. Inequality weakens social bonds and civic engagement; people become less involved in community activities, volunteering or helping their neighbours. As a result, social support networks deteriorate and a sense of shared identity and common purpose diminishes. That low trust and weak social cohesion can lead to increased social isolation, particularly among poorer groups; higher crime rates, which impact all sections of society; reduced social mobility, which holds back our economy; and less effective democratic institutions, as people turn away from the democratic process and either disengage completely or look for an easy solution to complicated problems. That is why reducing inequality will help not only society’s poorest, but people across all social classes. Inequality creates social problems that are not limited to the poor. For example, research shows that across a whole society with greater income equality, death rates are lower and life expectancy is longer. We urgently need a war on poverty and inequality. We need the Government to enact the socio-economic duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that public sector decisions do not create more poverty when they are introduced. We need to address some of the fundamental barriers preventing our society from being more equal. Poverty is not just unfair; it is economically reckless. Reducing income inequality to the level of more equal OECD countries would save the UK up to £128 billion annually by reducing costs in areas such as crime and imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health, improving healthy life expectancy, and welfare. To conclude, voters by and large, including some of those wealthy individuals, support the idea of greater fairness in our economy and society. What lie ahead if we do not tackle the gap between the haves and the have-nots are the conditions that will nurture the far right. Public services at breaking point, visible inequality on our streets and a general stagnation or decline in living standards will begin to erode public confidence and trust in the political system. That is why it is in all our interests to foster and create a more equal society that has community cohesion at its heart.

• 10 Feb 2026 · Pensions and Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  Our social security system is the bedrock of our welfare state, but for years, the safety net that it was meant to provide has been developing bigger and bigger holes, through which some of our most vulnerable citizens have fallen. For our older generation, the state pension is the foundation on which a decent retirement can be built. The restoration of the triple lock has been key to raising the income of some of our poorest pensioners, which is why we need it to continue, but it would be wrong to say that the job has been done when we still have 1.9 million older people living in poverty. The weakness of our means-tested pension credit system is that around 750,000 older people are eligible to claim, but have yet to do so. That is why we need to look again at the advantages of a universal system of income in retirement that reaches everyone. Even in the current uprating arrangements, there is an unfairness. Some 8.3 million older people are in receipt of the pre-2016 state pension, made up of a basic state pension and a second state pension, which for many would have been SERPS—the state earnings-related pension scheme—introduced by the late, great Barbara Castle. While the triple lock applies to the basic state pension for these people, the lower consumer prices index is used to uprate the second state pension. This year, that will give a difference of 1%, and over time, we have seen the gap between those on the old state pension and the new state pension widen. That is unfair, and we should consider uprating all pensions in the same way. As hon. Members have said, uprating is a contentious issue when it comes to overseas pensioners. Nearly half a million UK state pensioners do not receive the annual increase because they have moved to a country that does not have a reciprocal agreement with the UK. That means that their state pension is frozen at the value it had when they left the UK. For some, that will mean that their pension is now virtually worthless. Today, we are debating the annual uprating of the state pension, but the process does not include the frozen pensions policy, because that is dealt with through secondary legislation. Despite the serious impact that this issue has on many voters living overseas, there is a lack of scrutiny and opportunity to vote, which means that this House is unable to hold the Government to account on this issue. That needs to change. Finally, I address an issue that a number of hon. Members have raised: our social security system needs to provide for the essentials for living. This April, for the first time since universal credit was introduced, as the Minister has said, the standard allowance will increase above inflation. That will go some way towards closing the gap between income and the daily cost of living, and it is welcome. However, despite this boost, too many families will continue to face a significant shortfall, caused by the increased cost of essentials. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and Trussell estimate that a single adult needs at least £120 a week, and a couple need £205 a week, to afford the essentials. Sadly, universal credit falls short of this. We know that the vast majority of people referred to a food bank were in receipt of a means-tested social security payment, such as universal credit. At the heart of the problem is the fact that there is no evidence-based foundation for setting benefit levels. As a result, updated rates do not properly reflect people’s needs. That is why there is a call for an independent process, which draws on research, including from those with lived experience, for advising Ministers on how much universal credit needs to be, if people are to afford essentials like food, utilities and vital household items. The protection offered by our social security system should ensure that no one in need falls through the gaps. That is the mark of a compassionate society, and something that we should be proud to advance.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted—as has the Minister, I am sure—by a number of pensioners who are worried that they will pay tax on their state pension for the very first time. Which pensioners will be affected by the freeze in allowances, and how will any exemptions apply?

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

  More

  I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work on food poverty and the need for a proper food policy that gives people the right to food. It is an important issue, which we need to address. We all know that circumstances can change overnight. One day, someone is working and getting by; the next, they need support. There is a health scare, they are caring for a loved one, or they have lost their job and possibly their home. That risk and insecurity should not be part of everyday life for our constituents. During a debate on the future of personal independence payments, a number of Members, as the hon. Member for Horsham said earlier, claimed that welfare spending was out of control. However, for the last 15 years, UK spending on social security has consistently been between 10% and 12% of GDP, and we regularly spend less on social security than comparable countries in Europe. Improving the support available through our social security system should be seen as a key part of our economic growth agenda, but we need to recognise that growth that fails to tackle social inequality will mean that all the economic gains remain at the top. In fact, between 2010 and 2019 the UK’s GDP grew by 1.9% every year, but at the same time the wealth gap widened by nearly 50%. As a result, we now have the second highest wealth inequality in the OECD, after the US. That brings us to the important issue of how we raise revenue. There is a genuine concern that if the Government fail to tax wealth effectively, they will lack sufficient resources to uphold the social contract under which strong public services, an effective social safety net and a healthy economy provide people with a decent standard of living. Failure to uphold that contract will inevitably further undermine trust in our current political system and ultimately lead to support for those with simple answers to complex questions. In conclusion, there are some key principles that I hope the Government will accept. First, restricting welfare does not reduce poverty; it simply shifts costs on to charities, councils and the NHS as people try to find support elsewhere.

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

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s contribution. Whether it is fuel poverty, food poverty or various other types of poverty, at the end of the day it is poverty that we need to address—full stop. It is time to enact the socioeconomic duty in the Equality Act 2010, which requires all public bodies to address inequalities when making strategic decisions. We should not be allowed to make decisions that will make people poorer. That was mentioned in one of the debates we had on welfare last year. Finally, we need to reshape our social security system, with objectives that go beyond traditional anti-poverty policies and that incorporate a rights-based approach that includes providing dignity to those within the system. Last year a food parcel was handed out every 11 seconds. Ultimately, our Labour Government will be judged on whether people feel better off. That is our moral crusade and our economic mission, and that is what we should be doing.

• 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.

• 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 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?