Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As I said during the ways and means debate last week, I welcome the Government’s decision to bring forward this legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced in future if necessary, and to return any unspent grant more quickly. I am grateful to the Exchequer Secretary for his letter this morning, which covered some of the points that I made in that debate. Today’s Bill feels like a missed opportunity, especially as a number of issues surrounding the grant remain to be addressed by the Government. The first issue is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. Members will know that the Crown Estate commands a massive £16 billion portfolio, owning much of our coastline and the corresponding seabed, but it is not the private property of the monarch, nor do the revenues from the estate belong to them. In fact the Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy, and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury. The implication of the current arrangement is that the monarch forgoes his profits from the Crown Estate in return for a payment of a percentage via the sovereign grant, yet all the profits are public funds. That is an odd form of indexation, and raises the question of why the grant is not based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. It would have been better if the Bill broke the link to the Crown Estate and gave power to the royal trustees to decide the appropriate figure, based on need. That raises the second question of how the grant should be set. I believe that it should be done on an annual basis, and that it is important for the funding of the monarchy to be transparent and open for MPs to debate. All public funds should rightly be open to scrutiny and parliamentary oversight. On numerous occasions I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told that this is not something for Parliament to discuss. That must change, and that is why I will support amendment 1. The Bill calls for a substantial increase in the grant, and a rise from 12% of the Crown Estate profits to 20.5%. However, the royal family is smaller than it was in 2011, when the grant was first introduced, and the King and the Prince of Wales are said to favour a slimmed-down monarchy. It would appear that the anticipated increase to £99.9 million is not based on any assessment of need, and I should appreciate it if the Minister explained exactly how we have arrived at a figure that is 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even allowing for inflation and the building maintenance programme that has been mentioned, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point. As I mentioned during the ways and means debate, there are also some anomalies when we look at the monarch’s wider financial arrangements. Why, for example, is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster when the level of the sovereign grant is being set? Ideally, Madam Deputy Speaker—I can see that you are very keen to bring me to book—we should have before us a Bill to ensure that the amount of the sovereign grant is appropriate to the relative needs of the monarch, and that Members of Parliament are not restricted to just approving a new percentage figure once every five years, via an arbitrary and unnecessary link to the Crown Estate. The Bill is, in my view, a missed opportunity to modernise the monarchy. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.

• 2 Sept 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is clear from this debate that the public have lost trust in politics and the political process, and that is linked to them seeing money have an undue influence on the decisions that politicians make. In 2015, just 1% of private donations came from individuals or companies giving £1 million or more. By 2024, that figure had risen to over a third. We have seen the obscene amounts of money that some MPs have made doing second—or even third and fourth—jobs while they are supposed to be representing their constituents. Equally, we know that businesses that donate to political parties are often in line for Government contracts in return. That has got to stop, because if it does not, more than half of all political donations could soon come from just a handful of individuals, leaving elected politicians increasingly reliant on the patronage of a small elite. We will have wealthy individuals and companies with influence over the direction of our country, despite never having won a single election. New clause 26, in my name, would begin to address those concerns. It would ban political donors from securing government contracts from the Administrations they paid to elect. Over the past 25 years, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth in government contracts, including during the covid era. In the middle of a national crisis, people needed confidence that decisions were made on merit and in the public interest, not shaped by big donors. The Government are quite rightly starting to claim back some of the covid contracts money, but they would also benefit from distancing themselves from those donors who are only interested in the party as a vehicle for achieving their own ends. In this debate, we are rightly having a wider conversation about our democracy. There is scrutiny of a Westminster-centric political culture in which communities have often been left behind. Redistributing power on the basis of place is one side of the coin, which must go hand on hand with redistributing power on the basis of wealth. According to a recent Oxfam report, the super-rich exert influence in three main ways: buying political influence by funding parties and candidates; gaining direct access to decision makers and institutions; and shaping public opinion to defend elite power. That is why I am supporting amendments to limit donations from harmful lobbying interests and place stronger caps on what wealthy individuals and private companies can give.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced, but there remain a number of issues surrounding the grant that I believe they should also address. The first is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy, and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury. That seems a very odd form of indexation, and raises the question of why the grant is not based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. That, I believe, needs to be reviewed. The fact that the grant could only ever go up—until the Government tabled this motion—was described by the Financial Times as an arrangement whereby in a good year the monarchy would win, and in a bad year the taxpayer would lose. It is therefore right that the Government are addressing that anomaly. The motion also raises the question of how the grant should be set. I believe that the Treasury should have the power to specify the amount on an annual basis. It is important for the funding of the monarchy to be transparent and open to MPs for debate. On numerous occasions I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told that this is not something for Parliament to discuss. That has to change. Finally, there are some anomalies relating to the monarch’s wider financial arrangements. Why, for example, are they not subject to inheritance tax? Why is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster in the setting of the level of the sovereign grant, and why are the monarch’s financial affairs exempt from freedom of information legislation? While the Bill might be viewed as an administrative adjustment, it is important that we ask why the grant needs to be 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even when we allow for inflation, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on those issues when he sums up the debate.

• 1 Sept 2026 · Direction of Government · Hansard source

  More

  On the subject of social care, does the Prime Minister agree that there is a fundamental unfairness in dementia care being means-tested, while cancer care is funded by us all through general taxation? Is not that unfairness the issue that we need to address?

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I will deal with AI sovereignty a bit later in my speech. We should ensure that, like a socialist Government’s approach to energy or water, the public have a stake in the development of AI technology, to ensure that the value it creates is captured and shared for the good of society as a whole. Previous waves of technological change have brought with them huge economic disruptions, but the human and social costs that followed were not inevitable. They were the product of political choices, as Governments left workers and communities to absorb the shocks alone.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, young people and their employment prospects are intrinsically linked to the debate about the future of AI. The hon. Gentleman is right that we have to get that right for those people to have a future. We also need the Government to introduce a raft of measures to manage AI-driven changes to work. Those measures should include an employment levy on companies that replace large numbers of workers with AI, training subsidies for displaced workers, redeployment programmes to move workers into sectors with skills shortages, and a job subsidy scheme for workers and companies at the sharp end of industrial change, along with, of course, stronger social security support for those who face unemployment. We know that if it is left to the market, firms will often reach for the crudest form of automation, stripping out roles and degrading the work that remains. The alternative is that we start to advance the case for dignified work, and recognise that that will mean having meaningful worker involvement in every step of the process. The involvement of workers in adoption is often what turns a promising tool into a productive one. That is why I agree with the TUC that the Government should strengthen the Employment Rights Act 2025 to give workers a real say in decisions. There should be a duty on employers to disclose their use of AI, and a right for the workforce to be consulted and negotiate over how AI is introduced. One of the biggest challenges of AI is to ensure that everyone gets a fair share of the gains. The AI and big tech corporations in the US stand shortly to become some of the wealthiest and most powerful private actors in history. Their wealth has been built on public research and public investment, as well as all our shared written inheritance, which has trained the models they use. The fact that our tax system taxes income from work far more heavily than income from capital gives firms a direct tax incentive to automate a worker out of a job rather than employing them, and could see AI facilitate a further shift of national income away from labour and towards capital, eroding the tax base that funds the public services that we all need and want.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered Government policy on AI and its impact on society. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McVey. I think we all agree that AI is a transformational technology with the potential to bring many benefits to our society, but to fully realise them we will require the Government to look at radical changes to taxation, welfare and our industrial strategy. Everyone in the UK needs to benefit from a managed AI transition that puts workers and human dignity at its heart. It must make the world fairer, not more unequal, and it should give UK citizens a meaningful say in decisions that will affect their lives. Evidence from the New Contract, a pro-worker AI campaign organisation, reveals that the public are deeply suspicious about AI. Around six in 10 people expect the gains to flow to wealthy investors and big corporations, while just 7% think they will be shared fairly across our society. Understandably, seven in 10 workers are worried about the impact of AI on their jobs. Even the Foreign Secretary said recently that AI poses a Hiroshima-style threat to humanity unless global rules are put in place. In today’s digital age, a cartel of technology giants—Google, Meta, Microsoft, Amazon and Apple—wield extraordinarily influence over our lives online. These platforms have become so embedded in daily life that meaningful participation in society depends on using their services. Similarly, the digital infrastructure that facilitates our work and public services is now an essential layer of the economy, but that gives oligarchs like Elon Musk enormous power to distort public discourse. We have effectively subcontracted our right to information to a handful of big tech gatekeepers.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about no place being left behind as a result of the AI revolution. I will develop that point a later. We can already see the first signs of AI impacting on work here. We have record numbers of young people not in employment, education or training because many entry-level jobs have disappeared.

• 8 Jul 2026 · Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention—let us see whether he can make it a hat trick before I finish. The reality is that AI is here now. We have to deal with how it impacts on today’s workers and future workers as well. This is not one generation against another, and I know the hon. Gentleman understands that. The Government could seek to equalise tax treatment, actively explore widening the digital services tax to include AI companies, which it currently excludes, and raise the level of the tax from 2% to the European average. We cannot allow the use of machines to be made artificially cheaper than employing people. It is important to look at AI sovereignty, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) mentioned earlier. The UK is growing increasingly dependent on US tech, and owns little of the data infrastructure and AI models on which the future economy will increasingly rely. This repeats the pattern of recent decades in other sectors, whereby essential national infrastructure has passed into overseas ownership and money has flowed offshore, leaving British people with less and less control over the essentials of a good life. That dependence not only creates security risks, as has been mentioned, but prevents the UK from capturing and distributing any AI windfall. We need to give UK companies a meaningful chance to compete. The Competition and Markets Authority could use existing powers to take on the concentration in the cloud market, which underpins the AI companies’ business models. A progressive sovereign AI programme should involve an industrial strategy that seeks to expand public investment in the sector and impose strict conditions on private access to public assets, alongside active support for models such as co-operatives, public interest companies and other democratic ownership models, so that the gains of AI can be captured and shared throughout the UK. At the heart of this debate is the role of the public. Big decisions about AI, such as where data centres are built and how AI is deployed in public services, are being taken with little democratic input.