Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) on securing a very timely debate. In fact, it took only hours after the Home Secretary’s announcement on settlement rights for messages from worried constituents in Poole to start flooding in. One of them, my constituent Olebanjo, put it very powerfully. He said: “Migrants are not just statistics; we are carers, professionals, volunteers, and parents raising children who already call this country home. We want to belong, to integrate fully, and to continue giving our best to the UK. This proposal would make that harder, not easier.” I think he is right. The idea that making life harder for people who are already here, working, raising families and contributing somehow improves assimilation or cohesion simply does not make sense at all. The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that those workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. In Poole and across the country, our health service relies on thousands of workers from around the world. In social care, the changes risk turning a staffing crisis into a catastrophe. We cannot tackle that problem by punishing the migrant workers caring for our relatives and providing dignity and warmth to our elderly. The problem, then, is that migrant workers are being made to pay for issues that they did not cause. The outcome will be, I fear, depressingly predictable. When care homes, particularly those outside big cities, struggle to fill vacancies and care worsens as a result, right-wing politicians and their media outriders will not admit that punishing migrant workers has failed; they will double down and the clamour for harsher measures will grow. Our Labour Government must challenge that approach.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Medical Training (Prioritisation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the final contributor from the Back Benches, I shall try to strike a slightly different tone from the rest of the debate. Over the past few days, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who are likely to be affected by today’s emergency Bill. One of those is Dr Khan, a resident doctor at Poole general hospital’s emergency department. He trained overseas and has been working in the NHS for almost three years. He also has a young family living in my constituency. As an international medical graduate working in the NHS, he is concerned that the proposed emergency legislation on UK medical graduate prioritisation will have a negative impact on people like him. Although I support a sustainable domestic medical workforce, implementing these changes mid-cycle in 2026, after applications have closed and commitments have been made, is, I believe, a breach of procedural fairness. My constituent has raised further concerns that I would also like to share. The technical proposal to use immigration status such as indefinite leave to remain or citizenship as a proxy for NHS experience is both blunt and unnecessary. The Oriel application system already specifically collects data on whether an applicant has more than six months of NHS experience, and this existing evidence-based metric should be used to prioritise those already contributing to our health service rather than relying on immigration status. Many of Dr Khan’s colleagues have relocated to this country and planned their lives based on the rules in force when the applications opened in late 2025. To change the rules now, while we are in the middle of the interview window, will cause immense personal distress and undermine our long-standing commitment to fairness. There is also a genuine risk to the workforce. Our NHS relies heavily on our international staff, and today’s Bill risks damaging the UK’s reputation as a fair employer. It could lead to an exodus of skilled professionals that the NHS, in my view, cannot afford to lose. When the Minister responds, will she consider providing clear transitional protections for the 2026 cohort who are already here? Will she further consider that any new criteria should be implemented prospectively for 2027 and that any measure of NHS experience should utilise the data already collected, rather than blunt immigration-based proxies? A few days ago, I submitted a written question on the impact that the proposed changes to rules around indefinite leave to remain for health workers would have on the viability of the NHS 10-year workforce plan. The response from the Department was that no such assessment had been made. I fear that we are now making the same mistake again. Those who are already here and making a contribution need to be acknowledged for their service. I would welcome any assurances that the Minister could give to Dr Khan and all those like him who are already a valued part of our NHS.

• 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 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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. Some months ago, I led a debate in this Chamber on the merits of a certificate of common sponsorship in relation to the social care sector. In that debate, I highlighted the unfair and precarious nature of having an employment visa linked to a single employer, rather than to the sector as a whole. I mention that because that campaign, which is ongoing, is of course linked to today’s debate on indefinite leave to remain. Overseas workers have made, and continue to make, a massive contribution to the UK’s health and social care sector. Because of those dedicated staff, we have been able to provide much-needed care for some of our most vulnerable individuals, but the proposed changes to the ILR rules could put all that at risk. The adult social care sector is already experiencing a crisis in recruitment. In England, for example, 7% of roles are unfilled; that represented about 111,000 vacancies in March this year. These proposals will make filling those vacancies even more difficult. I have raised before with the Government how the current sponsorship arrangements leave migrant workers open to abuse. Some are locked into unfair contracts; when they raise concerns about their working conditions, they can be threatened with deportation. Employers already have undue power over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status.