Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jul 2026 · Coastal Communities: Isolation and Hidden Deprivation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight West (Richard Quigley) on securing this important debate. Like all hon. Members who represent a coastal constituency, I am lucky to represent such a beautiful area. However, one of the first issues we face is that of perception. My constituency has some of the most expensive land in the country, which sits just 20 minutes away from areas that fall within the most deprived 10% of places in England. Such extremes of wealth can often mask what is really happening in a town. Average gross median weekly full-time earnings in Poole are £764, but monthly rent is around £1,400. One in four children in Poole is living in relative poverty after housing costs, which shows the impact of high rents and their effect on the cost of living. Towns such as Poole are also desperate for good-quality, affordable and secure council housing for local families, rather than the developer-led luxury waterside apartments that have sprung up in recent years. Such apartments are either unsuitable for young families or out of reach for many locals. We know that poor housing can lead to poor health outcomes. Life expectancy, healthy life expectancy and disability-free life expectancy are all lower in coastal areas, and the gap between more affluent areas and poorer areas continues to widen. In conclusion, I hope that the new Prime Minister will consider appointing a Minister for coastal communities to address these very important and pressing issues.

• 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

  One data centre, even a modest one, uses the same amount of electricity as 100,000 homes. The bigger the data centre, the more electricity it uses. Very few of them run off renewables, so that is another issue we need to address. The communities that host the infrastructure see the costs, in water, energy and land, without getting any of the benefits that we have discussed. These big debates are why the Government must embed ongoing public and democratic oversight of the AI transition and legislate for community benefit where infrastructure is built, including a share of the value created locally. We must ensure that the AI revolution does not lead to more power being in the hands of a few who can determine our future. Governments must build independent, publicly funded alternatives to ensure that AI is developed for the common good. Only public investment can support AI that prioritises social and environmental challenges. We need an “AI for the people” strategy—one that starts to recognise the challenges we face and has the ideas to meet those challenges head on.