Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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 · Ministry of Defence: Palantir Contracts · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s ongoing relationship with Palantir is deeply concerning, given the company’s involvement in Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians. Palantir’s AI technology has been used to destroy entire neighbourhoods, schools and hospitals. If we claim to want an ethical foreign policy and pride ourselves on being a rules-based nation, why are we still signing contracts with such a company?

• 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.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Universal Credit (Removal of Two Child Limit) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Five in six low-income households on universal credit are going without the essentials. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust say that the welfare system must provide the essentials of daily living— food, heating and so on—if we are to tackle deep-seated poverty in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree?

• 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.

• 26 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trussell Trust are campaigning for an essentials guarantee that would ensure that benefits cover the necessities for living. Does the Minister agree that the welfare state should be a universal safety net, not a trapdoor?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  Wessex Water, which serves my Poole constituency, was previously banned from paying bonuses to its company bosses. However, it was able to get around the ban by calling the payments something else or using other mechanisms to pay for failure. Will the Secretary of State therefore explain whether the new White Paper will finally clamp down on these unacceptable practices?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Creative Industries: AI · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that big tech companies want to use songs, recordings and other creative work to train their AI models, without asking or paying the original creators. Does he agree with my union, the Musicians’ Union, that those working in our creative sector should be asked for consent to use their work, get credit for use of their work and be fairly compensated when their work is used in this way?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Creative Industries: AI · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help protect the creative industries in the context of AI.

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

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 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 beg to move, That this House has considered poverty and Government welfare policies. It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. One of the most important legacies this Labour Government could achieve would be the massive reduction in poverty and the widening of opportunities for millions of people currently struggling to get by. The title of the debate mentions poverty, but that does not begin to capture the depth of the crisis facing millions of people today. The phrase “the cost of living crisis” is now so common, we would think it was a fact of life. But we must be clear: poverty does not have to exist; it is a political choice. Today, more than 14 million live in poverty, and that overall figure has barely changed over the past 14 years of austerity. That is why we now have 8.1 million working-age adults, 4.8 million disabled people, 4.3 million children and 1.9 million pensioners living in poverty. Of course, it is easy to talk about poverty in terms of statistics, but it is the real-world impact where it really matters. Living in poverty means people not being able to heat their home, pay their rent or buy essential items such as food for them and their family. It also means waking up every day facing insecurity, uncertainty and impossible decisions.

• 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—in fact, the hon. Member must have read part of my speech, because I will come on to that point a bit later. There is now a wealth of evidence showing that there is a growing gap between what people have and what they need for a decent standard of living. Millions in the UK are falling well short of that standard, as costs continue to rise and our social security system fails to provide adequate and appropriate support.

• 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

  Yes, absolutely. It is important that those who can work have the opportunity and the support to do so. The issue we discussed during the PIP debate last year was those individuals who would never be able to find work of any kind, and the support they would still need to enable them to live a decent and prosperous life. There should be a commitment to benefit adequacy as a core anti-poverty measure, with reportable targets for reducing poverty over a parliamentary cycle.

• 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.

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

  More

  Yes, and I cover the JRF’s demands for an essentials guarantee a bit later in my speech—it will be one of the key points I make when I sum up. Short-term support measures are of course vital for people in need, but they will only go so far. What we need is a social security system that is fit for the future. As the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) pointed out, some have argued that our benefits system is too generous, compared with those in other European countries. However, the rate of our benefits, such as unemployment benefit and the basic state pension, is incredibly low. According to a recent report from the Public and Commercial Services Union, unemployed workers in countries such as Ireland, France and Germany are entitled to more than double what UK workers get if they lose their job. It is no wonder, then, that almost a third of adults say they are unable to keep their home at the recommended minimum temperature of 18°C; that more than one in 10 UK households experienced food insecurity last year; and that the amount the poorest households have left after the bills have been paid has fallen by 2.1% in the last 18 months. However, the weight of the cost of living crisis will not be lifted by boxing clever on single policies. One of the major structural changes we need in order to move beyond sticking-plasters and towards lasting change is the introduction of a protective minimum floor in our social security system, as supported by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, the Trussell Trust and others. The principle is simple: if our welfare state is meant to be relied on when people need it, it has to cover the essentials they need to survive. Right now, five in six low-income households on universal credit are going without essentials, and nearly 90% of people referred to food banks are receiving a means-tested social security payment.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q11. Over the past few weeks, I have been contacted by a number of constituents who work in the health and care sector, because they are concerned about the proposed changes to the rules on indefinite leave to remain. These individuals came to this country to do a job that we asked them to do, and then we decided to change the rules halfway through the process. Does the Prime Minister agree that if we are to be a proud, rules-based nation, going back on our word to people who are contributing to our society and building lives here is not only unfair, but profoundly un-British?

• 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 Dec 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I want to press the Minister slightly more on the need for UK pension funds not to invest in companies that could be guilty of war crimes and breaking international law. Would he like to reflect on that?

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

  More

  I welcome the opportunity this debate offers to lift our eyes to the bigger picture of what a better, fairer country might look like. New clause 13 on the charter for community rights, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), does exactly that, and it represents the sort of change my constituents in Poole are crying out for. It rests on two simple, but transformative principles: first, that communities in England deserve a real say in the places where they live, with a legally enshrined right to challenge local decisions that shape their lives; and, secondly, that people should enjoy basic rights, including the right to a clean, healthy environment and the right to a decent home. A legal right to a quality home in a healthy environment may not sound like a lot to ask in the sixth richest country in the world, but it is a million miles from the lived reality of so many of our constituents. Poor housing, alongside access to decent healthcare, stable incomes and healthy food, is one of the core social determinants of ill health. Enshrining the rights to a healthy environment and a quality home in law would support the kind of cross-government approach we urgently need to reduce health inequalities. Those rights can be seen in the same vein as the long-awaited socioeconomic duty, which requires public authorities to consider how their policies and decisions can reduce inequalities. Properly implemented, it could help address structured, avoidable disparities in housing and health. I urge the Government to introduce that duty as a matter of urgency. A Labour Government must raise the bar: not simply building more housing, but building better homes in decent communities at a price that people can afford. That should be our legacy to future generations and it can start now.