Neil Duncan-Jordan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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?

• 24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source

  More

  To enable the safe transfer of aid, we must uphold the right to provide humanitarian relief to people in need. My constituent, Louie Findlater, was on the recent aid flotilla that came under drone attack. Louie returned safely, but other volunteers were kidnapped and wrongfully detained. My other constituent, John Chapman, was delivering food with World Central Kitchen when his convoy was struck by an IDF missile. There has been no formal apology for his death, no compensation for his family and little accountability for what happened to him and the other British aid volunteers who have died. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that humanitarian norms and red lines are not set in concrete, so if we fail to secure accountability for those crimes, and all the horrors of the last two years, the legacy of genocide in Gaza will be a concerning shift to a more dangerous world?

• 18 Nov 2025 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a powerful case about fuel poverty. In my constituency, around 5,000 households are experiencing fuel poverty—about one in 10 homes. We know that three factors affect this issue: the energy efficiency of a property, the household’s income, and the cost of keeping warm. Given that last year alone, energy companies made a profit of £61 billion, does she agree that it is time we revisited the idea of a nationwide social tariff, which would bring down bills for all low-income households and those living in fuel poverty?

• 17 Nov 2025 · Rural Crime · Hansard source

  More

  More than 2,000 wildlife crimes were recorded last year, but fewer than 50 resulted in convictions. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to consult on strengthening the Hunting Act 2004. Will the Minister update the House on what discussions she has had with departmental colleagues to ensure effective enforcement of any forthcoming legislation? Will the Home Office consider making key wildlife offences, including foxhunting, notifiable crimes so that these crimes are recorded and prioritised by police forces?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I was about to come to that very point, and how serious people feel this issue is. The Wildlife Trusts have nearly 1 million members. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has more than 1 million members, and the National Trust has more than 5 million members. There is a massive base of people in this country who care deeply about nature. If we get this wrong, the risk is not just environmental, but political. People will not take it kindly if their local chalk stream is degraded, for example.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. Because of the nature of the constituency I represent, I know that chalk streams are extremely important and should be protected. They are our national inheritance, and we are their custodians. I really hope that the Government will take further steps to align this Bill with a fairer and greener future for everyone.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend intervened on me, mentioning the Corry review, and then he cited it in his own contribution. I am sure that he would like to acknowledge that the review specifically warns about a bonfire of red tape and supports targeted changes. Does he agree that amendment 40 aims to support pragmatic reform, limiting EDPs to where they can make a positive impact, rather than where they will do harm?

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This Bill has sparked a keen interest among my constituents. It is important to recognise that people who live in Poole want to protect the environment and the benefits that living in a nature-rich part of the country gives them. I welcome some of the changes made to the Bill in the other place, many of which reflect points raised by me and others on Report, including the need for a stronger overall improvement test to ensure that changes to environmental protections do not hand developers a licence to trash nature. As we know, Britain is already one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. We have lost half of our biodiversity, one in six species is at risk of extinction and only 14% of our habitats are in good condition. That is why I urge the Government to accept amendment 40 to safeguard vulnerable habitats and species from harmful developments. The proposed environmental delivery plans would form part of a framework for nature recovery, allowing developers to pay into a restoration fund to offset environmental harm. That may work for nutrient neutrality, water and air quality, but it simply is not suited to the complex realities of natural habitats or declining species. We risk a situation where destruction comes before detection, with new habitats created too late to replace what has been lost. That means species losing their homes, leading to wholesale extinctions. Developers of years gone by might have got their way with a brown envelope or two, but we cannot buy back lost biodiversity.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As several hon. Members have already mentioned, we have to find the correct balance between building the houses that we so desperately need and protecting our vulnerable nature and the habitats that we want to preserve. The Wildlife and Countryside Link states that “some species cannot be traded away for mitigation elsewhere. Once local populations are destroyed, they are unlikely ever to return.” If we want the Bill to be a genuine win-win for development and for nature, and to keep our manifesto pledge to reverse nature’s decline, environmental delivery plans must be limited to where there is clear evidence they can actually work.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may remember that on Report, I tabled a number of amendments in the hope of safeguarding the public from seeing their bank become an arm of the state. Today, I will speak about Lords amendment 43, which deals with the scope of the eligibility verification measure. The EVM would give the DWP power to give certain financial organisations an eligibility verification notice. That notice would require the receiver to identify relevant accounts that specified benefits are paid into, assess those accounts against eligibility indicators and, where there is indication that incorrect payments have been or may be made, share specified details of those accounts with the Department. The Bill includes provision for an independent reviewer to conduct an annual review of the Secretary of State’s powers under the EVM. Lords amendment 43 seeks to expand the scope of that review to ensure that the costs to banks are proportionate, and that any unintended adverse consequences to benefit recipients are identified. At the moment, the independent review of the EVM need only consider the extent to which the Secretary of State and the financial institutions in receipt of a notice have complied with the requirements when exercising the measure, and whether the EVM has been effective in assisting in identifying incorrect benefit payments. It does not require the independent reviewer to also consider whether the EVM is being used proportionately, which is the key to Lords amendment 43. It is essential that any consideration of the proportionality of the EVM takes into account the potential harm to individuals. In Committee, several witnesses warned that the EVM could result in serious harm to benefit recipients. For example, there is the possibility of an algorithmic error when automated systems are used on a population-wide scale. If the algorithms are scanning the bank accounts of 10 million people, an error rate of just 1% will result in 100,000 cases where innocent people are wrongly investigated.

• 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?

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) on securing this important debate. It is only right that, as the Member for Poole, I should speak today. My constituency is the location of the RNLI’s headquarters, including the lifeboat support centre and the RNLI college, where crew and lifeguards are trained in their important work. It is no surprise that, as a coastal town, Poole has a special relationship with the sea. The first lifeboat was stationed in Poole harbour in 1865, and this year the local station celebrated its 160th anniversary. Like other hon. Members, I have had the pleasure of visiting my local lifeboat station on a number of occasions since being elected, to see the tremendous work the station does 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. It has 30 seagoing crew, with another 30 or so managers, medical advisers, water safety officers, administrators, fundraisers and those who look after the boat house.

• 29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source

  More

  I shall pick up where I left off when the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) rudely interrupted me. In 2023, the Poole lifeboat crew launched 146 times. It launched 102 times last year, and 109 times so far this year. I therefore pay tribute to all those at Poole lifeboat station, and place on the record my admiration and respect for their tremendous work. Those volunteers also work extremely hard to raise the funds they need to make all that possible, while also raising awareness of sea safety and encouraging people not to take risks in the water. An issue they have noticed recently is that, because many children no longer have swimming lessons in school, the basic safety messages are needed more than ever. Those volunteers still perform that vital role, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) said. Poole station costs about £83,000 a year to run, and every shout that the crews attend means refuelling, replenishing medical equipment, carrying out mechanical repairs, training crew and paying for things such as radio licences, utility bills and general equipment that the crews need. In fact, Poole is one of the busiest coastal stations. The whole effort relies on volunteers and donations from the public to keep going; it is important that we understand that it does not have the largesse of a national organisation. Locally, although the RNLI pays for lifeguards’ training and equipment, the council pays the lifeguards’ wages. Regrettably, Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council is considering stopping that. That would place local water users at risk, so I urge the council to think again. Figures show that 98% of all RNLI rescues are within 10 nautical miles of the shore. What makes the charity and the movement generally special is their mission to save those in need at sea, irrespective of their bank balance or their country of origin. We would do well to remember that approach. I appreciate that RNLI is not lobbying for Government funding, because it is concerned that that might impact on its independence, but the National Independent Lifeboat Association has a different framework and it is calling for funding to be reinstated, as we have heard this afternoon. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s response to that call. We have heard today about the lifesaving work carried out by independent lifeboat charities across the country, almost entirely crewed by volunteers. Our duty in this place is to lift that burden where we can and help to keep those boats ready to launch whenever the call for help comes.

• 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.

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

  More

  As I am a keen universalist, I have to agree with my hon. Friend. There is also a bureaucracy to navigate. It takes massive amounts of time, effort and knowledge of process for parents to navigate the system to get the support they need. That puts parents with lower educational attainment, complex personal needs or busy working lives at a disadvantage. It is no wonder that 62% of parent-carers of SEND children are not in paid employment.

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. It is with a great sense of pride that I speak in this debate, because it was my constituent, Rachel Filmer, who launched this petition, which has secured over 100,000 signatures. It is great to see Rachel in the Public Gallery today. Some weeks ago, I held an event in my constituency with SEND families to discuss the challenges they face and to hear what needs to change. Some specific issues arose. First, class is a huge issue in the current system. Many parents resort to private diagnosis after waiting for extended periods, which has concerning implications for low-income families who might not have the resources to get such a diagnosis.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Bus Services (No. 2) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of new clause 21, which stands in my name. Many members may be unaware that the fare cap that applies to single bus journeys does not apply to services that are provided exclusively to take children to and from school. That is why my new clause calls for the national £3 bus fare cap to be extended to all school routes, and for any future changes to the cap to be applied to school-only transport, too. I am grateful to the Members from across the House who have added their names in support of my new clause. In Poole and across England, the exclusion of school routes from the fare cap has left families paying more simply to get their children to school—that cannot be right. Local parents, especially those who might have two or more children attending different schools in the area, have complained to me about the unfairness and additional financial pressures that they face as a result. I have raised that with the local bus provider, Morebus, and although it is sympathetic to the arguments, it will not act unless instructed to do so in legislation. I have also raised the matter with the Department and with the Minister, but, as he will recall, I was told that my proposal was too difficult to achieve through the Bill. I therefore urge him to reconsider that approach when he responds to the debate. I am sure that Members will recognise the very obvious unfairness. The cap applies for a child who gets on an ordinary bus that takes them past their school, but for a child on a school-only bus, the fares are higher. As well as that unjustifiable situation, parents are concerned that they cannot buy their school tickets in instalments and often have to fund the entire cost of their child’s bus journey on a termly basis. That can be expensive and discourages many families from using the bus as their preferred means of school transport. I see bus services in the way I see most policies: through the lens of making life easier for families in Poole working hard to get by. The Bill offers significant steps towards building a transport network that is genuinely accessible, affordable and reliable. The Government must also be guided by their mission of ensuring that every child has the best start in life. That mission cannot be confined to a single department or a handful of policies. It must run like a thread through Government Departments and be hardwired into how we set priorities and deliver change. Labour values must underpin everything we do. Extending the £3 bus fare cap to school routes is one practical way that the Government can ease the everyday struggles that parents face and make family life that little bit easier. This simple but impactful measure would reduce the cost of getting children to school, particularly for families with multiple children, and free up parents who would otherwise drive as part of the school run. It would mean lower costs for working families and less pressure on parents juggling a daily mountain of responsibilities. That also lines up closely with the Minister’s ambition to get more people out of polluting cars and into public transport, which I am keen to support. I recognise that putting more money in the pockets of working people requires broader change, but measures such as extending the bus fare cap to school routes could make a tangible difference to day-to-day life while building a fairer and more accessible transport system for everyone. I therefore urge the Minister to consider new clause 21 seriously and to see how the Government can address the unfair anomaly on school-only bus travel.

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

  More

  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Any employment status that traps workers in those conditions has to be addressed, and the proposed extension of the ILR period from five years to 10 will potentially trap those workers in what we can only describe as long-term exploitation. The immigration White Paper also suggests sweeping changes to the skilled worker visa system. A constituent of mine, Olabanjo, wrote to me: “If implemented, this proposed change would create unnecessary instability for thousands of families, including mine. It would prolong uncertainty, increase financial and emotional strain, and discourage people who are already working hard, paying taxes, and contributing positively to the UK. 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.” Olabanjo is right to point out that the plans to retrospectively change the settlement rules feel like a betrayal. The suggestion that we can change the rules halfway through is grossly unfair. Behind the debate about immigration are real people, and the proposed changes have caused considerable upheaval for many overseas workers who are already here. In fact, virtually all migrant workers will in some way be affected by the changes to salary thresholds and new visa conditions. The Government have described settlement as a privilege to be earned, but that ignores the valuable contribution that these workers have already made to our country, the economy and their local communities. That is why I urge the Government to reject the negative rhetoric around immigration, retain the five-year route for ILR, scrap plans to apply extended qualifying periods retrospectively, and reform the visa system to ensure that sponsorship is sector-wide, rather than linked to an individual employer.

• 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.

• 1 Sept 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  Tackling poverty should be a key priority of any Government who wish to see their people thrive. The Equality Act 2010 includes a socioeconomic duty on all public bodies to address inequalities “when making strategic decisions”. When will that duty be enacted in England?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. The latest evidence shows that the gap between average wages and rent in my constituency of Poole is one of the widest in the country. Can the Minister explain how we will ensure that the new homes that we build will be truly affordable and not subject to excessive rent increases?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  That intervention is further evidence that our welfare system is not working. I understand that some Members may consider voting for this Bill tonight because of the proposed uplift to the standard rate of universal credit. Disabled groups that I have met are clear that that is not worth having if it is to be done at the expense of other disabled people further down the line. Members will have seen the letter yesterday from the UN committee on the rights of persons with disabilities, which has raised serious concerns that the Bill will deepen the signs of regression in disabled people’s human rights. The answer therefore remains that clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill need to be removed. We should allow the Timms review to look at all aspects of the benefits system and report back next year. That is what disabled people and their organisations want, and that is what I will vote for.

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to call for the removal of clauses 2 and 3 from the Bill, because I think they get to the heart of the unfairness contained within it. There can be no doubt for those of us who were here last week that trust was eroded between the Government and disabled people’s organisations—that trust will need to be slowly rebuilt over the coming months. We should therefore recognise that a positive step in that direction is the Government’s decision to pause on the issue of PIP reform and to place those decisions in the hands of the Timms review. However, that is not enough, because the Bill still contains a proposal to cut £2 billion from the universal credit health element for more than 750,000 future claimants. From next April, we will have created a two-tier benefits system based not on health needs, but on the date when a claim was made. In fact, there are already nearly 4.8 million disabled people living in poverty today across the country. That is a damning indictment of our welfare system and should be a wake-up call to bring that number down, not to make it go even higher. The numbers are stark. Taking £3,000 a year, or £250 a month, from disabled people’s income will force families to a crisis point and into further reliance on food banks. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation claims that if the cuts are not removed, an additional 50,000 people will be forced into poverty. Even before this cut, three quarters of all universal credit health element recipients are already experiencing material deprivation and are unable to afford the essentials on which to live. If we are serious about genuinely reforming the benefits system and putting disabled people and their organisations at the heart of any changes, I cannot see why the health element of universal credit would not also be part of the Timms review.