Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

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.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is one of my favourite socialists in the Chamber. Does he accept that were he to change the duty of trustees from getting the best return possible for their pensions, the result will be that future pensioners will enjoy a lesser income? Is that what he wants for future pensioners?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes assumes that investing in green technology and social housing will not give a decent return, but the evidence is to the contrary, so I think that he is wrong in his premise.

Workers’ money should be invested in things such as green technology and social housing because they are stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. I know that Ministers are looking to the AI revolution as another way to grow our economy. There is little doubt that AI is a transformational technology that will bring with it many benefits to our society, but in order to fully realise those benefits, it is important to put in place safeguards to ensure that the technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole—rather than simply being a vehicle by which large tech companies make even bigger profits. That is why we need the democratic shaping of technology. We need to work with innovators, workers and unions to steer UK research towards automation that creates or improves jobs.

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 considering some kind of employment levy on companies that replace large-scale workforces with AI, and I hope that they will give that some consideration. That links to my belief that we need to rebalance our entire taxation system. Capital gains could be taxed at the same marginal rate as wages. There are also windfall taxes that could be levied on banks, utilities and other corporations that are making excessive profits. We could also have a wealth tax on those with assets of more than £10 million.

Our economy needs to grow, because all the evidence shows that the more unequal a society is, the higher its risk of becoming dysfunctional. As income differences widen, people are less likely to trust one another, and we see a breakdown in social trust between our communities. Getting the right kind of growth in our economy is therefore essential—not just to make people better off but to create a more equal society that works in the interests of every one of us.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Employment Rights Bill

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

Having been a trade union activist for 40 years and a regional official, I have a genuine sense of pride in seeing the Bill make its way through Parliament. It is truly transformational and seeks to address the imbalance that has existed in the workplace for far too long. Many of the amendments before us strengthen existing rights so as to ensure that unscrupulous employers are unable to frustrate, delay or act unreasonably when dealing with their workforce, either collectively or as individuals.

Other amendments, such as new clause 101 in my name, seek to introduce new rights and protections for groups of workers who have hitherto been forgotten or overlooked. My new clause calls for the establishment of a regulatory body for foster carers. Currently, those who employ foster carers—local authorities, charities and independent fostering agencies—also serve as de facto regulators, with the power to register and de-register workers. That puts too much power in the hands of the employers, and, according to the foster carers branch of the Independent Workers Union of Great Britain, it illustrates a structure within the sector that fails to bring consistency, transparency, fairness or decent outcomes for the children and young people in their care.

A new regulatory body would therefore accredit educational institutions to provide standardised training courses. Once completed, those courses would remain on a carer’s work record. At the moment, every time a foster carer starts with a new provider, they are required to do the training again. That is both unnecessarily costly and time consuming. The body would also be responsible for maintaining a central register of foster care workers, and would ensure proper standards of care and deal with fitness-to-practice cases. As with the very best regulatory bodies, it would include those with lived experience of foster care.

One of the key roles of that proposed body would be to standardise the employment rights available to carers, such as maximum working hours, entitlement to statutory sick pay and protections against unfair dismissal, while also considering the important issue of collective sectoral bargaining. Through that, we would hope to see improvements in pay, minimum allowances, holidays and pension entitlements. As the UK continues to lose foster carers at an alarming rate, now is the time for that basic oversight, which will help to ensure we have enough safe and loving homes for the vulnerable children who need them.

My amendments 316 to 323 relate to the issue of redundancy. Over the years, I have negotiated with a number of employers over hundreds of redundancies, and I am seeking to improve the legislation based on that first-hand experience. Amendment 316 would require an employer to hold meaningful consultation even if they were preparing to make fewer than 20 staff redundant—something that many good employers already do, of course—whereas amendments 317 and 318 would introduce greater sanctions for those who fail to consult properly. Amendment 319 would treat workers dismissed under fire and rehire as having been made redundant and would ensure that they receive greater remuneration as a result.

Amendments 320 to 323 all seek to improve the level of redundancy pay by removing the 20-year cap on entitlements; by ensuring that someone with 10 years and six months’ service, for example, receives 11 years’ redundancy pay rather than 10; by basing the statutory redundancy calculation on months rather than weeks; and by ensuring those with less than two years’ service also have the right to redundancy payments.

Of course, there are many reasons why redundancies occur, but at the moment, the rules and sanctions around this issue enable some unscrupulous employers to exploit the situation and treat their staff unfairly. These amendments seek to address that imbalance, and I hope the Government will consider ways in which the issues I have highlighted can be included in the legislation.

[Nadia Whittome]

I am a proud trade unionist, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I commend the Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister for introducing this landmark legislation, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald), who did a huge amount of work on it as shadow Minister. All of them have dedicated their lives to standing up for working people, and this Bill is a culmination of that work and the work of trade unionists over many, many years.

I would like to speak in support of new clause 73. My own experience of taking time off work as an MP and the contrast with the experience of those on statutory sick pay made it clear just how badly reform is needed. Some years ago, when I needed to take a leave of absence because of the severity of my post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, I received full pay and a phased return, but for many workers, that is a million miles from their experience. The UK has some of the worst sick pay entitlements in Europe. The fact that the Bill means that sick pay will be paid from day one, instead of after day three, is very welcome, as is the removal of the eligibility threshold, increasing access for more than 1 million low-paid workers. However, we must acknowledge that without increasing the rate, the low level of statutory sick pay will continue to place a terrible burden on those who are already poorly paid. That is why amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), is so important.

Those are far from the only issues. Another problem is the inflexibility of statutory sick pay, and that is why I have worked with the mental health charity Mind to table new clause 73. More than 8 million working-age people have long-term health conditions and experience challenges at work. Statutory sick pay currently does not allow for a proper phased return or for workers to reduce their hours during periods of ill health. Statutory sick pay can only be paid for a full day of sickness. If a worker needs a half day, for instance, SSP cannot be used to cover the hours they are not working.

If we force people to return to work before they are ready, whether that is because they cannot afford to remain on statutory sick pay or because a phased return is not an option for them, they are far more likely to be trapped in a cycle of poor mental wellbeing and to fall out of work completely. New clause 73 would mean that sick pay was paid pro rata, by hours rather than days, to allow for that greater flexibility.

Years of successive Government reviews have come to the same conclusion: a flexible statutory sick pay model would improve lives and better support people to remain in work. I have appreciated Ministers’ engagement with me on this issue, and I hope the Government will commit to looking at it further, especially as the cost to the Government would only be administrative. However, the impact it would have on people’s lives is huge.

The Labour movement fought long and hard for the right to sick pay and proper support for those with long-term illness and disability, whether in work or not, because our movement and our party exists to stand up for the whole of the working class. At a time when more people are affected by sickness and disability, it is crucial that this Government support them and do not scapegoat them for the failures and the political choices of the Conservative party.