Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Esther McVey (in the Chair)]

It is a rather glorious day, so if people would like to remove their jackets, they should please feel free to do so.

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

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.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about big foreign tech companies. Does he believe that our dependency on six tech companies in all aspects of our lives poses a national security threat and needs to be assessed as such?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; I will deal with AI sovereignty a bit later in my speech.

We should ensure that, like a socialist Government’s approach to energy or water, the public have a stake in the development of AI technology, to ensure that the value it creates is captured and shared for the good of society as a whole. Previous waves of technological change have brought with them huge economic disruptions, but the human and social costs that followed were not inevitable. They were the product of political choices, as Governments left workers and communities to absorb the shocks alone.

[Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)]

The last time we saw a change of such potential scale was when we moved from being a manufacturing economy to being more of a service economy. There were trade-offs at that time, and some people, cities, towns and villages were left behind—including in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that on this occasion we can plan because we know it is coming? We need to be thinking about jobs, access and skills for younger people, and ensuring that the benefits are felt right the way across the country and not just clustered in one place.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend’s point about no place being left behind as a result of the AI revolution. I will develop that point a later. We can already see the first signs of AI impacting on work here. We have record numbers of young people not in employment, education or training because many entry-level jobs have disappeared.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. I spoke to him beforehand; he knows where I am coming from. My concern is for the young people of today looking for the jobs of tomorrow. My grandchildren will have to prepare themselves. We must try to equip young people. In the last few days the Belfast Telegraph reported that this may be the first time in a century that young people have lower scores in tests for memory, focus and reading than their parents. Is it not time for the Government to acknowledge the challenges and ensure that there are employment prospects for young people? If the hon. Gentleman’s objective is that, it is the right way to go.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

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.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is focusing on employment and big tech companies; does he agree that we need to go a step back—back to school, teachers and training? Teachers need to prepare their pupils for the future with AI, and for what that means. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that that is something not for this Minister but perhaps for a Minister in another Department?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his second intervention—let us see whether he can make it a hat trick before I finish. The reality is that AI is here now. We have to deal with how it impacts on today’s workers and future workers as well. This is not one generation against another, and I know the hon. Gentleman understands that.

The Government could seek to equalise tax treatment, actively explore widening the digital services tax to include AI companies, which it currently excludes, and raise the level of the tax from 2% to the European average. We cannot allow the use of machines to be made artificially cheaper than employing people.

It is important to look at AI sovereignty, which the hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) mentioned earlier. The UK is growing increasingly dependent on US tech, and owns little of the data infrastructure and AI models on which the future economy will increasingly rely. This repeats the pattern of recent decades in other sectors, whereby essential national infrastructure has passed into overseas ownership and money has flowed offshore, leaving British people with less and less control over the essentials of a good life. That dependence not only creates security risks, as has been mentioned, but prevents the UK from capturing and distributing any AI windfall.

We need to give UK companies a meaningful chance to compete. The Competition and Markets Authority could use existing powers to take on the concentration in the cloud market, which underpins the AI companies’ business models. A progressive sovereign AI programme should involve an industrial strategy that seeks to expand public investment in the sector and impose strict conditions on private access to public assets, alongside active support for models such as co-operatives, public interest companies and other democratic ownership models, so that the gains of AI can be captured and shared throughout the UK.

At the heart of this debate is the role of the public. Big decisions about AI, such as where data centres are built and how AI is deployed in public services, are being taken with little democratic input.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I apologise in advance, Ms McVey, that I need to go to a Select Committee so cannot attend the full debate. My hon. Friend is, as usual, right about everything. Does he agree that public resistance to the construction of data centres is due not just to concern about the impact on the environment, but to underlying public scepticism about the breathlessness with which politicians talk about economic growth driven by digital technology when we have an economy that has a completely unsustainable food system, is not delivering genuinely affordable homes, has rubbish public transport in many parts of the country, and is not delivering the basics?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I thank all Members for their contributions to an excellent debate that showed we need to have more of this discussion. I will make some very quick points. First, we need to act with speed, as I think was accepted by a number of Members. As the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) mentioned, we cannot wait 25 years.

We also need clear democratic oversight of what is happening. We cannot allow people we do not know and do not control to make our futures for us. We have to be in control of our own destinies. That is very important and will require global regulation. We will have to work with other authorities across the globe to come to the necessary arrangements.

Finally, the protections we will need must ensure that the next industrial revolution, which is already here in effect, benefits everyone and not just a few.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Irene Campbell]

I fully agree with that point.

The director general of the World Health Organisation stated:

“There are no fully-functioning hospitals in Gaza, and only 14 out of 36 are functioning at all.”

He also said:

“If you take the famine and combine it with a mental health problem, which we see is rampant, then the situation is a crisis for generations to come.”

The public health report of 13 November attributed the weakened healthcare system to ongoing attacks and resource shortages. The World Health Organisation also found that there is a chronic shortage of essential medical equipment and medicines. Additionally, ongoing fuel shortages in Gaza have restricted the mobility of humanitarian aid and healthcare workers.

As we approach winter and the weather gets colder, the need for humanitarian aid is intensifying. The United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs says that heavy rain has already affected over 13,000 households across the Gaza strip, including hundreds of tents and makeshift shelters. As time passes, the need for items such as tents, blankets and tarps will only increase.

On 6 November, the United Nations stated that the Israeli authorities have rejected more than 100 requests to bring relief materials into Gaza since the ceasefire began. The UN further stated that:

“Since 10 October, more than 6,490 MT”—

metric tonnes—

“of UN-coordinated relief materials have been denied entry into Gaza. Of these, over 3,700 MT were rejected on the grounds that the organisations were not authorized to bring relief items into Gaza.”

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

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?

[Irene Campbell]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

Importantly, the United Nations update noted:

“Many international NGO partners continue to face difficulties in being registered in Israel, preventing them from bringing supplies into Gaza and operating at scale, and UNRWA continues to be banned by Israeli authorities from bringing in food and other supplies into Gaza.”

That refers to the October 2024 vote by the Israeli Parliament that banned UNRWA from conducting any activity or providing any service in Israel, including the areas of annexed East Jerusalem, Gaza and the west bank.

Another UN impact report found that, as of 5 November, 38% of households in the Gaza and north Gaza governorates relied on humanitarian aid as their primary source of food, and that figure was 54% of households in the Deir al-Balah and Khan Yunis governorates. Shockingly, it also found that more than 90% of children under two years old consumed fewer than two food groups a day, with high-protein foods and micronutrient-rich items extremely scarce.

In his 20-point Gaza peace plan, President Trump specified:

“Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip… Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party.”

It is worth noting that the Prime Minister welcomed that news, adding:

“This agreement must now be implemented in full, without delay, and accompanied by the immediate lifting of all restrictions on life-saving humanitarian aid to Gaza.”

Sadly, that has not happened.

Israel and Hamas have accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement since 10 October, but I will highlight a case that constituents have written to me about. Just eight days into the ceasefire, the Israeli military fired on a civilian vehicle, killing members of the Abu Shaaban family—seven children and three women who were simply trying to check on their home. The areas still under Israeli occupation beyond the yellow line are not demarcated and, with limited internet access, civilians in Gaza may not know which areas are in or out of Israeli military control. Such cases show how crucial it is that aid reaches Gaza and that peace is allowed to come to the region.

The July 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice is key. The advisory opinion sets out various obligations in respect of third states, including the obligation to ensure that Israel complies with international humanitarian law. It is very important to consider the International Development Committee’s June 2025 report on its inquiry into UK humanitarian obligations, which states:

“The UK has a legal obligation to both respect IHL and to ensure that it is respected in all circumstances”,

and:

“Once impartial humanitarian relief schemes have been agreed to, the parties (whether or not parties to the armed conflict) must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of these relief schemes, subject to their right of control.”

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The Foreign Secretary does not need to be reminded that we reference sitting Members not by their names, but by their constituencies.

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

T5. As has already been mentioned in the Chamber this morning, a year ago today, my constituent, John Chapman, was murdered by the Israel Defence Forces while working for World Central Kitchen, delivering humanitarian aid in Gaza. His family now want to know when the Israeli Government will bring criminal charges against the perpetrators, when the family will be awarded compensation for their tragic loss, and what our Government are doing to ensure that justice prevails.

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. Last month, I pressed Foreign Minister Sa’ar to conclude the Military Advocate General’s consideration of the World Central Kitchen incident, including determining whether criminal proceedings should be initiated. I have met the families of those killed in the attacks and assured them that this Government will continue to support their calls for justice. Gaza is the most dangerous place in the world to be an aid worker, with more than 400 killed since the start of this conflict. We need to see lasting safety improvements for aid workers on the ground, and that would be a fitting legacy for those British individuals who have lost their lives.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What assessment he has made of the potential implications for his policies of President Trump’s proposal to move Palestinians from Gaza to neighbouring Arab states.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

We do not support forced displacement of Palestinians or any reduction in the territory of the Gaza strip. Palestinians must be able to live and prosper in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That is why it is essential that we work together to ensure that all aspects of the ceasefire are implemented and that it becomes permanent.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

It is very sad that the past month has marked a new and horrifying phase in the long history of attempts to ethnically cleanse the Palestinian people from their homeland. President Trump’s recent comments calling for Palestinians to be expelled from their homes in Gaza, in order for the US to take over the land, along with his failure to rule out Israeli annexation of the west bank, constitute the most explicit denial of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination by any US Administration to date. Will the Foreign Secretary therefore condemn President Trump’s remarks and set out what action the UK Government are taking to prevent further forced displacement of the Palestinian people?

[Mr Lammy]

This House has watched with horror the loss of life in the Gaza strip particularly and the plight of the hostages held in bunkers under Gaza. The US played a pivotal role, and all credit should go to President Trump for brokering that negotiated ceasefire agreement. I am thankful for the role that the Israeli Government, Qatar and Egypt played in getting to that ceasefire. It is our belief, and this is a cross-party belief, that there should be a negotiated two-state solution: a sovereign Palestinian state, which includes, of course, the west bank and Gaza, alongside a safe and secure Israel.

Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Brian Leishman]

I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friend, and I pay testament to the work he has done to bring this issue to Parliament in the primary Chamber. I would also appreciate it if the Minister could explain why—to quote the UK ambassador to the UN—we supported

“the central findings of the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion”,

but then abstained at the UN general assembly on 18 September 2024, where an overwhelming majority of nations supported the ICJ’s advisory opinion? They demanded that Israel brings to an end, without delay, its unlawful occupation within no more than 12 months’ time, by 18 September 2025.

Israel has developed and maintained its settlements through the forced removal and displacement of Palestinians. The Court’s opinion is that Israel has the obligation to make

“reparation for the damage caused…to all natural or legal persons concerned”

in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

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

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case for action. Does he agree with Amnesty International that one of the practical measures the UK Government could take would be to ban goods produced in the illegal Israeli settlements?

[Brian Leishman]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that topic. That is something that I will mention at more length later on in my contribution, but yes, he can rest assured that I do. I am in firm agreement with my hon. Friend.

The ICJ advisory opinion is significant because it adds to the growing international consensus that Israel is committing the crime against humanity of apartheid against Palestinians. That language is extremely important, because the international community has witnessed, and continues to witness, annexation, occupation, segregation and apartheid. The world is the witness of crimes against humanity, and while the UK Government are in denial about what constitutes a genocide, millions of our own citizens, Amnesty International—as mentioned before—and many nations from the international community are not.

Middle East

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lammy]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to put on record the issue of volume. At the moment, the agreement is for 600 or so trucks. That is ambitious, and the situation on the ground will need to change quite a lot if that is to be achieved. The need is absolutely there. The UN must play its part, but I think some of the decisions that may come on UNRWA would fundamentally undermine that. I think commercial trucks have to come back in, and the security has to be there. Clearly, what we want to see—and it is here in the deal—is Israel being able to draw back, which raises further issues about security. That is why I say that this deal is fragile and that negotiation continues and there is much still to do. She is absolutely right that we have to see the volumes, or I think the people of Gaza will say that there have been lots of fine words, but things have not actually changed very much on the ground.

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

Now that there is hope of a ceasefire, will the Secretary of State redouble his efforts to seek justice for the family of my constituent John Chapman, whom he mentioned in his statement, who was murdered by the IDF last April when working for the World Central Kitchen? Will he meet me to discuss what the UK Government can do to hold the Israeli Government to account for their actions?

[Mr Lammy]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I raised this issue with the Israeli Foreign Minister at the weekend. We do want to see accountability, and we do want to see a process from the Military Advocate General in Israel. The loss of life breaks our hearts. I have spent time with the families that have suffered so much as a result of the atrocity against World Central Kitchen, when there was a tremendous loss of life. There must be justice, there must be accountability and there must be a process. It is now for the Military Advocate General in Israel to do that, and we will continue to press this issue. Of course, I or the Minister for the middle east will meet him and his constituents.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Anneliese Dodds]

The UK Government’s position is, indeed, that there must be a two-state solution. The new Government have been determined to do all we can towards that end. That will include advocating for that solution at every juncture, including with embassies and, as would be expected, with the Israeli embassy.

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

9. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the war in Gaza on UK support for Israel.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr David Lammy)]

The UK remains committed to supporting Israel’s security and wider regional stability in the face of threats from malign actors such as Iran. We are clear that Israel must act in accordance with international humanitarian law and do more to protect civilians, hospitals and those who are in desperate need of their services.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Notwithstanding the hope that we all have of a ceasefire, atrocities continue to take place daily in Gaza, with the killing of children, the bombing of hospitals and the threat of banning aid at the end of the month. Will the Secretary of State explain exactly what the Israeli Government have to do to persuade the UK Government to impose sanctions, ban all arms sales and recognise the state of Palestine?

[Mr Lammy]

Since coming into office we have taken significant action: calling, of course, for a ceasefire—we have been calling for a ceasefire since December 2023; suspending relevant arms sales, as has been set out by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Development; and increasing the amount of aid to the Occupied Palestinian Territories. We are also in steadfast support of UNRWA.

Israel remains an important ally. We have an important trading relationship, worth £6.1 billion last year and involving 38,000 British jobs. I am sorry; any discussion of sanctions is just not correct.