Direction of Government

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I will ask the Education Secretary to look at precisely the issue that the hon. Lady has raised.

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

On the subject of social care, does the Prime Minister agree that there is a fundamental unfairness in dementia care being means-tested, while cancer care is funded by us all through general taxation? Is not that unfairness the issue that we need to address?

[The Prime Minister]

I have always said that we will not have a health and care system that is fit for the 21st century until it supports people with dementia as well as it treats people with cancer. We are some way from that, but it is the goal we should be working towards.

Sovereign Grant

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st September 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I welcome the Government's decision to introduce legislation to make it possible for the sovereign grant to be reduced, but there remain a number of issues surrounding the grant that I believe they should also address. The first is the link between the grant and the profits of the Crown Estate. The Crown Estate is quite separate from the monarchy, and operates to generate revenue for the Treasury. That seems a very odd form of indexation, and raises the question of why the grant is not based on the needs of the monarchy or its costs. That, I believe, needs to be reviewed. The fact that the grant could only ever go up—until the Government tabled this motion—was described by the Financial Times as an arrangement whereby in a good year the monarchy would win, and in a bad year the taxpayer would lose. It is therefore right that the Government are addressing that anomaly.

The motion also raises the question of how the grant should be set. I believe that the Treasury should have the power to specify the amount on an annual basis. It is important for the funding of the monarchy to be transparent and open to MPs for debate. On numerous occasions I have tried to table questions about these issues, only to be told that this is not something for Parliament to discuss. That has to change.

Finally, there are some anomalies relating to the monarch’s wider financial arrangements. Why, for example, are they not subject to inheritance tax? Why is no account taken of the profits of the Duchy of Lancaster in the setting of the level of the sovereign grant, and why are the monarch’s financial affairs exempt from freedom of information legislation? While the Bill might be viewed as an administrative adjustment, it is important that we ask why the grant needs to be 322% higher than it was when it was first introduced in 2012. Even when we allow for inflation, the proposed grant is well over twice the real value of its starting point.

I would be grateful if the Minister commented on those issues when he sums up the debate.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The Prime Minister has spent very many hours at the Dispatch Box this week being held to account and answering questions on a whole range of issues. In respect of the particulars of the hon. Lady’s question, I refer her to the Prime Minister’s words of only yesterday.

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

2. What steps he is taking to improve transparency in public procurement.

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

3. What steps his Department is taking to modernise public procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chris Ward)]

As I informed the House yesterday, I am bringing forward a major package of reforms to procurement policy. This includes steps to direct Government procurement in the national interest to support British businesses, to end the era of outsourcing across Departments, and to streamline and simplify the entire process. I will bring forward further details to the House as soon as possible, including when we publish new guidance.

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

Since 2015, companies that donated to political parties have secured £60 billion-worth of Government contracts. This highlights everything that the public dislike about politics. Does the Minister therefore agree that for the sake of transparency and accountability, it is time to break the link between big-money donors and the Governments they pay to elect?

[Chris Ward]

The Government are, of course, concerned about the risks that my hon. Friend has mentioned. There are strong safeguards in the Procurement Act 2023 to preserve the integrity of the procurement process, but the elections Bill that this Government are introducing will tighten up the regulation of donations, including through a ban on crypto donations.

Security Vetting

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

No, that is not the case. The judgment call to appoint him was my judgment call. That was an error and I have apologised for it, particularly to the victims of Epstein. The developed vetting process was carried out in the way I have indicated to the House. I should have been told at the time of the recommendation. Had I been told, I would not have made the appointment.

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

Today’s statement may well be about process and procedure, but surely the real issue for the Prime Minister is why, when Peter Mandelson’s reputation was already known, he was ever considered for such an important role.

[The Prime Minister]

I have accepted that that was my decision and I have apologised for it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil Duncan-Jordan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

We had a mandate for change, because we inherited major challenges across the country. If only the hon. Gentleman had done something to solve these problems when he was working in Downing Street. He left a complete mess.

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

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?

[The Prime Minister]

We are replacing a failed settlement system with one that is fair and that recognises contribution. It is right to apply more stringent controls, and we are currently consulting on the right approach. I recognise the huge contribution of those working in our NHS, and we will not change the rules for those who already have settled status.