Petitions

Debate between Neil Duncan-Jordan and Chris Hinchliff

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to present a petition alongside a corresponding online petition signed by hundreds of my constituents in North East Hertfordshire calling to ban housing developers from donating to political parties. Developers are some of the largest donors in politics, pouring in massive sums to tilt the planning system ever further in their favour. Cash for access leaves the impression that the same developers are wrecking nature and failing to deliver affordable homes. Those profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also writing the rules. This cements inequality at the heart of democracy because the people living with the consequences of a profit-driven housing crisis never get a seat at the table.

The petition states:

The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that housing developers are among the largest donors to political parties and donate massive sums of money in an attempt to tilt the planning system further in their favour; further declares that cash-for-access leaves the impression that the same developers profiting from low-quality, overpriced housing are also helping to write the rules; and further declares that the corrupting influence of big money should be removed from the planning system and politics should be refocused on genuine solutions to the housing crisis that bring down housing costs for ordinary people and give local communities more of a say over their future.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban housing developers from donating to political parties.

And the petitioners remain, etc.

[P003225]

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

I rise to present a petition, alongside a corresponding online petition, which has been signed by more than 4,000 UK residents, calling for a ban on political donors getting contracts from Governments they helped to fund. Big money donors do not give out of kindness; they pay for access and influence. The evidence shows that it is a smart investment, because the firms have landed billions in Government contracts. If we want to build a better country, we need a better kind of politics, and tackling the corrosive influence of big money is the first step to rebuilding public trust. The petitioners

“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban political donors from receiving public contracts with Governments of political parties”

to which they have donated,

“And the petitioners remain, etc.”

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,

Declares that companies which donate to political parties have gone on to receive billions of pounds in public contracts; and further declares that this creates a perception that political decisions are shaped by cosy relationships with super-rich donors, instead of a sole focus on delivering better living standards and services for millions of people.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ban political donors from receiving public contracts with Governments of political parties they have donated to.

And the petitioners remain, etc.]

[P003226]

Societal Impact of AI: Government Policy

Debate between Neil Duncan-Jordan and Chris Hinchliff

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[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.

English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Debate between Neil Duncan-Jordan and Chris Hinchliff

Report stage
Tuesday 25th November 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I have tabled new clause 13 to address a slight oversight in this Bill—namely, that despite its title, it does not give communities any substantially new powers. The strengthening of the tools that local people have at their disposal to purchase assets of community value is certainly very welcome—yes, it is progress—but it is not fundamentally new. New clause 13 is intended to fill in this minor, accidental absence with a requirement on the Secretary of State to report on progress towards, and set out plans to deliver, a new charter of community rights containing seven key elements: a right to a clean and healthy environment; a right to a healthy home; a right to play; a right to grow food on public sector land; a right to roam and swim; a right to participate in decisions shaping communities; and a right to challenge local decisions.

Designed to put power back in the hands of ordinary people, the charter offers a starting point to restore popular agency in our democracy. Each of the seven rights contained within it is based on clear legal proposals, and each builds on long-standing demands that stretch back into England’s history. I will briefly take them in turn. After years of scandals, with ordinary people powerless to stop sewage being pumped into local rivers or their children being poisoned by the air they breathe, the right to a clean environment would give every community the power to challenge proposals that threaten to impose pollution on them.

Similarly, the right to a healthy home would put an end to an era in which permitted development rights have been used to create the slums of the future by housing the most vulnerable in society without adequate space, security, fire safety or proper ventilation. With this right, communities could require that new housing delivers the basics of a happy, healthy life, with plenty of natural light, access to green space and comfort in all weathers.

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

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?

[Chris Hinchliff]

I absolutely agree.

The freedom to go out the front door and play in the street or near home is no longer part of many children’s lives, as it used to be. The right to play would reverse the trend of estates being full of signs shouting, “No” and “Do not”, with more space given to car parking than to playgrounds for kids. It would empower communities to ensure that streets are designed to be safe for children, so that they are no longer stuck indoors.

Ever since landowners in the 18th and 19th centuries privatised 7 million hectares of common land that was once shared by ordinary people, the ability to grow one’s own healthy food has been a distant dream for the millions. The right to grow food on public land would unleash the power of grassroots growers, who are currently held back by bureaucracy, to turn parcels of unloved land across our communities into oases of food and wildlife.

Similarly, while most of England is still owned by a handful of aristocrats, oligarchs and corporations, the vast majority of people are prevented from enjoying the glories of vast swathes of England’s countryside. The right to roam and swim would finally recognise that this land is our land, and give everyone the confidence to reconnect with nature by enjoying a responsible ramble or a dip in their local river.

Finally, the right to participate in and challenge decisions would level the playing field between communities, who care deeply about their local area, and the interests of profit-seeking developers. This right would ensure that the voices of ordinary people are properly heard and that they can appeal decisions, just as developers can, so that local councils always listen seriously to both sides, rather than acceding to the whims of overmighty corporations.

I hope the Minister will see that new clause 13 would help ensure that this Bill goes as far as possible in restoring power, hope and optimism to our communities. I look forward to hearing her response.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Neil Duncan-Jordan and Chris Hinchliff

2nd reading
Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The origin of Britain’s planning system is as deeply rooted in the legacy of the post-war Labour Government as that of the national health service and the welfare state. Like those great Labour institutions, it has faced relentless underfunding, attacks and dismantling from the Conservatives, who prioritise the rights of wealthy landowners over the entitlement of working people to affordable housing and quality infrastructure.

I commend the Government for bringing forward a Bill that offers the opportunity to at last get to grips with the appalling mess made of the planning system by the parties opposite; after all, it was they who allowed more than 14,000 hectares of our best farmland to be lost to development since 2010. The reality is that while we now have substantially more homes per capita than 50 years ago—a surplus that has grown rapidly in recent years—house prices in the UK have risen by 3,878% since 1971. Whatever may be said by their lobbyists, the housing crisis is not a straightforward issue of supply, and it will not be solved by simply putting more powers in the hands of profiteering developers. Waiting for a market solution to this societal emergency would be an exercise in utterly extravagant futility.

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

For the past 30 years, successive Governments have attempted to deliver affordable housing through the private sector, and they have failed. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time for a publicly funded council house building programme?

Certificate of Common Sponsorship

Debate between Neil Duncan-Jordan and Chris Hinchliff

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the potential merits of Government support for a certificate of common sponsorship.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. Before I start, I pay tribute to Unison South West, which has been at the forefront of this campaign. It has a number of care workers and members in the Gallery to listen to the debate.

The stark reality for migrant workers in the UK is that they are under-protected by our employment rights framework and victimised by our immigration rules. Migrant social care workers are particularly vulnerable to this kind of ill treatment because of the hostile environment in which they find themselves. Any worker who challenges bad practices by their employer puts their ability to live and work in the UK at great risk. This is a real danger in a sector with high levels of staff turnover. It is fragmented and privatised, characterised by many small employers running on tight profit margins—some of the profits are extracted from the companies for shareholder dividends. This important debate therefore draws attention to the power that employers are given by our visa system.

As the visa sponsor, employers have ultimate power over the lives of workers. Unscrupulous employers have greater powers over migrant care workers, because their work visa is tied to their employment status. If they lose their job, they will lose the right to work and live in the UK. The only way to avoid that currently is if they can find another job with an eligible social care employer within 60 days. As migrant workers, they are not eligible for any kind of support if they are dismissed. Many employers are well aware of the fear and vulnerability that these workers experience and do not hesitate to use threats to secure their compliance.

The sponsorship relationship with the employer is particularly harmful in the social care sector. As many Members will know, the care sector is one of the most precarious sectors in the UK. Firms regularly go under or lose their council contracts. The consequence is that staff find themselves without work and in financial hardship. For migrant care workers, the situation is even worse. Workers are fearful of raising concerns about employment practices, because they know that the same employers can remove their visa sponsorship. Unscrupulous employers can use the threat of removal to a care worker’s home country to victimise migrant workers who whistleblow or complain about their treatment.

Workers do not only risk deportation by speaking up or challenging an employer. Many face total financial ruin in their home country, because they have sold all that they have to come here, and illegal recruitment fees demanded by predatory recruitment agencies are rife in the sector. According to the Work Rights Centre, one in three people on the health and care worker visa said that they had to pay a large recruitment fee to secure their sponsorship. The value of fees averaged £11,000. The latest report from the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority indicates that the care sector is the most reported sector for labour exploitation, making up 60% of all reports. The most common vulnerability to exploitation indicated by potential victims of forced labour is being tied to a visa under the existing sponsorship system.

The Care Quality Commission has noted that workers are being exploited through the immigration system. Research last year by the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre found that the current visa system creates hyper-insecurity, which increases workers’ vulnerability to exploitation. Workers routinely suffer low wages, high recruitment fees, inappropriate salary deductions and the threat of deportation.

One care worker, who wishes to remain nameless, said:

“We are not treated with dignity at all. Last month I was paid just £1,300 with no explanation as to why my wages had been reduced. Most carers are scared to take their leave for fear of losing shifts and when you get sick, the company deducts money from your salary”.

One of my constituents in Poole, Nicola, explained that many sponsors have failed to meet their promises of providing adequate hours, which leaves workers in precarious situations. This not only undermines their rights, but often subjects them to poor working conditions and substandard housing.

Some of the stories these workers tell are truly heartbreaking and highlight clear violations of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. For example, many migrant healthcare workers are expected to sign contracts containing draconian clauses which often include a requirement to pay back recruitment and training costs if they leave their posts within a few years. Workers have effectively been blackmailed into staying because their employers have threatened them with a large debt should they leave. Migrant care staff have also been invoiced for administration costs. One employer billed staff £65 an hour for meeting and greeting a new employee at the airport when they arrived in the UK. Another worrying trend is workers being charged fees that the Home Office explicitly forbid employers to pass on. These include the immigration skills charge that the Government require employers to pay when they agree to sponsor a worker from overseas.

Government interventions to address these issues have failed thus far. In 2023, the then Government announced that care providers could only sponsor migrant workers if they were undertaking activities regulated by the CQC, but this failed to recognise that many registered companies were already exploiting their workers. In 2024, a rematching programme to help workers find another sponsored role when things went wrong was symbolic of acting after the problem had arisen, rather than seeking to change the structure of the system.

Although welcome, stricter licensing requirements and greater sanctions do not address the fundamental power imbalance at the heart of the employee sponsorship system. That is why I hope the Government will agree to a review of immigration policies that increase the vulnerability of migrant workers to exploitation and modern slavery. Vital to that is a re-examination of the visa sponsorship relationship with the employer in the social care sector, moving towards a sector-wide sponsorship scheme run by an independent body with a health and social care focus. That would enable overseas staff to leave bad employers and find work with better ones.

Sector-wide sponsorship would also mean that workers and employers did not incur new costs every time a worker moved jobs. That would alleviate the pressure on the worker and reduce the impetus from some employers to enforce repayment clauses. Any visa scheme reform will stand or fall on whether it enables overseas workers to live their lives free of exploitation. This requires a fundamental shift in our immigration rules, so that the hostile environment is replaced with a rights-based framework and migrant workers are treated with dignity and respect.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the appalling situations faced by migrant labour in the social care system, as highlighted by UNISON, emphasise the need for urgent structural reform of the system, to create a national care service that resolves workforce insecurity, alongside the many other problems arising from our social care crisis?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The need for urgent social care reform—and to bring it back into public ownership—is vital, and I will continue to press the Government on this.