David Pinto-Duschinsky
MP for Hendon · Labour · United Kingdom
“This debate is named for Sir David Amess, and I think it is an important chance to honour the values of unity, community and tolerance that both Sir David and our much-missed colleague Jo Cox stood for so strongly. I also want to echo hon.”
“Anti-Muslim hate crimes are now at record levels. British Muslims, including my friends and neighbours in Hendon, are regularly subjected to a barrage of abuse, vilification and even violence. This hate is becoming normalised online, on our streets and, shamefully, by some Members of this House.”
“They contribute so much to our area, but they are understandably worried. I welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect our Muslim community. Continuing action is essential so that our Muslim citizens can live free and safe as they practise their faith and go about their daily lives.”
“Q4. My Hendon constituency is proud to sit at the heart of the UK’s largest Jewish community in the London borough of Barnet, but today many of my constituents and many from that community are living in fear.”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. As Members of the House will be all too painfully aware, our Jewish community in north-west London, including in my constituency, has been subject to repeated despicable antisemitic attacks in past weeks. Our Iranian community has also been attacked.”
“When she spoke then, she had no underlying strategy, and she did not focus on what was right for the country. Clearly she has learned nothing from that. Her cynicism becomes clear now, when we peel back the rhetoric and expose the lack of substance behind her arguments. Peter Mandelson was dismissed last September, and rightly so.”
The complete record
Every one of 223 lines we hold for David Pinto-Duschinsky, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“I would like to finish by wishing every Member of the House a very happy summer recess, and by thanking our brilliant staff, particularly Godfrey, Margaret and Richard, for all they do.”
“They contribute so much to our area, but they are understandably worried. I welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect our Muslim community. Continuing action is essential so that our Muslim citizens can live free and safe as they practise their faith and go about their daily lives. That means continuing to take measures such as investing in protecting our Muslim community. It also means tackling the root causes of anti-Muslim hatred and the language and attitudes that allow it to spread, including in this House. I hope that is a cause we can all get behind. As we go into recess, I can think of no better way to honour the tolerance and British values that Sir David stood for.”
“Anti-Muslim hate crimes are now at record levels. British Muslims, including my friends and neighbours in Hendon, are regularly subjected to a barrage of abuse, vilification and even violence. This hate is becoming normalised online, on our streets and, shamefully, by some Members of this House. We have seen mosques attacked in Peacehaven and other places, and in Edinburgh we saw where this all leads, with Muslims viciously attacked for no other reason than that they are Muslim. Let us be clear: these attacks are an affront to all we hold dear as a country. This hatred is an assault on British values, and it is the job of all of us to confront it and to defeat it wherever it is found. In Hendon, we are blessed with a vibrant Muslim community and strong community institutions, including a number of mosques.”
“This debate is named for Sir David Amess, and I think it is an important chance to honour the values of unity, community and tolerance that both Sir David and our much-missed colleague Jo Cox stood for so strongly. I also want to echo hon. Members in commemorating Ann Widdecombe, which is why I want to use this speech to briefly highlight an appalling hatred that is spreading and urge this House to unite in action against it. Like many in this House, I was appalled to hear of the terrorist plot against the Ijtima festival, and I am grateful to the police for their rapid action. As the Home Secretary has said, their decisive enforcement undoubtedly saved lives. That Muslims were targeted is despicable, but it is not, unfortunately, unusual. Just yesterday, an individual was charged with plotting attacks on multiple mosques.”
“Q4. My Hendon constituency is proud to sit at the heart of the UK’s largest Jewish community in the London borough of Barnet, but today many of my constituents and many from that community are living in fear. In north-west London in recent months, we have seen Jewish charities firebombed, synagogues attacked and Jewish people stabbed in the street, and all that against the backdrop of a daily drumbeat of abuse and intimidation. I know that everyone on the Government Benches is determined to defeat that despicable hatred, and I welcome the actions that the Government are taking to root out the poison of antisemitism. Can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Government are doing not only to protect the Jewish community in Hendon and Barnet, but to ensure that they—we—can live full and proud Jewish lives, free from fear?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. As Members of the House will be all too painfully aware, our Jewish community in north-west London, including in my constituency, has been subject to repeated despicable antisemitic attacks in past weeks. Our Iranian community has also been attacked. In my constituency, I also have many members of the Hong Kong community, who live under the shadow of transnational repression. Given that context, I warmly welcome the Government’s announcement in the King’s Speech of fast-tracked legislation to deal with hostile state threats. Can the Minister share more details of the timetable, so that we can get that welcome and essential piece of legislation on the statute book as quickly as possible?”
“I have been through developed vetting. I have been through security vetting numerous times, and it is completely standard procedure to make offers of jobs contingent on passing security. On this point, as on other points, there is simply no case to answer.”
“When she spoke then, she had no underlying strategy, and she did not focus on what was right for the country. Clearly she has learned nothing from that. Her cynicism becomes clear now, when we peel back the rhetoric and expose the lack of substance behind her arguments. Peter Mandelson was dismissed last September, and rightly so. The Prime Minister has already acknowledged that his appointment was a mistake. Senior civil servants, including Olly Robbins, Chris Wormald and Cat Little, have all made it clear that due process was followed in that appointment. Olly Robbins has said that no one from No. 10 ever spoke to him or messaged him to apply pressure, and Philip Barton has today confirmed that there was no pressure on the substance of the vetting. I want to deal directly with the sequence of vetting.”
“Appointing Peter Mandelson was wrong, and, as with any debate on this subject, we should start by acknowledging the suffering of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. They have my full solidarity. However, I have listened closely to what has been said by Opposition Members during the debate, and I think we need to call their behaviour what it is: political game playing of the lowest order. Politics is a circus for the Opposition. They thrive on the use of politics as a soap opera, because it is all they know. That is why the public grew so heartily sick of them, and it is precisely why so many of their former colleagues no longer sit on their Benches. Just weeks ago, their leader showed a catastrophic failure of leadership in calling for this country to rush to war.”
“No, I will make some progress. What is more, this Government are undertaking an extensive release of documents in the interests of transparency and out of respect for this House. Ministers have updated us on the progress with the Humble Address. On top of that, the Foreign Affairs Committee is holding hearings. Alongside that, the Government have already strengthened the processes around national security vetting and senior appointments. So I ask again: what is the real substance here? We are not uncovering new facts. In fact, the Conservatives’ argument has changed time and again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff West (Mr Barros-Curtis) so eloquently pointed out. What we are seeing is lots of throwing mud in the hope that some of it will stick.”
“Well, it is because there is an election in a few days’ time, but it is also because they fundamentally cannot accept the change that this Government are delivering. They cannot accept that we are investing in public services that they ran into the ground.”
“No. The Conservatives are demeaning and diminishing an important parliamentary process. Our disciplinary processes are serious, and they should not be used for political point scoring. A Committee of Privileges investigation would not bring further clarity; it would only create a long, costly and wholly unnecessary duplication of processes that are either completed or already under way. It is a distraction, and I guess that is why the Conservatives want it. It is a stunt, and that is why I will vote against it. Under the previous Government, this House was treated with contempt. Standards were bent and procedures were torn apart to protect those in power, with the support of many Conservative Members. We are entitled to ask: why do they raise this matter now?”
“I will wind up. We were elected with a mandate to deliver change, and that is exactly what we will do. The Conservative party is trying to distract from that fact, but it will not work.”
“Will the Minister share more about what additional measures are being taken both to protect the community in the wake of these despicable attacks and to ensure that the Jewish members of my community are not forced to live smaller Jewish lives?”
“On Saturday, my constituents awoke to the news of a despicable antisemitic attack at the heart of our community, at the former headquarters of Jewish Futures on Hendon Way. As the Minister said, this is not an isolated incident; we have seen the abhorrent attacks on Hatzola just a mile down the road in Golders Green, and on Finchley Reform and Kenton United synagogues, both nearby. Many of my constituents face discrimination and abuse every single day for no other reason than that they are Jewish. I am working intensively with the police and I am grateful for all they are doing, but, as the Prime Minister has said, we must not just ensure that our Jewish community is safe; we must ensure that Jewish people in Hendon and across the whole country are able to live full and proud Jewish lives, free from fear.”
“Can the Minister give more information to the House on what is being done to co-ordinate between the police and community organisations to give the reassurance that my community so desperately wants?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement, and I echo his thanks to the police and the other emergency services. This antisemitic attack happened only a few hundred metres from my Hendon constituency. So many people in my community, Jewish and non-Jewish alike, rely on the work of the selfless volunteers of Hatzola in both Golders Green and Edgware. It has been my honour to visit Hatzola Edgware on a number of occasions. This is not just an attack on our Jewish community, despicable though that is; it is an attack on Britain and on our core values. It was good to meet the Prime Minister earlier today with community leaders to discuss what can be done to defeat this tide of antisemitism.”
“I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Communities like mine in Hendon were let down by 14 years of economic instability and the lack of a strategic approach to driving growth under the Conservative party. Will the Secretary of State set out how our modern industrial strategy will help to accelerate growth in places like Hendon?”
“The al-Quds Day march, glorifying a despicable, blood-soaked regime, has long been a cause of great concern to my constituents in Hendon. That is why I wrote to the commissioner of the Met asking for the march to be banned, and why I thank the Home Secretary for her resolute action today. However, the threat posed by the Iranian regime to our Jewish community has not ended. Following the arrest of four men for allegedly spying on our Jewish community on behalf of the Iranian regime, what steps have been taken to keep our Jewish community safe?”
“Q12. Our democracy, in this House, relies on the spoken word, but many with speech disabilities are left without a voice. I have a speech impediment, and so do 2 million adults and one in 12 children. It can rob people of their confidence, lead to discrimination and limit our opportunities in work and in public life. It is time to tear down those barriers. Will the Prime Minister share what this Government are doing to help people with speech disabilities to get the support they need, so that their voices can be heard?”
“I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. I know from my time working at the Home Office that, for some time now, the structure of policing has not been fit for the future. The threat that crime poses has evolved; our police must do so too. The Home Secretary’s reforms will help to deal with the most sophisticated crimes, but could she explain to my constituents how they will be a win for tackling local crime and support operations like “clear, hold, build” in Colindale, which has massively reduced crime in that area?”
“I share the Minister’s horror at the brutal repression we have seen in Iran. Hendon is home to a large and vibrant Iranian community, and we are all horrified beyond words to see the savage, murderous violence being meted out by the Iranian regime to protesters. Is it not the reality that even when there are not protests in the street, the regime is engaged in industrial levels of violence against its own people? Executions in Iran more than doubled in the last year alone. Does the Minister agree that we must keep up the pressure on the Iranian regime to end this barbarity once and for all, and to let the Iranian people exercise their fundamental rights?”
“I welcome the Home Secretary’s statement. The picture Sir Andy paints of serious failings in the West Midlands police is utterly shocking, and the Home Secretary is completely right to withdraw confidence. Given the huge damage this saga has caused, what does the Home Secretary think can be done to ensure something like this never happens again?”
“Mill Hill Broadway is Barnet’s busiest station, but its steep flight of stairs means that people with mobility issues struggle to use it. Sadly, its lack of accessibility has already had tragic consequences: Priscilla Tropp died after falling at the station. Step-free access at Mill Hill Broadway is essential. The previous Government promised to install lifts at the station but failed to deliver time and time again. Under this Government, progress is finally being made and detailed designs are being worked up. I urge the Department for Transport to give final approval once the design phase is complete. Will the Leader of the House make time available for a debate on the importance of making our transport network more accessible?”
“I want to help out the right hon. Gentleman, because he seems a bit confused. On his party’s watch, the debt service exceeded £100 billion. When it took over, the debt service was only £30 billion, so his party tripled it. Will he apologise for mortgaging our children’s future as a result of the Conservative party’s inability to manage the public finances?”
“Will the hon. Member acknowledge that employment under this Labour Government is higher than it was under the last Conservative Government, with an average of 75%? Will he therefore apologise for his comments?”
“Like many other Members, I have been shocked by the early release of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” report, as this kind of error risks compromising the integrity of the Budget process in moving markets. The evidence that has now emerged that this was not the first time that the OBR forecast was accessed prematurely owing to systematic failures in its own cyber-security, is simply unforgivable. Given this appalling failure, which the chair of the OBR himself acknowledges is the worst failure in the organisation’s history, can the Minister tell the House what he thinks it would take for the chair of the OBR to resign?”
“As the Minister said, justice delayed is justice denied, yet we have a backlog of almost 80,000 people, with rape victims facing a wait of up to four years for their trial. Does she agree that we need a system that puts victims at the heart of our approach, and therefore we need to get on with the job of reform?”
“In constituencies like Hendon, bus services are not a luxury—they are a lifeline for the community, in particular the elderly and disabled people, yet there is more to be done to ensure that all residents are within easy reach of a bus stop. Does my hon. Friend agree that frequent, well-placed bus stops are essential to ensuring that local bus services are truly inclusive and accessible?”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I apologise. The hon. Member has not mentioned how many teachers, how many doctors and how many police would be involved.”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that it is interesting that the Conservatives have put forward lots of fantasy proposals about various cuts they cannot make, yet strangely failed to mention any of the covid money that went missing on their watch, or its recovery?”
“It is unfortunately a similar story in parts of my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree it is striking that the one word we have not heard from Conservative Members in the debate for everything they have done is “sorry”?”
“The hon. Member says that owning a home gives people a stake in their community, and I agree with him. Why then does his party oppose this Government’s moves to help build 1.5 million homes and reform the planning system?”
“I commend the Home Secretary for her statement and join her in both condemning this despicable attack and sending condolences to the families of Melvin Cravitz and Adrian Daulby. They are heroes—may their memory be a blessing. Hendon has one of the largest Jewish communities in the country. Many of my constituents are scared; I must tell the House in all candour that more than a few are asking whether there is a future for them and their families in this country. One of the sources of concern is the fear of bias towards Jewish patients in the NHS. Can the Home Secretary expand on the action the Government are taking to ensure that all may be treated in the NHS without fear and stamp out antisemitism in our health system?”
“My quick consultation of Google suggests that 378,000 people turn 40 each year and the most basic advice normally costs several thousand pounds, so the bill will not be insubstantial. We may have had a conversation earlier about that, but how the cost might be covered has not really been addressed. As important is the broader question of capacity. The shadow Minister made an excellent point about how the capacity for retail advice was changed unintentionally by a well-meant measure. If we start looking at what capacity would be needed to offer even a basic standard of advice to over 300,000 more people each year than we are seeing now, we begin to see a problem. We need to do a lot more work on modelling how that advice would actually be provided, what the market would look like and what the second-order effects would be.”
“Member for Horsham mentioned, the Work and Pensions Committee has also looked at this issue, the lesson from which is that this is a horses for courses problem—a complex problem that requires complex, nuanced and sophisticated solutions that target different types of group and use different approaches. That lies at the heart of why I am asking some questions about the new clause. First, exactly because what we need is a quite sophisticated, multi-pronged and varied policy response, using a quite basic, one-size-fits-all response in statute feels like the wrong way to address the problem. Secondly, as the shadow Minister highlighted, I am somewhat worried about the law of unintended consequences. There is the simple issue of cost.”
“After hearing the untrammelled cynicism of the Opposition, I thought there would be nothing better than to bring some fresh-faced optimism to the debate. I am very grateful to be called, Ms Lewell. I have a couple of brief points to make. As we heard in the interventions made just before the break, there is unanimity on the need to tackle the incredibly important issue of advice. As the shadow Minister pointed out, levels of advice to pension holders have collapsed, which has profound consequences, particularly for those who need help the most. There is real consensus on the need to address this issue, and the Government are making huge strides to do so, whether that be the introduction of the dashboard or the now renamed Money Wise. As the hon.”
“On my reading, that would constrict potential policy responses and force the Government to go down the advice route, rather than provide other services that might be on offer through the advice and guidance boundary review. The intention is good. I think there is huge consensus on the need to tackle the problem, but the right way to do it is through sophisticated and proper policy making, rather than the blunt instrument of amending primary legislation. For those reasons, I oppose this new clause.”
“As ever, my hon. Friend is absolutely right and his intervention goes to a third point: this also feels a bit premature. As my hon. Friend mentioned, we are in the midst of the incredibly important advice and guidance boundary review. For many of the groups that we want to help, advice might not actually be the right solution, but guidance might be, and we are in the midst of re-tooling that. Similarly, we are in the midst of rolling out dashboards, which will transform the landscape but not fix the problems on their own; we may need to layer new policy initiatives on top. It seems that we are at risk of putting the cart before the horse. I also add that when I read new clause 1 in detail, I saw that it refers to “advice”.”
“I do not disagree with the hon. Lady, but does she agree that this might be a tiny bit premature, given that there is currently a consultation going on about making changes to these rules? The objective of the new clause is valuable, but maybe putting it in statute is not the right way to go.”
“Q13. The leasehold system is fundamentally broken. Thousands of leaseholders in Hendon are getting a raw deal, paying ever-rising service charges for ever-poorer service. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment to ending the feudal system of leasehold once and for all. Will the Prime Minister share with the House what actions the Government are taking to help leaseholders and bring in a system of commonhold?”
“As the Minister has previously said, there will be a savers’ interest test. There will be a series of safeguards, including the fact that if the Government want to exercise the power, they will have to file a report. This is a power ringfenced with safeguards. What Opposition Members have not said is what they would do instead to raise the returns of the pension market, because that is the issue. The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire is exactly right that there is not enough pension saving, but that is exactly because we are not seeing those returns. If not this power, what would the Opposition do instead to raise investment levels?”
“That is the context that has left many Hongkongers feeling that they have little choice but to leave, to seek freedom and a new life here in the UK.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I join colleagues in thanking the Petitions Committee for securing this debate, and I thank Mr Li for instigating the BNO petition. I am here to speak about the BNO visa. Our debate today should have two starting points: first, an acknowledgment of the historic commitment that the UK made to the people of Hong Kong in the form of the BNO scheme, which is something that we should be intensely proud of, and secondly a recognition of the massive repression that we have seen in Hong Kong, particularly since the enactment of the national security law. Rights that were guaranteed to the people of Hong Kong by the 1984 Sino-British joint declaration have been cast aside. Hong Kong’s democracy has been replaced by a dictatorship, and its free press has been crushed.”
“I have talked to many families who are directly and profoundly affected by that, leaving them in great financial difficulty. Without ILR, people cannot begin the path to full UK citizenship. When they applied for BNO status starting in 2021, they did so on the basis of a five-year ILR period. Extending the ILR period for them will potentially create great uncertainty and hardship. The Government are absolutely right to tighten the rules on migration to address the appalling failures of the previous Government. The measures laid out in the recent migration White Paper will make an important and welcome difference, and I fully support them. However, it is still worth considering the obligation we have to certain groups when making that important change.”
“I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent point. She is of course right, and I am proud to have welcomed many people with BNO status to my constituency of Hendon, particularly in Colindale. That growing and vibrant community adds immeasurably to the life of the area. I have talked to many BNO holders who have come to the UK to start a new life. They are absolutely committed to our country for the long term. They are keen to put down roots. They are planning their working lives, their children’s educations and their retirements here. That is why the five-year ILR timeframe is so important to them. Without ILR, BNO holders cannot get home fee arrangements at university for their children or access their pension savings from their mandatory provident fund accounts.”
“My hon. Friend is right that the policy is a source of great concern to many people. That is why I welcome the willingness of the Government and the Minister to listen and their decision to consult on the measures in the White Paper, including this one. Retaining the five-year ILR period for BNO holders who have already settled here would be a strong reaffirmation of the solemn compact we have made with the people of Hong Kong. I believe it need not have huge ramifications for the broader migration system, exactly as my hon. Friend says, especially as I believe BNO holders constitute a unique case because of their special status. It would give certainty to almost 200,000 BNO passport holders who have made the UK their home. It would be a beacon of British leadership, and I hope we can find a way to support it.”
“That is what pooling, which began in 2016, was meant to address, and to date, it has been successful, but it needs to be better. That is where I see a very big positive of coming together.”
“Q The Minister picked up a point that I was going to touch on, but I would like to ask about broader consolidation. Councillor Phillips, you mentioned that often councils are wrestling with multiple pools in a small area. I think there is broad consensus that consolidation is a good idea, and clearly this is the direction of travel being laid out by the Bill. What kind of challenges do you see to successful implementation of consolidation and how will the Bill drive that forward? Councillor Phillips: Let us be quite clear. I think the Government’s frustration, which is shared by many of us, is that we are talking about what is generally accepted to be the sixth largest pension scheme in the world, and it does not punch its weight, which is what it needs to do.”
“They have been asked to build local investment capabilities as well, which is of paramount importance to be able to kick-start and contribute to the UK economy, and to implement some of these governance reforms, and now we know that two of the pools are being asked to wind up, so there is £100 billion of assets to transfer, which is implicated across 21 funds. That is a huge amount to do under any timescale. Some of what is envisaged in the consultation is that this would be completed in a little over six months’ time. That puts risk on some of these reforms, and I think that should be recognised.”