David Pinto-Duschinsky MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Under the last Government, fly-tipping skyrocketed while prosecutions fell, and places like Burnt Oak, Colindale and west Hendon in my constituency paid the price. It is fantastic to see this Labour Government acting where the previous Government failed, bringing in stiffer penalties and giving the police powers to seize and crush vans. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can use those powers to consign fly-tipping to the dustbin for good, and would she join me in Hendon to crush a van?

• 23 Jun 2025 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Dozens of people from my Hendon constituency have been stranded in Israel and Iran. I thank the Foreign Secretary for his hard work on this issue, and it is good news that the first flight has already occurred. Can he say more about the timeframes for potential future flights and what is being done to support those looking to leave Israel over land borders or by sea?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. If we are to be serious about tackling poverty among disabled people, we need to be honest and focused on tackling its root causes and on making sure that the system is sustainable. The overwhelming driver of poverty among disabled people is low levels of employment. Only 54% of disabled people are in work; that is 30% lower than the average for people without disabilities. Shockingly, 43% of disabled people are economically inactive, and our employment rates lag far behind those of other countries, such as Canada’s at 62%. We cannot just ignore worklessness as the driver of poverty. The JRF says that people in full-time work are five times less likely to be poor than those in no work.

• 17 Jun 2025 · Disabled People in Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  No thank you; I have very little time. We have to deal with the root causes, so we have to focus on work. We also have to deal with the sustainability of the system, which is currently unsustainable. PIP claimant levels have risen at twice the level of underlying ill health. The rise since 2016 alone is equivalent to the entire police grant for England and Wales. If we are to sustain the system for the long term, we must make it sustainable. The proposed changes will not affect 90% of people. They will protect the most vulnerable and make the system fit for the future. That is why we should support them.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Government on the bold action they are taking to end the feudal leasehold system for good, which will ensure that future flat owners will never again be treated as second-class homeowners. But as the Minister is well aware, there are millions of existing leaseholders, including thousands in my constituency of Hendon. Will he update the House on the work the Department is doing, building on the path forward outlined in the commonhold White Paper, to strengthen protections for existing leaseholders, including on the conversion of leaseholds, ground rents and right to manage?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  11. What steps she plans to take to reform the leasehold system.

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way he is setting out his case, given the sensitivity of this issue. Would he accept—I cannot, unfortunately, speak for the halal rules, but I can speak for the kashrut ones—that there is no school of kosher slaughtering that permits stunning?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Non-stun Slaughter of Animals · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank hon. Members for engaging in the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on the way he has led it. I also thank Mr Osborne for instigating the petition. The debate allows us to directly address some of the myths that pervade the conversation and speak honestly about the implications that it has for our Jewish and Muslim communities. Let us start with the myths. Everyone here today believes in improving animal welfare. We have heard that time and again. I want to acknowledge the really strong and right feelings of all those who signed the petition. We are right to be proud of our reputation as a nation of animal lovers. Proponents of moves to ban what they call non-stun slaughter argue that stunning is more humane. Their advocacy conjures up pictures of animals gently and humanely put to sleep, shielded from suffering. I am afraid to say that reality does not always conform to that comforting image. As we have heard, modern industrial methods of stunning often involve significant distress and suffering. Animals are suffocated and slowly asphyxiated by carbon dioxide gas, electrocuted by having metal tongs placed around their heads, or maybe even placed upside down and dipped in baths of electrified water. As we have heard, captive bolts are also used. These processes are used not to minimise pain, but to maximise economic efficiency. They still entail significant suffering, and it is not clear at all that they involve less suffering than traditional forms of ritual slaughter used in the Muslim and Jewish communities. For instance, evidence suggests that animals undergoing kosher or halal slaughter often rapidly lose consciousness. A recent peer-reviewed report in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association suggests that, in the case of kosher slaughter, consciousness is lost within 10 seconds. Both Jewish and Muslim traditions emphasise the compassionate and humane treatment of animals. A focus on using factory methods of meat production will not reduce the suffering of individual animals, and it will not reduce the suffering of the animals we consume overall. Kosher slaughter accounts for 0.5%—just one in 200—of all animals slaughtered in the UK, and so-called non-stun halal slaughter accounts for merely 2.6%, so 97% of animals are unaffected. If we are serious about improving animal welfare, we should focus on how the 97% are treated throughout their lives, and not how the 3% meet their end. Banning or severely curtailing traditional slaughter will not help animal welfare, but it will hugely impact Jewish and Muslim communities. That bring us to the implications for those communities, and here I need to declare an interest of sorts. Just as colleagues have declared that they keep halal, I should say that I am Jewish and I only eat kosher meat. I am proud to represent large Jewish and Muslim populations in my Hendon community. I say to the proponents of a ban that keeping the rules of kashrut or halal is not some minor technical issue for observant Jews and Muslims; it is at the core of their—our—religious practice. To be an observant Jew is to keep kosher and to be an observant Muslim is to honour halal and avoid that which is haram. Banning or restricting halal or kosher meat would strike at the core of religious freedom for Jews and Muslims. It is an affront to the principles of religious liberty upon which this country is so proudly built. It would essentially deny Jews and Muslims the right to practise their religion in our country in the way that they see fit. I say respectfully that, as we have heard today, proponents of a ban have no answer to that argument. They cannot tell us what they expect Jews and Muslims who wish to be observant to do. They need to be honest about what a ban really means for their Jewish and Muslim friends, colleagues and neighbours. Some proponents have suggested not banning kosher and halal slaughter, but labelling all kosher and halal meat as non-stun. I say to them that, at a time when antisemitism has reached record levels and Islamophobia has risen dramatically, labelling meat prepared for the Jewish and Muslim communities as inherently cruel not only is inaccurate, but will feed the fires of prejudice. Of course, for some people in today’s debate, that is unfortunately the whole point, and this is where we need to come to some honesty. The vast majority of people engaged in the debate do so in good faith, but a very small number are not interested in animal rights, compassion in farming or food standards; they are interested only in division. In France and other countries, the far right has used this issue to stir up hatred against minorities. We must not allow it to be used as a weapon to sow the seeds of division between our communities here. We must not allow those who seek to undermine the quintessentially British value of tolerance to do so. The British answer is to maximise animal rights while protecting religious freedom. Banning this form of slaughter is fundamentally un-British. Animal welfare is critical—I endorse all moves to enhance it—but so is religious freedom. Banning kosher and halal slaughter will not improve welfare. There are other measures that will achieve that far more effectively, and they should be taken. However, imposing a ban would curtail the fundamental religious freedoms of my Jewish and Muslim constituents in Hendon, and I fear that it may feed a rising tide of prejudice. I urge everyone who cares for our communities, and for animal rights, to join me in rejecting the calls for this divisive ban.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  The Environment Agency predicts that 8 million homes—one in four in England—could be at risk of flooding by 2050. Despite this, the Conservative party presided over a tripling of the proportion of our flood defences that are deemed “not adequate”. By contrast, this Labour Government are investing over £2.6 billion in new flood defences, including on the Greenway in my Hendon constituency. Does the Prime Minister agree that it is a shame that not all parties share this Government’s determination to keep homes safe from flooding?

• 3 Jun 2025 · Serious Fraud Office · Hansard source

  More

  I am sorry to hear about what has happened to my hon. Friend’s constituents. She is of course right that these kinds of crimes must be investigated—we must see consistent and robust investigation, a point I will touch on later in my speech. The figures are stark. Under the last Conservative Government, fraud surged at every level. Between 2010 and 2024, reported fraud cases in the UK more than doubled, making it the single most prevalent crime type in the country. According to the crime survey for England and Wales, fraud now accounts for more than 40% of all crime. That is more than 4.1 million incidents in 2024 alone—or, put another way, one incident every 10 seconds. It is a sign of how ubiquitous fraud has become that we have almost stopped noticing the fraud attempts we all face every day—the dodgy emails and texts, the suspicious phone calls, the fake listings on online marketplaces. Many of us now just accept the regular attempts to defraud us as part of the weft and weave of modern life. The economic impact has been enormous. UK Finance estimates that more than £1.1 billion was stolen by fraudsters last year, including nearly £460 million in authorised push payment scams. The public purse has also come under attack, with up to £55 billion in public money lost to benefit and procurement fraud and other types of economic crime. But it is not just about the economic cost: the human cost has been enormous too, paid in the currency of suffering and lives turned upside down. It is hard to overstate how shattering fraud is for its victims. This explosion in scams, great and small, has been driven by increasingly sophisticated, increasingly transnational and increasingly organised criminality, and sharpened by rapid innovation and technological evolution. Some 67% of all fraud in the UK is now cyber-enabled. Fraud is no longer just about opportunistic criminals and simple phishing emails; criminals have become highly sophisticated, harnessing the power of technology in alarming ways. The use of artificial technology and deepfake technology is now commonplace, not just in social media, but in the execution of daring scams against major companies. For example, in February last year, a company lost more than £20 million as a result of a chief executive officer scam, where AI was used to fool executives into thinking that they were dealing with their boss. Meanwhile, sophisticated fraud-as-a-service websites such as Russian Coms have helped domestic criminals to use advanced technology to defraud the public. Our institutions are caught in a never-ending arms race against ever more adept and advanced criminality. All too often, the growth of fraud has also been enabled by the inaction of some players across the ecosystem. Banks and financial institutions have generally stepped up their efforts to limit retail fraud, and last year stopped more than £1.4 billion of fraudulent payments, as well as paying out £1.2 billion in compensation. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for major tech companies. They have often failed to take sufficient steps to combat the fraud propagated on or through their platforms and have not put in sufficiently robust “know your customer” and transaction monitoring controls, or even used the systems they already have. Their failure to act has left the social media and online commerce landscape vulnerable and has exacted a large price on others. Law enforcement has also struggled to keep up with the threat. Under the last Government, despite its accounting for almost half of all crime, fraud received only between 1% and 2% of police budgets, and enforcement was often hamstrung by poor infrastructure and limited collaboration between forces. The story on major fraud, bribery and economic crime shows strong parallels. The threat has grown significantly and is increasingly transnational in scope. Just as the authorities have historically struggled against the evolving fraud we see in our daily lives, so the institutions focusing on major fraud and the enforcement of our anti-bribery laws, in particular the SFO, have often struggled as well. I need not rehearse here some of the challenges the SFO has faced with failed prosecutions, insufficient powers, questions over leadership and a lack of resources. However, in recent times under the current Government, we are beginning to see real change. The Government are driving a strategy to tackle the fraud challenge. There is renewed focus on tackling the frauds that affect us all. The police and the National Crime Agency are seeking to invest in increased capacity and strengthen inter-force collaboration to tackle cross-country and transnational threats. Central Government are also strengthening the tools available to combat fraud in the benefit and procurement systems with, for example, the measures in the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill, which had its Third Reading in the Commons recently. After years of the previous Government failing to update the powers that Departments such as the Department for Work and Pensions had, leaving them with 20th-century powers to fight a 21st-century problem, this Government are finally getting the modern, anti-fraud tools they need. Critically, the SFO is undergoing positive change. Under new leadership, the organisation has published a five-year strategy focused on upgrading its capabilities, making smarter use of intelligence and driving co-ordinated enforcement. There are more reforms on the table aimed at further improving its reach and effectiveness, from enhancing international co-operation to bringing in financial incentives for whistleblowers. There is of course further to go, but the Serious Fraud Office is evidently becoming more effective, and has recently achieved some notable successes. However, if we are to tackle fraud and economic crime at all levels, these welcome improvements in policy and institutional effectiveness will need to be matched by changes across the whole anti-financial crime landscape. We will need to see stronger partnerships and collaboration, including among the police, better implementation and some actors, especially the big tech firms, stepping up to the plate. Online platforms should, for example, implement effective identity verification for commerce, enhance their monitoring and takedown procedures and, crucially, contribute to compensation when fraud occurs. I am sure that, over the course of the debate, we will hear discussion of many facets of this problem, and I am conscious that I have not had the opportunity in my remarks to touch on issues ranging from the policing of money laundering to making progress on issues such as ultimate beneficial ownership. However, all these points ultimately have in common the essential nature of this fight. This is a national challenge. The human cost of economic crime is devastating. We cannot afford to treat small fraud as trivial, or grand fraud and economic crime as inevitable. Both are corrosive; both must be tackled, and that must be done across Government and in banks, big tech and law enforcement. It is a necessary fight that this Government are already taking on, and a fight we can ill afford to lose.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Serious Fraud Office · Hansard source

  More

  I thank you, Sir John, for chairing this debate and all hon. Members who have taken part in it for their thoughtful and stimulating contributions. Given the time constraints, I will make just three observations about the points that have been covered today. First, this debate has thrown into sharp relief the appalling and devastating impact of fraud. I was struck by the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd North (Gill German), who powerfully outlined the impact of fraud not just on individuals’ finances, but on their mental health. She articulated a crucial point, namely that fraud is not just a crime, but a form of exploitation. Her points were powerfully echoed by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who, as ever, was a forceful advocate for his area. He brought home to us not just the impact on individuals—it was really striking that everyone who spoke in the debate talked about the depth of that impact—but the particular dynamics in Northern Ireland. My second point is that this debate has focused on a few key potential solutions. A number of Members talked about the massive progress that the SFO has made, and it is important that that progress is acknowledged —indeed, it was really cheering to hear from the Minister about the progress being made across a broad front. Many speakers also emphasised the importance of co-ordination between agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) said how important it is that existing agreements are effectively enforced. I was also struck by the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) made that we must ensure consistency of enforcement. My third observation—the key one—is that there has been real consensus in this Chamber about the devastating impact of economic crime and the absolute necessity of tackling it. I hope that we can build on that consensus as we collectively confront the challenge that we face. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered the Serious Fraud Office and tackling fraud and economic crime.

• 3 Jun 2025 · Serious Fraud Office · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the Serious Fraud Office and tackling fraud and economic crime. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. Economic crime affects us all. The fraud, money laundering, grand corruption and bribery that the Serious Fraud Office was established to address can threaten the integrity of our markets, the functioning of our economy, the security of our nation and even the very fabric of our democracy, and fuel misery and corruption around the world. Confronting the challenge posed by serious economic crime is crucial, but sometimes lost in this conversation is its link to a second kind of economic crime: the fraud that affects our constituents directly and touches millions of lives every year in our country. All too often, those two strands of economic crime are talked about separately. Although I have only a few minutes today, and cannot touch on every facet of economic crime, I will take this opportunity to talk about the two strands together; as economic crime evolves, they are becoming increasingly entwined and, if we are to tackle the corrosive impact of economic crime, we must address both. I want to start by telling the House about a constituent of mine; let us call him Brian. Brian is a hard-working, community-spirited man who has spent his life playing by the rules. He is not naive—he has decades of experience and a sharp eye for detail—but last year, he was caught out by a sophisticated scam. Within hours, Brian lost more than £40,000—his entire life savings. The impact has been devastating, not only financially, but emotionally. His trust, confidence and sense of security have been shattered. Sadly, that is far from an isolated incident. Virtually every MP I speak to has similar stories of constituents who have suffered.

• 21 May 2025 · Business and the Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is right that businesses need certainty. Does he agree that the thing that most undermined the certainty of businesses was the chaos that the Conservative party created through Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget?

• 20 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on securing the Mansion House accord, which will channel billions into the economy and make a real difference to my constituents. One of the reasons that pension funds agreed to join the accord was because of the strong pipeline of investable projects that the Government are creating. Does the Minister agree that the Government’s infrastructure plans and planning reforms, opposed by the Conservatives, will unlock growth?

• 19 May 2025 · National Security Act 2023: Charges · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the measures that my right hon. Friend has announced today. I join her in paying tribute to the security services and thank them for keeping us safe. The actions of the last few days have underlined the profound threat that Iran poses to our country. Many of the Iranian community in my constituency of Hendon live in fear of transnational repression. Could my right hon. Friend say more about what the Government are doing to protect our Iranian community and all those who live in fear of transnational repression, so that they can live their lives in freedom in Britain?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is talking about fishing rights. Under his Government, the UK catch suddenly dropped by 80%. Will he now apologise for the damage that he and his party did to the UK fishing industry?

• 13 May 2025 · Mansion House Accord · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend and Treasury colleagues on helping to deliver such an important agreement. The accord will unlock up to £25 billion of additional capital. It is a huge vote of confidence in the Government’s demand-side reform agenda to get Britain building and in our economic strategy, providing stability. What steps will the Government take to help make sure that investment is ramped up as quickly as possible, and to ensure that regulators help encourage investment of pension funds directly in real economic assets, for instance by looking at changes to the matching adjustment?

• 7 May 2025 · Personal Independence Payment: Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  A strong social security system is not just the cornerstone of a welfare state, but a hallmark of a decent society. However, it is exactly because the system is so essential that we must safeguard its future. It is our duty not just to help the most vulnerable today, but to ensure that the system is sustainable so that it can offer support tomorrow. That is the central challenge when we consider PIP. The number receiving it has more than doubled in the five years since the pandemic, and more than 1,000 new people join it every single day. Although health conditions have become more widespread in the years following covid, due mainly to the Conservatives’ terrible mismanagement of and under-investment in the NHS, the number of people on health-related benefits such as PIP has, on some metrics, increased at twice the rate that underlying health conditions have. Those of us who believe in the welfare state cannot simply ignore this issue, and neither can we posit speculative new revenue sources to wish the problem away. Some of my hon. Friends have mentioned a wealth tax as a possible solution. I say to them gently: if only it were that easy. Dr Allin-Khan, “no country in the world has ever successfully had a wealth tax”. Those are not my words, but those of Paul Johnson, head of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. If we are to protect the system, we must not seek to freeze it in aspic or ignore the problems it faces. Instead, we must confront the problems head on and seek reforms that will allow the institutions of the welfare state and the values they encode to endure.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Irish Republican Alleged Incitement · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to hear that the House is united in its condemnation of the appalling comments by this band, inciting hatred and supporting terrorism, and our thoughts and prayers today are with the families of Jo Cox and Sir David Amess. Does the Minister agree that there can never be any excuse for inciting violence against MPs, or for supporting the vile, antisemitic terrorists of Hamas and Hezbollah, and that a threat to MPs is a threat to democracy itself?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I have limited time, so I will make progress. The powers the Bill provides are proportionate, measured and ringed with safeguards. It is a mark of this that, as we heard from the Secretary of State on Second Reading, the Information Commissioner has stated that the Bill as currently drafted has addressed their previously stated concerns. As well as being proportionate, the powers are necessary to fight the ever-more sophisticated frauds that we are facing. Over the past decade, financial institutions have extensively overhauled their use of technology and data and their approaches to the evolving fraud threat, yet the Government have not. It is illuminating, but perhaps not surprising, that while social security fraud has risen dramatically post covid, fraud volumes and losses in the financial services sector, including credit card fraud, have fallen according to UK Finance. The public sector has paid a steep price for not modernising its anti-fraud approach and failing to adopt industry best practices. It is a gap that this Bill seeks to address. Most of all, the measures in the Bill are crucial for protecting the vulnerable and safeguarding the legitimacy of the system itself. Our social security system rests on public consent and a belief that money is fairly spent. Fraud and error chips away at this social contract, and it takes money from those who need it most. The public in Hendon and across the country expect us to take action. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about permitting fraud. The only people who benefit are the criminals who exploit our system and those who wish to undermine its role as a cornerstone of a civilised and fair society. For the sake of the most vulnerable, the taxpayer, fairness and the system itself, I hope the House will join me in supporting the Bill and voting down those amendments.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak against amendments 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9, and new clauses 12 and 15. Fraud in the benefit system affects us all. It costs us as a country almost £1 million an hour. It takes money from the most vulnerable in society and undermines the legitimacy of and public support for our social security system. However, many of the amendments proposed simply do not recognise the vital need for this legislation. Some, such as amendments 2 and 9, would hamstring the Bill by preventing us gathering key information. Others, such as amendments 8, 5 and 6, would limit the effectiveness of the Bill and make its powers more difficult to use. Others, such as amendments 4 and new clauses 12 and 15, would seek to delay its effects. These amendments, however differently proposed, all suffer from the same pathology: they fail to take fraud seriously. We have heard a number of speeches today from opponents of the Bill, but we are yet to hear from them any serious practical suggestions about how we might tackle fraud. These opponents say that they are concerned to protect the vulnerable, but I say gently that they can offer no proposals on how to prevent the fraud that is stealing from the neediest in our society. Many Members are coming from a genuine place of concern about how to strike the right balance between protecting the public purse on the one hand and the privacy and rights of claimants on the other. I think the Bill gets the balance right. The powers it provides are proportionate.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in opposition to amendments 1, 3 and 4. Under the previous Government, the country was subjected to years of economic chaos. This Government have made restoring stability a cornerstone of our strategy to boost long-term growth. Ensuring macroprudential stability, underpinned by an effective recovery and resolution regime, is a key part of that. Changes undertaken in the UK and globally through the Basel III reforms have made our large banks safer and more resilient, and we should welcome that. The reforms have improved solvency and reduced risks for the taxpayer. However, the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank in 2023 has demonstrated the need for new tools to help minimise the risk to consumers, taxpayers and broader financial stability posed by small bank failures. We need an approach that goes beyond the bank insolvency procedure, and that is why the proposals in the Bill enjoy so much support across our financial services sector, as I know from my role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on financial markets and services. But in designing this new approach, we must make sure that the proposals reflect the lessons of experience. In all candour, I am concerned that the amendments do not do that, and will impede the functioning of the new regime, rendering it less effective at moments of crisis. I was an adviser in the Treasury to Alistair Darling during the global financial crisis, when we had to resolve and recapitalise a number of major banks. The action that the Labour Government took then—often in the face of resistance from Conservative Members—helped to save our financial sector from catastrophe and stabilise not just the UK, but the global economy. There are many lessons to be learned from that period, but in relation to the Bill, one stands out. When we had to act to save our banking sector, we learned that successful resolution relies, among other things, on two key factors: speed and flexibility. It was the combination of those factors that was so important in 2008, and since then, I would argue, they have only become more important. In 2008, we watched banks’ liquidity and solvency deteriorate by the day, but now, as the collapse of Signature Bank in the US in 2023 shows, the combination of banking apps and social media mean that a full-scale banking run can develop in hours or even minutes. If we are to resolve banks successfully, regulators must be able to move as quickly. Speed has become more important than ever. So, too, has flexibility. As we see increasing financial innovation and diversification among banks, with new challengers, new forms of institutions and new types of markets and assets emerging, allowing regulators sufficient flexibility has become more essential, not less. The value of flexibility was demonstrated in the case of Silicon Valley Bank’s UK subsidiary. The creative use of powers to resolve that bank through a sale, rather than putting it into the bank insolvency procedure, protected consumers, minimised market turbulence and shielded the public purse. Contrast that with the US regulators’ approach to the parent company, SVB. There, rigidity and a mechanistic failure to apply major bank rules led to failures of regulatory oversight that contributed—as US regulators have acknowledged—to the bank’s failure. I raise this matter because I fear that amendments 1, 3 and 4 will militate against speed and flexibility, and will reduce the effectiveness of the Bill, especially in acute crisis situations. Let me start with proposed amendment 4. This would require the Bank of England to consider competitiveness and the growth impact on the market before directing resolution through the FSCS. However well-intentioned the amendment is, it could have a catastrophic effect. At a time of crisis—policymakers have sometimes just hours to act—it would place a duty on them to make a market assessment, which, by the way, could presumably be challenged. This is simply impractical and could fatally slow down action to restore financial stability. As someone who has sat in the room during a bail-out process, I have to tell the proposer of the amendment that spending time on this kind of exercise during a disorderly bank failure is simply a luxury that we do not have. I am also concerned that such a requirement would have a chilling effect, staying regulators’ hands when they have to act quickly. This could not only increase the risk of disorderly collapse, but raise the cost to the FSCS of a recapitalisation if it does proceed. Experience tells us that the longer we put off a resolution, the more expensive it becomes. This is a recipe for higher risk and higher cost. Moreover, leaving aside the practical difficulties, the underlying logic is flawed. First, in seeking to analyse the market before deciding on whether to resolve an institution or wind it up, we are putting the cart before the horse. Surely a much better course of action is to prevent the potentially disorderly collapse of the institution, and then to work out its long-term future and the role, if any, it should play in the market. Secondly, the amendment fails to take into account other objectives that the Prudential Regulation Authority should properly consider in deciding whether to act, including the protection of retail savers, the prevention of contagion and the safeguarding of macroprudential stability. As drafted, the amendment, however well-intentioned, could distort PRA decision making. Its intentions may be good, but its impact might not be. The same is unfortunately true of amendments 1 and 3. Both seek to circumscribe the use of the FSCS via statute, to prevent it being used to bail out larger institutions. The amendments would rob regulators of the flexibility to use the instrument in unusual or unforeseen circumstances, in the name of solving a problem that does not exist. The powers provided by the Bill are already aimed squarely at smaller banks, and there are various safeguards in the Bill to prevent the use of those powers for larger banks in most scenarios. For example, the Bill states that the FSCS-funded resolution may be used only for institutions that are placed in a bridge bank or transferred to a new institution, and this would not be applicable for larger bank in most scenarios, as they are expected to be resolved through an MREL bail-in. The Bill also provides for de facto Treasury sign off, requires the Chancellor to report to Parliament on the use of the powers and mandates the bank to inform the Chairs of the relevant parliamentary Committees whenever an FSCS-funded resolution is undertaken. As such, it is already well-policed and circumscribed. There is little danger of this approach being regularly or routinely used with large banks. Adding a statutory prohibition on using this approach with firms meeting their minimum MREL thresholds would add little, but it would create risk. My experience in the Treasury during the global financial crisis, and in my work across financial services since then, is that we cannot say that the highly improbable will never happen, and we cannot always predict what form the next crisis will take, or what will trigger it. Conservative Members should surely understand this lesson better than most. After all, it was Liz Truss’s disastrous mini-Budget that sparked market chaos through a product—liability-driven investments—that most people had never even heard of, and were thought to be very stable and low risk. Given this, it would be exceptionally unwise to statutorily bar the Bank from being able to use all the tools at its disposal in exceptional circumstances. There are eventualities that, however unlikely, are possible, such as a well-capitalised bank suffering a very rapid deterioration of its position due to a mass redress event. We must allow the Bank flexibility to access the tools that the Bill provides in exceptional circumstances, in order to ensure stability and protect the taxpayer. We must not bind its hands in a crisis. The power of the Government’s proposals lie in their ability to be deployed rapidly and with flexibility. That is what will give them their traction and help safeguard our financial stability. It is critical that we preserve those facets of the Bill. For that reason, I urge the House to join me in rejecting the amendments.

• 24 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Leaseholders in Hendon and across the UK are being ripped off by managing agents charging excessive fees while delivering poor service. That is why I, along with colleagues on the Labour Benches, have called many of those companies into Parliament to explain themselves. In the recent White Paper, the Government set out a strong plan to end the feudal leasehold system for good. May we have a debate in Government time on what can be done at constituency level to support the reforms, and specifically to help the Government hold managing agents to account while the reforms are enacted, lowering the unfair and unaffordable service charges that leaseholders are being forced to pay?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Fourteen years of neglect from the Conservative party left high streets, such as the one in Edgware, in a shocking state. One common complaint that my constituents have is that phone boxes on Edgware high street have become derelict and act as a magnet for graffiti, vandalism and litter. I am pleased to say that after lobbying BT, two of these unsightly phone boxes will be removed, but there is much more work to be done. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time to map out the Government’s comprehensive plan to revive Britain’s high streets?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—a joy as ever. I thank my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister for their tireless efforts, which have secured the best, most powerful position available for our country. Of course, there is deep disappointment that tariffs have been levied, but the fact that they have been levied at the lowest band is a vindication of the Government’s strategy, and businesses I have spoken to—in Hendon and nationally—have been unanimous in their support for the Government’s approach. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to stand up for Britain is through a cool, calm, collected and pragmatic approach, and that we must reject the knee- jerk response and calls for action on invented problems that some Opposition Members demand?