David Pinto-Duschinsky MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Right to Trial by Jury · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to help improve local bus services.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  You have mentioned the £47 billion of savings, but you have neglected to identify the number of teachers—

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  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”?

• 28 Oct 2025 · Stamp Duty Land Tax · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 13 Oct 2025 · Manchester Terrorism Attack · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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”. 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.

• 11 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Eighth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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.

• 10 Sept 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 8 Sept 2025 · Indefinite Leave to Remain · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I want to build on the questions that the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North East were raising. Obviously, part of the challenge we face is around the proliferation of small pots; certainly, when I talk to my constituents about issues of long-term retirement planning, that is the consistent theme. The Bill obviously sets out a path to try to deal with some of that proliferation that has been caused since the introduction of auto-enrolment. What are your views on the extent to which the Bill provides the right framework for dealing with that kind of proliferation? Jack Jones: As Zoe said earlier, we should be here already. It has taken us a long time to get to the point where we have an agreed solution. It looks as if the mechanics of it will work. I think we need to let that bed in and prove that it works. The main concern from our perspective is the £1,000 definition of a small pot. Obviously, from a lot of angles, £1,000 is a lot of money—but as a pension pot it really is not. Looking at this once you have proved the concept and you have a system that works and that hoovers up the smallest pots and those most likely to become orphaned is one thing, but I think if you are looking at helping people to avoid accumulating 10 medium-small pots over their career, we need to look at how to increase that over time. Christopher Brooks: I agree with Jack. I think the Bill is really strong on small pots and the system that is envisaged will really help. I guess my only comment would be that £1,000 is not a huge amount of money, so maybe over time that amount could be raised, and some kind of indication that that is the intention might be helpful.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Patrick, we have heard loud and clear your message that getting the value for money framework right is at the core of this. The Bill aims to put that on a sound footing. Which elements are required to get it right? How do you think the Bill will help to build them up? Patrick Heath-Lay: As a package, the Bill brings forward the concept of value for money in a general sense. We need to move the conversation in our industry, particularly the conversation around workplace pensions, to the subject of value. We are all here to deliver value for members. The bit that always gets a lot of conversation is what value really means, but you cannot walk past the three fundamental drivers of a pension proposition, which are the investment return we give our members, what we charge them for it, and how our service shows up for them, probably in those moments of truth when they need us for guidance. Those are the three core elements to value, which we should not walk past. We see this as an incredibly important area. I certainly believe that we should try to get this right as an industry, as best we can, from day one, because I think that it will be an important measure that we—regulators, Government, everyone—will lean on to understand how these reforms are playing through. As an organisation, we have led a pound-for-pound initiative that others have joined. We brought in expertise from Australia, which is about 20 years ahead of us, and brought together a group of providers that are effectively going to dry-run some value for money measures and utilise that concept to provide some findings to regulators and Government that will hopefully help the iteration of our value for money framework. We really do see this framework as an important area, and I would like to see those three elements at its core. Ian Cornelius: The focus on value has to be the right thing for our members. That is what they care about; that is what we are here for. There is some complexity to work through, such as how you measure value and what timeline you measure it over. Quite lot of engagement is required. We are piloting and trialling it; we almost certainly will not get it right the first time. It will be important to make it as practical and simple as possible. As Patrick said, it has real potential, in combination with the rest of the Bill, to shift the focus from cost to value. In the past, there has undoubtedly been too much focus on cost and not enough on value.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q How do you see the Bill helping? Councillor Phillips: From that point of view, it is very helpful. Because we are a very transparent pension fund, pressure will be put on some of the pools to make sure that their workings are done in a transparent manner. They are now, but there will be even more pressure because lobby groups will go straight to them rather than the funds. Consolidation with regard to administration is not quite so easy. The last consolidation was between Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, and that was with maximum co-operation on both sides. This is a very well administered scheme, but bringing two administration authorities together is quite challenging. It needs to be done with co-operation and collaboration, never with a big stick behind it. Certainly in London, there is a case for some rationalisation of the number of funds, and there is always going to be an issue about some of the smaller funds as they deal with it, but pooling is not just about consolidating your investments. It also brings the opportunity for the member funds that own the pools to start working more collaboratively, particularly on things like communications and other areas of work. There is great potential there. One of the things that the scheme advisory board is very keen to do is to make sure we develop and grow those chairs of funds to be the competent leaders that they are, and make them even better. Robert McInroy: I think you were asking about the challenges of implementation. It is easy to see the direction on this and to think that there is not much change for the LGPS. There is a huge magnitude of change in these reforms. The LGPS funds and the pools already have a very full to-do list. They have stretched resources. They are asked to deliver an awful lot in a short period of time. They are transferring all of the remaining assets from the funds to the pools—there is still about 30% of those assets to come across in a short period of time. Two pools have been asked to change their operating model to be FCA-regulated. Every pool has been asked to build advisory functions—that is all from scratch, apart from one. 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.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Clearly you are talking about a large administrative challenge, but also about building capacity. We know the funds need capacity to raise their investment sophistication and their ability to invest in a broader set of assets. What do you think the minimum efficient scale for this is, and how quickly could the pools get there? Robert McInroy: At the moment, there are eight pools across the £400 billion-ish of assets. I believe the plan at the moment is to reduce that to six. You would imagine that that gives a big enough scale. Some of those pools will be £100 billion-plus; that should be able to punch its weight internationally, I would imagine. The LGPS itself is of course open to accrual and to new members joining, so that is just going to grow over time. In some ways, I think these reforms set the plan for the future as the scheme continues to grow.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Pension Schemes Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I am really glad that you both mentioned governance, because that absolutely stands at the heart of this. You also mentioned conflicts. We have not talked much about the role of consultants and things like that, but it is clear that you think the framework laid out by the Bill will be helpful and a key part of mobilising those things. Conversations that I have had also flag up the importance of culture among trustees. We can give people the tools, the powers and the permission to invest, and we can be clear in the framework we set up, but, culturally, they may still be very risk averse. Of course, some of that is appropriate because they have to safeguard member benefits, but there is a point about whether they are overly cautious and about how one creates the appropriate culture to go with the change. From your perspective, what is needed to create the right culture to go alongside the right governance? Michelle Ostermann: I have one small observation from when I first came to the UK. I recognise that there is a very strong savings culture, but not necessarily an investment culture, and there is a distinct difference there. I even notice the difference when we talk about productive finance targets. We speak in terms of private assets, but there is a difference between private equity and private debt, and between infrastructure equity and infrastructure lending. All those lending capabilities are here in this country. I feel that the debt sophistication is strong, but where it lacks is the equity. I am a Canadian. With one of the largest Canadian schemes, we had no problem coming in and buying up assets here in the UK—you may have noticed. We own a lot of it, and with Australia, most of it. The supply was never an issue for us. We brought the scale and sophistication, but what we did not have was a local British anchor. We did not have an anchor investor. We did not have a home-grown Ontario Teachers, a Canada Pension Plan or even an ATP that we could use as the local one. I see that the PPF, NEST and Brightwell can be that. We are still not megafunds. I know that we are referred to as behemoths and megafunds at £30 billion and £60 billion, but the peers with £100 billion, £200 billion and £500 billion are those that are putting in £0.5 billion or £1 billion in one investment. They are not lending, but investing. That is the biggest difference I notice: the definition of scale and the degree of sophistication. It is even about sophistication in the governance model, and having a board and a management team with that sophistication. It is about having a management team with some power that you are hiring out of investment, and being a not-for-profit and an arm of the Government that is allowed to put in that sophisticated capability, with a board that can properly oversee it so it is not done without proper consideration. Morten Nilsson: I think it is quite critical that you have trustee boards that are supported well by regulation and guidance, as we talked about before. It would also be helpful to start to focus on the management teams that are supporting the trustees. Cultural change is always very difficult. We must acknowledge that we are coming out of a situation that was really quite difficult for a lot of trustees and sponsors in terms of finding out how to fix the big deficits that schemes had. We must acknowledge that that is where we are coming from and that is the mentality we have had for decades. Regulation and guidance is still all over the place, and we must work through how we move that forward. I really recommend more guidance from TPR and, sooner rather than later, more guidance on surplus extraction. That would help a lot of trustees to take more risk and think in a more balanced way about risks. Of course, if we are considering allowing excess funding to go back, we need to ensure that we are doing that on a prudent and well-considered basis. It is an educational challenge more than anything, but it is also about the advisers. The market really needs to get comfortable with investing for the longer term. Within that, it is critical that we move away from being obsessed with a mark-to-market, day-to-day obligation. We measure our liabilities on one day of the year and then we might panic if there is a little swing in the market, but we are actually working through quite a long horizon and therefore we can smooth that out in a different way. We need to think about how we look through some of these blips.