David Pinto-Duschinsky MP: speeches

Speeches

• 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.

• 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.

• 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?

• 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?

• 14 Mar 2025 · Rare Cancers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) for raising this deeply important issue. I know that I speak for everyone here in finding his words about his father-in-law, and the story of Kira, very moving. I join him in welcoming Kira’s family. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her campaigning on this issue—her sister would be very proud of her. I also pay tribute to everyone who has spoken, for both their bravery and the immense bravery of their constituents and their family members. I particularly want to recognise the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and the story of Dan, the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Monica Harding), my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool North and Fleetwood (Lorraine Beavers) for her powerful speech about her father, and my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) for his speech about his grandparents. I give a special mention to my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn); I am so sorry that I did not get a chance to meet his brother Alex. He sounds like a phenomenal human being. I am so sorry for my hon. Friend’s loss, but I know that his brother would be very proud of him. My heart goes out to those who have shared their stories. I thank them for their bravery. As so many stories show, the term “rare cancers” is misleading. The cancers we class as rare in total account for almost half of all cancer diagnoses each year, and as has been mentioned, tragically they account for over half—55%—of all cancer deaths. Given that, on average, one in two of us develops some form of cancer in our lifetimes, the chances of experiencing one of these so-called rare or less common cancers, or seeing them diagnosed in a loved one, are far higher than the term suggests. In the coming year, 182,000 people will be diagnosed with these types of cancers—equivalent to the population of a city the size of Swindon. Sadly, 92,000 people will lose their lives as a result—the population of a city the size of Chester. Behind each one of those tragic statistics lies a story of families bereaved; of mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers and children lost, and of lives torn apart. That was brought home to me when I visited Chai Cancer Care in my constituency to hear the stories of many people battling to live with cancer. Their bravery is inspiring and they need our help now. I commend the Government’s work to improve cancer outcomes for all. Last month they launched the call for evidence to inform the development of a national cancer plan, and I hope that we can pass the Bill to support those efforts. Illnesses classified as rare or less common are among some of the very cruellest. The Bill seeks to address some of the fundamental reasons why diagnosis of a comparatively rare form of cancer can leave patients with a disproportionately lower chance of making a full recovery. For a start, rare cancers are harder to diagnose. There are many reasons for that. Some of the more common cancers have screening programmes, which means that many people are diagnosed before they have symptoms. Sadly, that is much less common in the case of rare cancers. Additionally, doctors see the symptoms of common cancers more frequently, and so are more likely to spot them. Also, currently, 82% of patients with a rare or less common form of cancer are not offered a clinical trial. The Bill will seek to reduce the knowledge gap on rare cancers, proposing a national specialty lead for rare cancers to advise on research design and facilitate collaboration in rare cancer research, and a specific rare cancer registry to share information to improve the recruitment of participants for rare cancer clinical trials. However, although we need to incentivise research, it is not the only barrier that we face to improving rare cancer outcomes. The comparatively lower occurrence of many rare cancers mean that, although drugs to combat them often exist, for economic reasons they are not developed by the pharma industry, despite the pressing and urgent need for them. These orphan drugs have the potential not only to save thousands of lives but to provide hundreds and thousands of families with that most valuable thing, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley referred: more time with their loved ones. Under normal market conditions, pharma companies may be unwilling to invest in the research and development of new treatments for diseases that affect fewer people than the most common forms of cancer. The figures are stark: five of the six less survivable cancers received only 17% of the research funding for more survivable cancers. By proposing that the Secretary of State will be required to review the current laws on marketing authorisations for these orphan drugs, and by placing a duty on Government to support research and innovation further, the Bill would go a long way to achieving something that many of us would view as common sense: incentivising the production of these medical products and putting them to use where they are so badly needed in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of cancer. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and his team for the work they have done to improve the power of collaboration among Members of Parliament, the charity sector and patient advocates. Drawing on medical expertise and lived experience, their diligence in bringing about the Bill is borne out by the widespread support it has gathered across the House. According to Pancreatic Cancer UK, the Bill has the potential to transform survival for rare cancers by encouraging a greater focus and drive to research, and the Brain Tumour Charity has also praised it. I know from my own experience, talking to constituents in Hendon and visiting hospitals such as the Royal Free, just how crucial one word can be: hope. Cancer is one of the defining health issues of our time, causing the death of 460 people in this country every single day. We know there is no silver bullet. We must fight cancer on all fronts, from research to prevention to diagnosis to treatment, and I know the Government are wholly committed to doing that. Thanks to huge oncological steps forward in recent years, outlooks for cancer patients have improved dramatically. We have reached the milestone of more than 50% of people diagnosed with cancer in England and Wales now surviving their disease for 10 years or more, yet this number falls sharply for many of the rarer cancers we have talked about today. We must recognise—as this Bill does—where the shortfalls are in our shared knowledge and the resources we put into the rarer forms of this disease. We have a duty to put this right. We must ensure that those suffering from rare and less common forms of cancer, and those yet to be diagnosed, have as much cause for hope as possible. I support this Bill.

• 14 Mar 2025 · Arm’s-Length Bodies (Review) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Could the hon. Gentleman enlighten me on a slight confusion I have with the wording of his Bill? The Government are talking about bringing more of these agencies back under Executive control so that the Executive, elected by the British people, can drive their performance. His Bill would provide direct parliamentary control, which in many cases—such as with the Prison Service, which is overseen by the Ministry of Justice—would move control and oversight from the Executive to Parliament. I may be confused, but would the Bill not make some of that harder not easier?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Holocaust Memorial Day · Hansard source

  More

  Each year, Holocaust Memorial Day serves as a powerful reminder of the horrors that humanity is capable of inflicting, and of where antisemitism can lead. For me, this day is not just a time to remember the 6 million Jews murdered across Europe, but an opportunity to reflect on their personal stories, including my own family’s. Critically, this day is also a chance to renew our solemn pledge, “Never again,” which has particular meaning for me and my family. My father is a Holocaust survivor. He was born in Budapest in 1943. In spring 1944, after Nazi Germany invaded Hungary, he was herded, along with tens of thousands of other Jews, into the ghetto in Munkács, his mother’s hometown. Over just two months, more than 437,000 Hungarian Jews were deported to Auschwitz, the vast majority of whom were murdered. Many members of my family counted among their number and did not survive, but my father did and so did my grandmother, thanks to the extraordinary bravery of a woman named Maria. In a last desperate throw of the dice, my family entrusted my infant father to her care. She risked everything to smuggle him, and a short time later my grandmother, out of the ghetto just days before it was liquidated. Maria’s courage was extraordinary. Her willingness to risk her own freedom, and maybe even her own life, for a stranger and her child is a testament to the power of human decency even in the darkest of times. I often think of what the last tearful meeting, where my great-grandparents bade farewell to my father, barely 10 months old, knowing that they would never see him again, must have been like. I think of my grandmother, forced to live under a false identity for the remainder of the war, not knowing what happened to her family. And I think of Maria, whom I never met and who I know little about, but to whom I owe so much. In these moments, the enormity of what happened hits me hardest. A few years ago, I took my family to the Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem. There, in its files of those who perished, I looked up my family on my father’s father’s side. Now, my name is pretty unusual, but among the names of those who were murdered I found literally hundreds of Duschinskys. I know I am not alone in that; my family’s story is far from unique. There are millions of Jewish families with stories like mine: stories of loss, trauma and persecution, but also of survival. And not just Jewish families; there are so many others—other victims of Nazi persecution, as well as survivors of the Rwandan genocide, and those in Bosnia, Darfur and Cambodia, who have similar stories to tell. Victims of hatred, victims of persecution, they are bound together by a common experience and a common humanity. Holocaust Memorial Day is particularly important this year. It comes at a moment of dawning hope after 15 months of darkness, with the release of three hostages, including Emily Damari, and a ceasefire in Gaza. I pray for the safe release of all the hostages, for the ceasefire to be sustained, and for us to take the first steps towards a sustained peace. But 27 January is also critically important this year because it marks the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz. It is a hugely significant milestone. For those of us who know survivors, it will be the last major anniversary when we have them with us. In Hendon, we are enormously proud of the work of our local survivors, including Manfred Goldberg, Renee Salt, Vera Schaufeld, Peter and Marianne Summerfield, and my good friend Rabbi Bernd Koschland, all of whom have done so much work to raise awareness. Yet with each anniversary, the Holocaust slowly but surely slips from living memory. As the generation of survivors passes on, so the responsibility falls upon us to ensure that their stories endure. The torch of remembrance is being passed and it is down to us, the people here today, to safeguard the memory of the Holocaust: to spread understanding, tell its stories and keep them alive for our children and grandchildren. This is not just about the numbers and statistics; we must remember the people, the families, the communities. We must speak for them and, where we can, make sure their stories and voices are heard, especially in an age when misinformation proliferates. When truth competes with a blizzard of distortions and lies, and when conspiratorial thinking and shrill rhetoric numbs us to true horror, we cannot rely on the facts of the Holocaust alone to speak for themselves. We must tell its stories insistently and repeatedly, and make sure they reach every ear. That is why the work of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust in running Holocaust Memorial Day is so important, and why the work of the Holocaust Educational Trust, the Association of Jewish Refugees and so many other charities is so vital. It is why the Government’s pledge to ensure that the Holocaust will be at the core of a national curriculum that is taught in every school is so welcome, as is the extra £2 million in funding for the HET. It is also why the deep personal commitment of the Prime Minister, seen in his strong advocacy and his recent trip to Auschwitz, is so critical. This anniversary is not just about remembering. It is about reaffirming our collective commitment to the values that ensure such atrocities can never happen again. That is why the importance of Holocaust Memorial Day cannot be overstated. It is not only a time of reflection, but a time of vigilance and a time when we renew our vow to act, because, as history often reminds us, prejudice and bigotry are light sleepers. At a time when antisemitic incidents are up over 1,500%, we can see that hatred, particularly the world’s oldest hatred, is never fully vanquished. It must be fought and defeated anew with every generation. In Britain, we take pride in our pluralistic society, a society where people are free to practice their religion, express their identity and live without fear of persecution, but we must always remember that those freedoms must never be taken for granted. They are the product of a long history of struggle and sacrifice, and they are something we must constantly protect and defend in our politics, our rhetoric and our daily lives. We can all play our part. This coming Monday, at 7 pm, I urge everyone who can to tune in to BBC One for the national ceremony of commemoration. At 8pm, I ask everyone to light a candle and put it in their window— a light in the darkness to keep memory alive. The theme of this year’s Holocaust Memorial Day is “For a better future.” The path to a better future, one where tolerance and mutual respect trumps division and bigotry, lies in a steadfast defence of our values and a willingness to confront hate. The foundation of this determination in turn rests on our collective remembrance of the Holocaust and our determination to tell its stories and echo its truth down the generations. I know something about that, because that is the path my family trod. It seems unlikely that a baby boy in a ghetto leaving his family in the arms of a stranger might be on a path to a better future, but because of their decency and bravery he found his way to a place of safety. He travelled to a new country that was a bastion of those values, a country in which his son was able to carry his family name, a name that was on the verge of extinction, into Parliament and sit surrounded by so many colleagues whose own family stories are marked by hardship and oppression. That is why I am so proud to sit here and to be a co-sponsor of this debate. The lesson this journey teaches us is that a path to a better future is possible if we work together to build it. On this Holocaust Memorial Day, we should renew our determination to strive to build it every day.

• 19 Nov 2024 · Jailing of Hong Kong Pro-democracy Activists · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement. Like other speakers in this Chamber, I have a large Hong Kong community in my constituency, in Colindale, and that community is very worried about transnational repression. Will the Minister meet me and other MPs to discuss this issue?

• 17 Oct 2024 · Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for setting up this important debate. For me, this debate is freighted with some emotion for very personal reasons. When I was a student many years ago—this will give away my age somewhat—I helped to organise for Martin Lee to speak at my university. I remember how hard campaigners like him fought to establish a vibrant democracy in Hong Kong. I remember the hope we had for the future. It is heartbreaking to see how the situation has unfolded: with China’s promises turning to ash; with the repression that my hon. Friends have talked about; with publications like Apple Daily being shut down; and with British citizens such as Jimmy Lai resting in prison, denied their basic rights. China, as the Prime Minister said, has clearly broken its agreement with Britain, but far more importantly, it has breached its covenant with the people of Hong Kong to respect their rights and freedoms and to allow them to live in the way that they were promised. In so doing, it has struck at the very heart of what makes Hong Kong so special.