Bobby Dean MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the Bill. We understand why the royal household budget has increased and agree that it is right for the grant to be reset now that the Buckingham Palace programme has finished. However, we remain concerned about transparency and have put forward an amendment to that effect. Our amendment would insert a new subsection that would stop the royal trustees proposing any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used in the grant formula unless three conditions are met first. The National Audit Office must be commissioned to carry out a value-for-money assessment of the proposed change; that NAO report must be laid before both Houses; and finally, the House of Commons must debate and approve the change by resolution. This contrasts with the Bill as drafted, which sets the figures straight into primary legislation on the strength of the royal trustees’ own conclusions, with no separate independent check built in for the next time that the percentage is revisited. That matters because it is the royal trustees who produce that report—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. In other words, the people proposing the change are marking their own homework, with no independent body or vote required to test whether it represents good value for the taxpayer. Our amendment is not about opposing the grant or blocking today’s readjustment, which the Liberal Democrats accept is right now that the reservicing works are complete. Instead, it is about ensuring that if a percentage increase is proposed again in the future, taxpayers get an independent, NAO-assessed value-for-money check, with their elected representatives getting an actual vote on it, rather than the change simply following through the trustees’ own formula. To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that greater transparency and independent scrutiny of taxpayer money must be built into the system for the future, not treated as optional, and that that is best guaranteed by external checks, not simply taking the Government’s word for it.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his comments on the Liberal Democrat amendment that was discussed earlier, and we recognise the arguments that he made in response. I support the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will move directly on to our amendment, which would insert a new subsection stopping the royal trustees from proposing any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used in the grant formula unless three conditions are met first: the National Audit Office must be commissioned to carry out a value-for-money assessment of the proposed change—

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, I have been very well briefed. I think my comments at the beginning were probably sufficient. We understand the purpose of the Sovereign Grant Bill. We have some concerns about transparency, but I will return to those later.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Sovereign Grant Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Liberal Democrats understand the purposes of this Bill and accept some of the Government’s conclusions about how the grant needs to change, but we continue to be concerned about transparency. It is important to make it clear at the start that the sovereign grant provides no personal income to the King or Queen or any member of the royal family; the funding is tied entirely to the running of the institution. We recognise that the household’s budget has increased, but the bulk of that increase is earmarked for a maintenance backlog across the royal palaces, green infrastructure, and cyber-security in an increasingly hostile international landscape. We agree that it is right for the grant to be reset now that the Buckingham Palace programme has finished. However, taxpayers will rightly have questions about where and, importantly, who this money goes to. The Government must ensure that not a penny of this grant goes to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who disgraced his title in office —

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Some £7.9 billion a year: that is how much the Chartered Institute of Housing estimates is spent on housing benefit for tenants renting privately. In my local area, a lot of that will be going to people living on the St Helier estate, one of the largest London council estates built during the interwar period, much of which has been sold under right to buy over the past few decades. That means that instead of our local authority receiving rent from those properties, the national Government are paying market rates to private landlords on homes that we built. That is maddening and it surely makes the scale of right to buy sales, alongside the failure to replenish the stock, one of the single greatest policy failures for a generation.

• 10 Sept 2026 · Social Housing Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the hon. Member is aware that right-to-buy sales were happening throughout the ’90s and under the last Labour Government as well, so there is a stain on all parties from what has happened over the last few decades. The loss of stock has an impact not only on the taxpayer but on our constituents. My inbox is full of people struggling in the housing market. It is by far the biggest issue that I face in my patch, and it is the one I end up feeling the most hopeless about. Sure, we can get things fixed when it comes to the condition of people’s housing, and sometimes we are able to get people’s position on the waiting list successfully reviewed, but a lot of the time, the fundamental issue is supply. Thousands of people are waiting, and just a couple of hundred properties become available each year, and for that I have no magic wand. I have families living in one-bedroom accommodation where teenagers are sharing the only bedroom and parents are sleeping on the sofa. I have hard-working families come up to me all the time who are frustrated by being told that there is no point in them even applying to get on the list. It did not used to be that way. I benefited first hand from growing up in council accommodation. My parents are working class—a scaffolder and a cleaner—and they raised their family well. When my youngest brother was born—the third sibling —we managed to move from a two-bedroom flat into a three-bedroom house. That was considered normal back then, but now that sort of situation feels like a luxury. We have turned social housing into an emergency provision for the vulnerable, instead of being the foundation of our society. To fix the supply problem is going to require bold reforms to local authority resources and powers. They need greater staffing capacity, relief from the unjustified housing revenue account debts, and to be liberated to build directly. The right-to-buy reforms that form the centrepiece of the Bill are welcome, and will stem the losses, but they must only be the first step if the Prime Minister’s ambition in this area is to be realised. Given how precious legislative time is in this place, I hope that more work will be done as the Bill progresses through the House to also increase the supply of homes. What has happened to social housing in this country is part of a broader public policy failure, where the Government are forced into throwing good many after bad, and into intervening later rather than investing early. In the future, I hope we can recognise social housing as national infrastructure—part of our national resilience. The Government must invest to save more often. I welcome the Bill as a first step on the journey, and I look forward to the Government going further to reverse the failures of the past. As I have the time, I will make one more remark. It is notable that the Conservative party has put forward a wrecking amendment today that picks on minorities, but not a single Conservative Back Bencher has come to defend it. What a disgrace! They should have the bravery to make the argument in full, if that is what they want to do.

• 7 Sept 2026 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister spoke about global instability. There is no doubt that energy costs are having an impact on the cost of doing business, but this summer, local businesses told me that domestic Government had raised the cost of doing business, through national insurance and business rates rises. Will the Chancellor do something about that in the next Budget?

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree—I am learning this lesson live and directly at the moment. We have actually bought devices to make us lock our phones away, because the temptation is always there. Phones are such a part of our daily lives, but they are damaging our interactions with our children, particularly during feeding times. Making eye contact is an essential part of development. We should look to formalise education with parents on this point. Before I close, let me reflect on just how significant this Bill could be. In the late 19th century, just 2 million out of 4 million primary-age schoolchildren actually attended school. It was not until 1870 that a Liberal, William Forster, introduced the Elementary Education Act, which mandated school attendance at this age. It was a statutory commitment, and what was once deemed unfortunate became unthinkable. I believe that this Bill could have the same effect for babies. It will make their development at this early stage—the critical first 1,001 days—a real focus for society, so never again will we think it is unfortunate that they miss out on such provisions. It will become unthinkable. I am proud to support this Bill.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) for bringing the Bill to the House—at first perhaps reluctantly, but I think now enthusiastically. Madam Deputy Speaker, you may be forgiven for thinking that we are from slightly different backgrounds, but I am here to make the case that we are from exactly the same background: we both started out life in nappies, weeing and crying out for our mothers. We both started out with approximately the same level of potential, with a hundred billion neurons in our brain waiting to be fused together as they tried to understand the world. This is what I think the Bill is about: maximising the potential of every single baby. I am arguably—I am not sure; people might want to intervene—Parliament’s newest parent. I am 141 days into the life of my first child, so I have had a front row seat for this amazing show. Getting to see the development of my baby over the summer has been phenomenal: her first smile, her first belly laugh, working out how to roll over from her back on to her front, and initially completely ignoring the dog and now wanting to tug its ears every time it goes past. It has been amazing watching every single one of those interactions and how her brain is developing and building an understanding of the world. I would be lying if I did not say that it was also a bit of worry. It is a worry because we are now hyper-aware of how critical these moments are; how each one of these interactions are setting out a pathway for the rest of her life. The first 1,001 days movement has been explaining to us how critical these early moments are for children’s long-run physical and emotional development—how, in each one of those early moments, we are shaping the development of their brains and directing the potential of the rest of their lives. Knowing that, of course, makes it unforgivable that so much provision for children and babies has been cut back over the past decade or so—as if it was some sort of luxury that is unaffordable now that we have other priorities, such as cutting the grass verges in our local areas. The Bill seeks to draw a line in the sand and say, “Never again.” It speaks up for babies, and will make it a statutory requirement for the state to demonstrate how it is meeting babies’ needs. It is a critical step forward in society’s recognition of how our brains develop and how we create opportunity for the next generation. As others have said, the Bill sets the floor, not the ceiling. We therefore look to the Government to build on the foundations that the Bill sets, and ensure that the principles, on which we all agree today, are built into a practical reality. The healthy babies programme is currently available in only 75 local authority areas, and it excludes places such as mine. The Government made a commitment in their 10-year plan to ensure that it is universal, and I urge them to accelerate that and deliver it as quickly as possible. There is not much specificity about what services are required, and it would be great if the Government came forward as soon as possible to bring clarity. I have my own request for a service that it will be essential to deliver to babies and parents in the coming years. Health visitors already talk to mothers about nutrition, safe sleep, and bonding between babies and parents, but we need to add another dimension: screentime. It is already Government advice that under-twos should not have solo screentime, but that is extremely poorly understood. Routine screen use is now normal for babies under two, and one in 10 are exposed to more than four hours of screentime per day. Instead of learning through social interaction, they are being induced into dopamine dazes, which affect their sleep, meal times and emotional regulation. The damage being done is so great that it should be an essential requirement to educate parents about this from day one.

• 4 Sept 2026 · Infants, Parents and Carers Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree. As I just said, I am experiencing parenthood myself, and I know how difficult it is to keep a baby calm. I completely understand why parents use devices as a means of regulating their child, but I do not think that the damage being done is well understood. I want that to be formalised. It is not about zero screentime; the Government advice is about not having solo screentime for extended periods. It is fine to share a FaceTime call with grandparents, and educational interactions are okay. It is about building the education, so that every parent understands the impact of extended screentime for under-twos.

• 3 Sept 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I also welcome the Leader of the House back to his place. I believe this makes him the longest continuously serving member of the Labour Front Bench at 20 years, which is a remarkable achievement. I will not go into what I was doing 20 years ago—I am sure he has no interest in what I studied for my GCSEs. One of the stories that caught my eye over the summer was the sale of British success story easyJet to a US private equity-backed investor. The sale will create worry about jobs, fares and routes across Europe, as well as worry for the British economy, as we are now going to see profits move overseas. Acquisitions in and of themselves are not a bad thing—sometimes they are a sign of positivity for British business—but what is worrying is the trend. We are starting to see British businesses bought out by overseas investors again and again, and we are seeing people leave the London stock exchange at an alarming rate. This is starting to become a problem for the resilience of the UK economy. Tate & Lyle, the famous sugar manufacturer, was also sold to an overseas investor this summer, and three London-listed companies decided to leave the London stock exchange just this week. If the Government share my concern about this, they have many levers available to them to address the issue; they could look at stock market regulation, competition regulation and taxation. I believe that the time has come for us to have a proper debate in this House about this matter so that we can properly look into the details of those levers, see which are the correct ones to use and get a ministerial response on this matter. Will the Leader of the House organise for a debate about the future of UK businesses and the alarming trend of them being sold to overseas investors?

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Buckingham and Bletchley (Callum Anderson) for securing this debate and for bringing his great experience to it. I hope to build on his comments encouraging the Government to build on the momentum of the pension reforms they have recently introduced. The UK investment system holds £6 trillion-worth of investable capital, mostly via pensions and life insurance schemes, so there can be no doubt at all that the financial services sector will be key to growth when it returns to this country properly, but access to that capital has become a problem. We hear it all the time from businesses. That can only be a systemic failure. Central to the problem is the UK’s allocation of its pension funds, which, as has been noted, collapsed from levels of around 50% back in the ’90s to an average of just 4% now. Some of that is explainable. Some of it was inevitable, as capital markets went global and people diversified their portfolios—we were always going to see a decline from those heights of around 50%—but the UK sits below the global average of allocation, which is 13%, so the UK has a specific problem that it needs to address. We have to ask how we got here. I think the root is a certain naivety in the way that we applied laissez-faire economics. As a liberal, I support free and open trade with the world, but with a narrow interpretation of what free and open means. We have marginalised the state’s role. We have moved its role of shaping the conditions for UK businesses to thrive to the periphery. We have been so hands-off that we have allowed our economy to be dominated by a handful of actors who have accrued pretty unchecked power in a fairly anti-competitive manner. An example I would point to is the proportion of our pension funds that passively invest into big global indexes. An example is the MSCI world index. It allocates more of British pension savings to Apple than to the entire UK economy—around 5% to Apple and 3.8% to the UK. What does that mean in practice? It means that when brilliant UK tech start-ups want to scale and are seeking out capital, their only option is to be sold out to one of the big US competitors that pension savers in the UK are funding. So the cycle continues, whereby Britain fails to scale its businesses to the level required. Britain needs to be more streetwise and a bit more hands-on. We need to redesign our system so that it can still take advantage of global capital markets, while being clever about the way it incentivises and actively supports the growth of the UK economy. One way in which I believe we can do this has been suggested by the New Capital Consensus project, of which I am a member: to right-size some of our defined benefit pension funds so that they are big enough to actively manage funds and to identify and invest in the opportunities that exist across Britain. They should not be so big that they find those kinds of regional opportunities more hassle than they are worth, and they should not be so small that they choose to manage their funds passively in the way that I have just described. At the moment, we have around 5,500 small defined benefit pension funds, and while each charges low fees for a fair return, I ask: at what cost is that a fair return? Is it really good value to get over 8% for the individual saver if the country around them is in decline? Should the real test of value not be about the return to not only the individual but society? After all, this is the country in which they seek to live and retire. I encourage the Government to build on the progress they have made so far with the pension reforms and to look more broadly at investment funds across the sector. I believe that if we can right-size some of those pension funds to incentivise them to identify and invest in UK businesses, things will be delivered for not only those savers but the country as a whole.

• 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source

  More

  The description of the regulatory regime since 2008 is fair. There has been a degree of over-correction, particularly on things such as capital requirements, and the regulators themselves are saying that we could do with some tidying up, but abolishing the ringfencing regime—one of the fundamental protections put in place for everyday bank users in relation to the risks presented by investment banking—does not seem like addressing an over-correction. It seems like a revolution back to the 2008 regulatory regime. Can the hon. Gentleman defend that Conservative party proposal in that context?

• 16 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Ann Widdecombe. She was a conviction politician and she was respected for that. I join Mr Speaker, and I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker as well, in thanking the staff for all their service over the course of the term. I had hoped to start by triumphantly demanding the confirmation of a bank holiday, but I will have to change tack slightly and desperately plea with the Government to give us a day off anyway so that we can get over the trauma of last night. More importantly, I raise something that I do not think our nation talks about enough, which is the weather and, more specifically, the relationship between the weather and climate change. A study that came out this week said that of the 2,500 articles about extreme weather over the last few weeks, 72%—the vast majority—made no mention at all of climate change. That is despite the fact that scientists tell us that the link between the two is indisputable. The idea that this is a freak, one-off event is, frankly, for the birds, and the Met Office has confirmed this week that “the climate of the 20th century has now gone.” The number of days at over 30° in London has quadrupled and the warm weather is even moving further north. The impact is pretty serious, and we have seen it on our schools, our hospitals, our workplaces and public transport, which have all ground to a halt at times. More seriously, 2,700 deaths in May and June have been linked to heat-related causes. Will the Leader of the House organise for the relevant Minister to come to this place and explain the link between extreme heat and climate change, and lay out what the Government are set to do to mitigate the effects?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T6. I listened to the Minister’s answers earlier on the dentistry contract, and he said that the Government need time to get it right and that a consultation will be launched soon. My local dentists are desperate to take on NHS patients. This has been a known issue for a number of years. Is it not wholly unacceptable that the Government do not yet have a proposed solution, let alone are implementing one?

• 14 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I understand that usually, if the Government want to make a statement relating to foreign affairs, we get a statement from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, so I hope it will not be a habit of the House to change the whole business to Back-Bench debates, rather than giving us a formal statement from Government Ministers. While we are on the subject of Opposition days, it would be remiss of me not to highlight that the Leader of the Opposition recently said: “The fact is we are the smallest opposition party in history—we don’t have enough MPs.” I suggest to the Leader of the House that if the Government want to allocate more Opposition day debates to the Liberal Democrats, we will gladly take them. [ Interruption. ] The Opposition have come out in force today—well done on coming out today. More broadly, the country will be wondering why, although we have effectively known for weeks who the new Prime Minister will be, it will be months before he faces any parliamentary scrutiny on his plans. Will the Leader of the House explain how this situation has been allowed to happen? Does he agree that our constituents deserve answers about the new Prime Minister’s plans much sooner?

• 7 Jul 2026 · Climate Change: Resilience Planning · Hansard source

  More

  13. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of his Department's long-term resilience planning for climate change.

• 7 Jul 2026 · Climate Change: Resilience Planning · Hansard source

  More

  The Office for Budget Responsibility fiscal report, out today, highlights some of the long-term risks of climate damage to the UK’s finances. Unlike other OBR reports at formal fiscal events, there are no implications for the Government; they do not have to make any adjustments to their current financial planning. If he were to be moved to the Treasury, would the Secretary of State consider changing the fiscal rules to encourage more long-term planning for things like climate change?

• 6 Jul 2026 · Civil Service Pensions · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased to hear the Government accept that part of the issue here is successive Governments’ obsession with outsourcing by default. I ask the Minister for some reassurance that, when assessing the merits of insourcing this particular contract, they will not do so in isolation, but will also take into account the wider benefits of building state capacity so that the Government are able to execute their core functions with confidence.

• 2 Jul 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join the whole House in congratulating the England team, in particular Tottenham Hotspur academy product Harry Kane for his heroics last night. I am also grateful to the Conservatives for their lecture on sanctimony, though I note that self-awareness was never their strongest trait. This week my community was rocked by the news that Coughlan’s Bakery—a family-run business that been operating in the local area for 89 years—will close its doors for the last time. In their announcement, they say: “This was so devastating as March was a fantastic month, as was a lot of last year with our growth with new stores opening, but as soon as April’s new Government rules kicked in on national insurance, wages and rates, it instantly hit the high street”. That shows that Government policy is directly killing long-term, family-run businesses. We warned the Government about this, and when we did we were told that they could not fund public services without the rises in business taxes, but let me make it clear to them: the Government will no longer receive any tax income from this local business anymore, and I fear that the revenue loss will continue to grow over the course of this year. Will the Government organise a statement from the relevant Department explaining what they are going to do about small businesses in distress, outlining how many are at risk and how many have already closed since April?

• 30 Jun 2026 · National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  To deliver on this review’s recommendations in full will require serious capital investment. Just last week, we heard that St Helier, the hospital in my constituency, was considering closing its maternity unit altogether due to potentially unsafe pipework. Will the Government commit to reviewing the phasing of the new hospital programme, or at the very least providing the funds required to keep those buildings safe and open until the delivery of a new building?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Venezuela, Edinburgh, Bedford and our armed forces. I acknowledge his comments about the summer of saving, but ask him: a summer of saving who? Paternity leave has been a joy. I know it will not make me popular with new parents, but mercifully my daughter has been sleeping pretty well, so far— [ Interruption. ] Mum is doing well too. As hon. Members may know, our journey to this point has not been straightforward. I shared our story of miscarriage in the baby loss debate last year. Telling that story was the start of hearing from thousands of women across the country about their experiences, which was truly humbling. It connected me with organisations such as Tommy’s, which is proposing a new model for graded levels of care for miscarriage. Shockingly, at the moment, those who go through a miscarriage experience are not offered support—they have to wait until their third miscarriage to get support. Tommy’s is campaigning for access to graduated support from day one. I note that the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) has written a cross-party letter to the Government about this, which I support. We received information about maternity services in Nottingham yesterday, but we still await the final report on the national maternity and neonatal investigation, led by Baroness Amos. She gave interim findings earlier this year, from which we discovered that lots of women feel as if they are not listened to, that there is a postcode lottery for services and that many women are being treated in inadequate buildings. Will the Leader of the House confirm when that report will be published? We were told last August that there would a rapid investigation, so I hope it will be published this side of the summer recess.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) for securing the debate and for his thoughtful contribution. He not only highlighted the dangers of content and addiction but made a power analysis when he talked about the threat to democracy of big tech companies. They have a supranational status now, and states are struggling to tax or regulate them—or to enforce the regulations that they have against them. That is a real challenge to democracy that we need to face up to across the House. At the heart of this is the fact that tech companies have simply been allowed to get too big. We have had a laissez-faire attitude towards their growth over the years, which is based on confused economic principles. Yes, we want frictionless free trade, but is a market really free if it has been captured by a handful of firms? I thought that traditional economic theory already warned us about that, but we seem to have become more naive about it in the last decade or so. Looking at the power analysis in the global market, this is really about the hegemonic role of the US. If we look at pension funds, for example, more of UK pension savings now go into Apple than into all UK firms combined. We can see how the problem accelerates over time. We wonder why our brilliant tech start-ups are not able to grow; it is because when they reach the point when they need more capital, all the capital is in the US. We get Google buying out DeepMind and the cycle continues. They get bigger and bigger, and we get weaker and weaker. For far too long, we have had an economic strategy that is naive about what happens in a free market if there is a hegemonic power in it. That power has to be challenged. Members have touched on this today, but the answer lies in a greater focus on tech sovereignty. It is not about gaining tech independence; we are not suddenly going to invent our own Facebook, ChatGPT or Amazon tomorrow—it would be naive of us to try—but about establishing our own niches within the global markets so that we claw some of that power back. It is about pooling our sovereignty and working with like-minded states, perhaps those in the EU, and collectively using our power to enforce tax, regulations and other legal limits on the activities of tech companies.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. That is another item on the list of things that we have ignored for far too long. Ultimately, we need to shift the balance of power. As he said in his speech, the power has been shifted too far in favour of a handful of tech giants. This is not just about economic power; it is about our national security, the delivery of public services and, ultimately, our independence in the world and our ability to shape our destiny. I thank him for raising this important issue, and I hope we can have more discussions about power, as well as the impact of that power.