Bobby Dean MP: speeches

Speeches

• 26 Mar 2026 · National Savings & Investments · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and for the action he has outlined that the Government are already undertaking. He will know that customers often choose National Savings & Investments because it is Government-backed, and because that provides them with extra reassurance that their savings will be safe. The news that the money of tens of thousands of people was essentially lost for a period of time will be a hammer blow to trust in that institution, and the fact that these cases involve bereaved families makes it particularly damaging. To restore trust in the institution, it will be vital that justice is served comprehensively and swiftly. Will the Minister confirm the estimated timeline for identifying and contacting every family affected? Have the Government committed not only to reimbursing or returning the money that the families are due, but compensating them fully to reflect the distress that has been caused? He has already mentioned interest; will he confirm that all that interest will be returned? Will legal costs also be reimbursed? Some of the bereaved families resorted to legal action to get what they believed they were owed, and I am sure that they will feel that they are entitled to be reimbursed on that as well. Will the Government now carry out a full independent investigation to fully learn the lessons of what happened and ensure that there will be much stronger oversight of the system going forward?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Mr Speaker, I echo your tribute to the late David Winnick. I join Members from all parts of the House in condemning the attack in north London—this House stands united against antisemitism. I am grateful for the Government’s swift commitment to replace the ambulances, which was an important gesture. I welcome the confirmation of the date for the King’s Speech. As the Leader of the House knows, I will not be present as my first baby is due in a few weeks’ time so I will be on leave, but I hope it all goes well— [ Interruption. ] Well, as well as it can. On Iran, it is clear that Trump’s reckless war is causing death and destruction in the region, and that it is having repercussions for everybody across the world. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor has made a couple of statements on this issue already. She addressed the particular problem facing heating oil customers and has offered some reassurances that there will be broader targeted support in the weeks to come, but may I bring the House’s attention to another group who have not yet been spoken about: district heat network customers? Community-based district heat networks are often tied to a single supplier. Customers often live in blocks of flats, usually in cities, and at the moment they are not covered by the Ofgem price cap. Having been a district heat network customer myself, I know that customers are sometimes protected from global supply shocks, but that depends on the network, where the heat comes from and the contracts that the supplier has signed up to. Because they are not protected by the Ofgem price cap, those customers will be extremely worried about what the latest events mean for them, so will the Leader of the House organise for the relevant Minister to come to the House to reassure those customers about what support will be put in place for them in the forthcoming energy crisis?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Foreign Financial Influence and Interference: UK Politics · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and the action he is taking on cryptocurrency, but can I urge him to go further on corporate donations? A report this week by CenTax revealed that as many as one in four donations from corporate entities are essentially opaque. It put this down to the reliance on persons with significant control rules, and it made a series of recommendations. Will he commit to looking at the recommendations in that report and ensuring that we tighten up the system so that people cannot simply circumvent the rules by donating via British companies?

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, will be as concerned as I am about the recent outbreak of meningitis in Kent, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the families who have lost loved ones already. The UK Health Security Agency has a huge job on its hands to get good public health information out there and to work with the NHS on a targeted vaccination programme. It is a reminder of how much faith and trust we put in health professionals in these moments of crisis. They are all dedicated to keeping us safe. This situation is also a reminder of the dangers of bad information. It is a sad truth that in this country, the take-up rates of child vaccination have declined over the past decade. Some of that has been attributed to misinformation that is allowed to spread freely online, but there are also well-organised and well-funded anti-vaccination groups, which I am sure we have all come across. Unfortunately, that has been egged on at times by populist politicians. President Trump in America has appointed a vaccine sceptic into a senior role in the White House and the Reform party platformed an anti-vax spokesperson at its conference recently. All of us who have dared to confront this subject will have got stick online. I have even had protesters stop me on the high street while walking my dog to give me stick about the subject. I think that has made us a little bit scared as a political class to take this subject on, and it is about time that we used moments like this to take on the conspiracy theorists. Will the Leader of the House organise for a statement to be made about how we will tackle the rise in misinformation and conspiracy theories and, ultimately, get the rate of childhood vaccination up again?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I bring to the House this week a matter that I have raised with the Leader of the House before: fraud. As he knows, fraud is a devastating crime that can destroy people’s life savings and plunge them into debt, and it is now the most frequently experienced crime in Britain. On Monday, the Government released their fraud strategy, but anybody would be forgiven for not noticing, because no Minister came to the Dispatch Box to speak about it, and there was hardly any media coverage. Given how prevalent this crime is, we have to ask ourselves why no noise was made about this significant strategy. I think the reason is that a key pre-election commitment on fraud was quietly dropped. The Prime Minister himself said that big tech companies need to be held financially accountable for their role in fraud, but when the strategy was released, it did not enforce that commitment; instead, an industry working group emerged, which will talk to the industry and ask them nicely to act. The banks and financial regulators are unhappy about this—of course, the banks are on the hook for paying out compensation to customers when they are victims of fraud. They say that when they try to get big tech companies to act, those companies are far too slow and not responsive, and the only thing that will make them act is if they are also hit in the pocket when fraud takes place. Can the Leader of the House organise for a Minister to come to the Dispatch Box and explain why that commitment was dropped? Also, I raised this matter with the Leader of the House in October last year, and I still have not received a reply from the Minister.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking Tom Goldsmith for his immense service. I also wish those celebrating this weekend a happy Holi. There are three events in my constituency this weekend, and I intend to get covered in colour. Moving on to the spring statement that we had this week, there were no policy announcements. That has left many young people feeling cut adrift. Youth unemployment is now almost a million. That is the highest rate that we have had in a decade and it is now higher than the EU average; it has become a specifically British problem that has accelerated under this Government. Why? It is not down to any one thing, but an accumulation, yet many of those things are under the Government’s control. Businesses are citing the living wage, national insurance and business rates all as reasons why it is more difficult to hire young people. The Government may want to defend each of those in exclusivity—I, for one, defend the rise in the living wage—but if we pile costs on businesses all at once, there comes a point when they baulk. We are lectured on these Benches sometimes for not supporting every Labour tax rise, as if it is the only way to get revenue for public services. Yet economics is not mere accounting. We cannot simply shift numbers from one column to another; every action has an effect. If businesses are raided for multiple taxes all at once and their response is to cut hours, cut jobs and possibly close altogether, that tax revenue does not come in. That is why business confidence is at an all-time low, growth is flatlining and we now have almost a million young unemployed. Given that youth unemployment was not addressed in the spring statement, will the Leader of the House organise for a Treasury Minister to come to the House and make a statement on youth employment so that we can hold this Government to account?

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an excellent point: this is about not just buildings, but equipment and digital and technical infrastructure, all of which are crucial to getting the NHS to operate in the way it should. She also highlights how we need to upgrade ageing equipment to a very basic level, let alone take advantage of all the opportunities that the latest innovations in new equipment could provide us with, if we were able to purchase those. I mentioned that maintenance backlogs are soaring. They have doubled from around £6 billion in 2015 to over £13 billion in 2024. The critical thing to stress is that it did not have to be this way. The UK invested around a third less in health capital during the 2010s than other comparable nations. According to OECD data, the UK has 10 CT scanners per 1,000 people compared with an average of nearly 20 per 1,000 across Europe. We have 8.5 MRI scanners per 1,000, compared with an average of 12 per 1,000 across other EU nations, and our bed capacity is pitiful. We operate at around 2.4 per 1,000 people, compared with an OECD average of 4.4. The issue has not only been a lack of money; it has also been a lack of certainty and flexibility. The approvals process for capital bids is slow and cumbersome. Even when capital is available, trusts often receive final sign-off so late in the year that they physically cannot begin procurement, get survey work done and start construction in time. The money therefore goes unspent not because of poor planning locally, but because the system itself creates delay.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am sure that, like me, he hears constituents say that they do not want to attend their local A&E because they do not trust that they will be seen in time. I am sure that the figures he is describing are an undercount of the people who should be in there. Like me, he will have received emails about corridor care for some time. I had hoped that corridor care was a peak crisis moment and that it would subside, but it has become the norm and that is extremely worrying. It is not acceptable for patients, it is not fair on staff, and it is not a sustainable way to run our NHS. If the Government are to reconsider which schemes should be in which waves of the new hospital programme, let me assure the Minister that my local trust is ready to go. Plans have been drawn up, land has been secured, and teams can move at pace. We need this, we want this, and we are ready. If that is not possible, but other pots of capital to be reallocated still remain, I make a separate plea: extend St Helier’s emergency department now. That is a smaller ask than delivering a whole new building, but it will make a big difference. The only thing more full than the corridors at my local hospital right now is my inbox, which is filling up with constituents describing their traumatic experiences. St Helier hospital emergency department sees around 250 patients a day, with routine overcrowding leading to the trust being placed into national oversight measures. Kirsty, one of my constituents, was left anxiously waiting for her 83-year-old mum to be seen, witnessing elderly patients crying, vomiting, screaming and walking around in severe pain in the corridors. The father-in-law of Muhammad, another constituent, waited over 13 hours only to return home without seeing a doctor at all. Others have shared deeply personal details of their stories; their conditions were explained to them alongside countless others in the same corridor. It is undignified, unjust and unsafe. The trust has come up with a plan. It believes that it can redesign the existing estate, creating a new urgent treatment centre and expanding the same-day emergency care service. By doing so, it would dramatically increase the number of patients it can see. The urgent treatment centre would be able to handle up to 30% of patients—up from 14%—and SDEC could get to 20%, up from 8%. That would prevent unnecessary overnight stays, free up hospital beds, speed up ambulance transfers, and reduce delays for patients needing hospital admission. The plan would also address £15 million of the trust’s ageing estates backlog. It is immediately deliverable; the trust believes that work can begin as early as autumn 2026. It would make an incredible difference, so I ask the Minister to make use of any influence she has over the matter to help the proposal get over the line. Before I conclude, let me raise one further point about NHS capital expenditure that I suspect will not make me popular, but that I believe is right. The Government have tentatively re-entered the world of public-private partnership models with their announcement of neighbourhood health centres late last year. We all know how disastrous that model of financing was in the past, with the long-term costs to the taxpayer far outweighing the short-term benefits. Britain was among the first in the world to pilot such a scheme, and it failed fast. It must be said, however, that other nations have learnt the lessons of our failures and successfully delivered social infrastructure at scale, on budget and on time. Indeed, I believe that is one of the reasons why we have fallen behind so badly. As a member of the Treasury Committee, I recently guested on a Public Accounts Committee inquiry into PPP, which concluded that if we get procurement, contract management, and the risk allocation of projects right, then we can massively accelerate the delivery of infrastructure in our country in a way that delivers real value for money for the taxpayer.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who hits on one of the central points of this debate. We can continue to pour money into the operational side of the NHS, but if we do not get the capital expenditure right and improve the equipment, systems and buildings, we will always be pouring good money after bad. I know that PPP is fraught with political risk, particularly for a Labour Government who are scarred by what happened in the past, but I urge them to look at the National Audit Office’s report and the experience of others internationally. They should also listen to the NHS Confederation, which is pushing them to go further and experiment with different financial models for delivering the infrastructure that we need at scale. NHS capital has been insufficient, uncertain and inflexible for far too long. The new Government have good intentions to improve on all three, but now is the first moment at which we can start to look at their delivery. After what I have outlined today, I would like to put several questions to the Minister. Will she update us on the current level of capital underspend under this Government? Where in the system is the underspend occurring, and what is being done about it? Will the Government allow trusts to carry forward any unspent capital to future years? Will that exist beyond the current spending review period? What assessment has the Department made of the delivery of the new hospital programme, and will any schemes be reconsidered for movement between the waves? Will the Minister outline whether the Government plan to reform the capital allocation system to allow multi-year planning and reinvestment of trust surpluses permanently? The NHS cannot function without modern, safe and efficient infrastructure. No Government can deliver improvements in performance or productivity without addressing the capital crisis at the heart of our system. I urge the Minister to use this moment to reset the capital regime and put it on a footing that prioritises long-term investment, accelerates delivery and gives patients and staff the facilities they need and deserve.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I do agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to the new hospitals programme, as my constituency stands to benefit from it, too—if it comes soon enough. In the meantime, as she says, we are paying twice to pay for the repairs and patchwork, and never keeping up with the investment we need. Ageing diagnostic equipment also means fewer scans, longer waits and more delayed diagnosis. Last year I had the pleasure of visiting my local hospital’s nuclear medicine unit, where I was shown a new machine that was driving down diagnosis times from hours to minutes. Obviously that is a fantastic sign of good capital investment, but when I spoke to the trust I was shocked to discover it is one of the only hospitals in the country with that particular piece of kit, and I thought to myself how much more productive the NHS would be if such equipment was rolled out routinely across the country as soon as it became available. Then there is the infamy of poor IT systems. More than 13.5 million clinical working hours are lost every year due to poor IT. We have all heard shocking stories of hospitals running on Windows operating systems that we were talking to a paperclip on 20 years ago. As the age of artificial intelligence promises to transform the workplace, it would be great if the NHS could catch up with the last decade or so. I recently met an AI developer who thinks they have come up with a solution to the elective surgery booking system. His system auto-calls patients and offers them a choice of appointment, making hundreds of calls in just minutes. They say it beats the old system on two counts. Patients usually receive a date by post without a choice, but the trial in the midlands saw “did not attend” numbers drop by 50%, which they put down to patient choice in the appointment time, and delivery was guaranteed because they had answered the phone. Think of the potential productivity gains if such technology was picked up at scale. I have explained a little about the past state of NHS capital spending and will now turn to where the Government are today. Part of the reason for this debate is to find out where the Government think they are. It is worth saying that the Government’s stated intention has been a step in the right direction. There has been more certainty, more money and more flexibility. After the initial one-year capital settlement for 2025-26, with assurances that things would continue, the spending review confirmed capital budgets through to 2029-30. Those decisions will provide some stability, though it is still uncertain whether the Treasury clawback system remains in place on an annual basis or over the spending review period. There was a substantial uplift of money in the year 1 allocations, but that is followed by a relatively flat commitment going forward, albeit at a higher level due to the initial uplift. I do not think we should be churlish about that—an increase in investment is inarguably good—but equally, we should not kid ourselves that investment is now at the required level. It does not fully address the inadequacy of past investment, nor does it bring it in line with international comparators. The King’s Fund has described the failure to reverse the historical underfunding by the previous Conservative Government as “extremely disappointing”. The NHS Confederation is asking for the commitment over the spending period to be doubled in real terms, from £3.1 billion to £6.4 billion. There has also been greater flexibility, with Treasury approval now only required for capital projects in excess of £300 million, up from the previous, pitiful £50 million. The new delegated authority will cut out layers of bureaucracy and speed up delivery on the ground for ward refurbishments and equipment purchases. It will not address issues inherited in the largest NHS capital schemes, however, which brings me on to the new hospitals programme. The programme was imagined by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson—I say “imagined”, because for some time the only place it existed was in his imagination. Conservative leaflets in my patch were emblazoned with a promise that the money had been secured for a new hospital building that would be delivered by 2024. I am sure that experience holds true for many in this room. When 2024 came, hardly a brick had been laid across the country. When the new Government came in, they told us no money had ever been allocated for those schemes. The programme was reset by this Government, with an updated timetable and revised waves of projects. My local hospital’s building was put into the second wave, meaning that work will not begin until the 2030s, which was a bitter disappointment. Since the announcement of delay, things have gone a little quiet overall. A year or so on from the announcement, people are wondering how the programme is getting on. There are rumours that are some in the first wave are not keeping pace and could already be underspending allocations. Mostly, that is put down to the adaptation period of the hospital 2.0 model, an attempt to homogenise design across the country that is broadly welcome. Any delays will spark questions about what will happen to that allocated spend. Hospitals such as mine will want to be at the front of the queue for any reallocation, if such an opportunity should arise. I have already mentioned my local hospital, but there is no clearer case of capital neglect than St Helier hospital in my constituency. It is as old as the NHS itself, overcrowded and cramped, and the specialist emergency care functions are simply not up to modern-day clinical standards. Let me be clear: staff at St Helier are working heroically and patients are safe, but they are in a building that is not designed for 21st-century emergency care, with patients routinely treated in corridors. Key recommendations for improving service delivery simply cannot be implemented because there is physically not enough space. Despite tens of millions having been spent on basic repairs in recent years, the building is deteriorating faster than the trust can fix it. The new hospital programme promised to resolve many of those issues with a new building for emergency and maternity care but, with that delay well into the 2030s, my constituents are left facing another decade of care in a building that is visibly past its lifespan.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman highlights the complexity in putting together large capital projects. Funding is not often from one source. It is from multiple sources, and everybody providing the capital needs to have greater flexibility for the schemes to become deliverable, or the funds end up getting clawed back and put elsewhere, as has been done in the past. The yearly cycle that I speak about is important because, in the past, capital departmental expenditure limits rules—Treasury CDEL rules—have meant that any unspent capital must be returned to the Treasury at the year end. Not being able to carry it forward punishes good financial management, prevents multi-year planning and leaves trusts scrambling to spend money before deadlines, rather than investing it strategically. The result is a system where underspends exist at the same time as record levels of urgent capital need. Trusts want to invest and start work, but the system ties their hands. The effect of all that has not been abstract. The buildings maintenance backlog includes high-risk failures: operating theatres closed due to ventilation problems, leaks near electrical systems, sewerage failures and outdated wards where modern clinical standards simply cannot be delivered. A 2022 British Medical Association survey found that 43% of doctors reported that building conditions negatively impacted patient care.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered NHS capital spending. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I am grateful to have secured this debate on NHS capital spending. This subject goes right to the heart of how the NHS functions, and yet it is not discussed enough in this place. I had a look through some ministerial statements and questions in preparation for this debate, and I found that we often talk about staffing, specific illnesses, waiting times and other operational performance issues, but the simple truth is that all these challenges will be much more difficult to deal with until we improve NHS buildings, equipment and technical infrastructure. I get it: it feels much more impactful and immediate to talk about lifting nurses’ pay or commissioning a new medicine, and those things are important. But however arduous the process, or however far beyond our electoral terms the output of capital investment may be, it is vital for the long-term healthcare of our constituents that we fight for these slow returners, too.

• 4 Mar 2026 · NHS Capital Spending · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for the point my hon. Friend made, and I will come to make very similar points about the impact that maintenance backlogs are having. It is partly because of the slow payoff of capital investment that we are in this mess. The last Conservative Government completely undermined the NHS’s future by overpromising, underdelivering and sacrificing long-term investment to plug holes in their mismanagement of the public finances. While capital underspends being plundered for revenue black holes is not a total innovation, it did accelerate under the Conservatives, with the most acute period seeing more than £4 billion raided from the capital budget in the five years up to 2019 to cover deficits in day-to-day spending. I note that that was prior to the pandemic, when operational pressures were clearly stress-tested to the limits, and I have no doubt that that under-investment left us more exposed than we otherwise would have been during that period. The outfall is staggering. If we had simply matched existing levels of capital spend, more than £30 billion of additional capital would have flowed into the NHS. Instead, we watched buildings decay, equipment age, diagnostics fall behind and maintenance backlogs soar.

• 3 Mar 2026 · Spring Forecast · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor must be concerned that none of the good news she has shared with us today is being felt by people in the real world. Inflation is down, but she will know that that does not suddenly make things more affordable, and interest rates are down, but she will know that millions will lock into higher-rate deals this year when their fixed-rate terms expire. Combine that good news with higher taxes, higher unemployment and a slowdown in growth, and it is no wonder that people still feel as squeezed this year as they did last year. If the Chancellor’s plan is working, when will people actually feel the benefit?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Ukraine. It is clear that Vladimir Putin underestimated Ukrainians’ resilience and Europe’s willingness to stand by Ukraine. He will find out that we will all stand by Ukraine right to the end of this war. The cost of living has been piling pressure on people for years, and people have been plunged into debt. Bodies such as Citizens Advice and StepChange offer advice on how to get out of debt situations, and one thing they commonly raise with me—I see it in my inbox as well—is the aggressive debt recovery actions of those in the public sector. If people fall behind on council tax payments, councils are often quite quick to cancel their existing payment plans and order them to pay a fine. They also get to a stage involving bailiffs quite quickly—often within six weeks. This is different from what happens in the private sector, which is more heavily regulated and where there is a need to show more meaningful engagement with residents, offer payment plans, and get to court action much later. I see this again in the case of the Department for Work and Pensions. We have spoken in this place about the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal and how those people were chased for payments, but in the last couple of weeks I have had examples in my inbox of somebody whose debt with the DWP rose to £10,000 due to errors on the Department’s part, and started being chased aggressively for that. Of course, the DWP can automatically deduct payments of up to 15% from someone’s universal credit almost immediately, leaving them with no understanding of what happened in the past, let alone how they will manage going forward. The Government are seeking new powers to go into bank accounts and take payments directly, which is extremely worrying given the errors that the DWP has made in the past. This relates not only to the DWP, but to all public sector bodies, so I am not sure who is the relevant Minister, but I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House engaged with the Government to see if they can get more sympathy and understanding into the debt recovery process across public sector organisations.

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Should one of those principles be related not only to content but to the addictive nature of these platforms? One of the changes I have witnessed on social media over time is algorithmic addiction. The greatest minds in the world are now working out the circuitry of our brains and driving content towards us so that we look at our screens for longer so that they can sell more ads. Does she agree with that point?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Online Harm: Child Protection · Hansard source

  More

  There seems to be great confusion in the Chamber, even though the Liberal Democrats have time and again set out our proposals quite clearly in different places. I find it fascinating that the official Opposition accuse us of politicking when they probably agree with the substance of our proposals. They are contorting themselves to find a way not to support the motion, which is about urgency and acting more swiftly than the Government propose to do—I, for one, think that is a good thing.

• 12 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  The events of recent weeks have substantially diminished people’s faith in politics, when it was already at an all- time low. It has confirmed the worst of people’s suspicions about how everything works and punctured the optimism of those who believed in better. At the centre of all this are the victims, and their bravery is twofold: first, by retelling their trauma, and secondly, by taking on the world’s most powerful men and all those who aided and legitimised them. The Humble Address passed by this place stands as a test of transparency and a test of parliamentary authority. People demand answers, and they deserve them swiftly. They will not stand for endless consultation, reviews and deliberation. Can the Government therefore confirm when they will bring forward legislation so that Peter Mandelson’s peerage can be revoked? What is their deadline for releasing the necessary files? Who in the Government will be held responsible if that deadline is not met?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Over the last few weeks, there has been a national debate raging that, so far, this place has been pretty silent on. It is on the matter of student loans. I know what some on the Government Benches may be thinking, but I am not prepared to duck difficult subjects. Let us face it: the student loans system has changed beyond recognition since its introduction, and that is one of the key complaints of graduates. Maintenance grants have been scrapped in favour of loans, which means that the poorest students now arrive at university with the largest debt. Interest rates, tied to inflation, have soared in recent years; following the period of high inflation, people have been saddled permanently with much larger debts than they expected. Thresholds have been repeatedly frozen, including by this Labour Government at the last Budget, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates will add around £3,000 on average to people’s debt pile. All that means that the agreement that students struck has been repeatedly, and unilaterally, changed by the lender after the agreement. I do not believe that would be tolerable in any other walk of life. When the Chancellor was challenged on this last week, she said that the system is “fair and reasonable”. I do not agree, and I think many graduates do not agree, so will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on the changes that have been made to the student loans repayment system?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Brain Tumour Survival Rates · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is talking about the importance of research and the low survival rates. This is, of course, a global problem and a global battle, but Britain has a unique opportunity to lead on this. Just last week, a £1 billion project was approved at the London Cancer Hub, centring around the Institute of Cancer Research and the Royal Marsden, two world-leading operators that want to expand this. Can he talk a little bit about how Britain has the opportunity to lead the world in discovering solutions to rare blood cancers?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship to Peter Mandelson. I do not intend to repeat those words, but as the political discussion intensifies in the coming days, we must not forget the victims, who are at the centre of all this, and their bravery, not only in retelling their trauma but in risking taking on powerful men—possibly some of the most powerful and connected men on the planet—and all those who serve to protect and legitimise them in those behaviours. I feel a duty to raise some under-discussed issues, including Storm Chandra and its devasting impact on communities, particularly in south-west England, where flooding has damaged homes and a road has collapsed into the sea. It is difficult to know when these storms will hit, but we know that they are going to happen more frequently. That has put more intense scrutiny on the role of the Environment Agency, and I fear that it has been found to be lacking. Last year, the EA gave up on main rivers maintenance, saying that it could no longer afford to do it. That is just part of a pattern of the EA not being equipped any more to do its job. In my constituency, I can think of at least two major failures in the last couple of years. This time last year, there was a major diesel spill in my local river, the River Wandle. Some 4,000 litres were spilt, which were suspected to be from a nearby bus garage. The EA was sent to investigate, but one year on, we still do not have its report and nobody has been held to account. We also host an incinerator in my constituency. If regulated properly, an incinerator is better than landfill, but over the last 18 months there have been hundreds of emissions breaches, and the EA has failed to punish the operators sufficiently. In fact, the EA says that it is minded to approve an expansion in the capacity of the incinerator, despite strong opposition from me, the local authority and apparently the Government, who have stated publicly that they think we have reached capacity for incineration in England, yet still nothing can be done. When I challenged the EA on this matter, it said it feels that it does not have the legal grounds to object to the expansion. I ask the Government: what is going on? Can the Leader of the House organise a debate to ensure that we can hold the EA properly to account?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Transport in the South-East · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), not only for securing this debate but for the clarity with which she articulated the case for transport improvements across different modes, including both infrastructure and operational improvements. I will focus on one particular infrastructure issue: CARS. Not the cars that the former Roads Minister is used to, but the Croydon area remodelling scheme—a train infrastructure project, as I am sure she will know. This is one of the most important commuter corridor projects not only in the south-east but in the whole country. It is a Network Rail-backed plan that is designed to add capacity, modernise a couple of key stations, improve track and signalling, and unclog the Croydon bottleneck, as was mentioned earlier. What does that mean? Well, it centres on the so-called Selhurst triangle, in which so many trains running through to the south of England get caught up. Its inefficient layout bungs up the whole line, particularly for those who rely on the Brighton main line, but it also has a knock-on effect on other lines because trains are not able to get to stations on time, operators cannot get their stock back, and so on. This small bottleneck, with a radius of a couple of miles, causes cancellations, reduces frequency and leads to poor punctuality and slower journey times right across the south-east of England. When we think of what the Government are trying to do with their growth plan, and particularly things such as Gatwick airport expansion, it makes no sense not to invest in a project like CARS. This needs to be put in context, because some of the infrastructure projects across the country that have been committed to cost tens of billions of pounds. We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds to get CARS off the ground and through phase 1, with a total lifetime project cost in the low billions. I know that will sound a lot to many people, but in the realm of infrastructure, this is really good value for money. CARS has been raised for years as a project that should be invested in, and the last debate in the House was an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons)—not to be confused with East Croydon station—in which she made an extremely strong case, just ahead of the spending review, but we saw nothing about it in that spending review. When I think of the opportunities that the scheme would unlock, I have to wonder why it has not been chosen. On its merits, it should be pursued. I think the Government have not invested in the project because, like the last Government, they have a strange aversion to investment in London and the south-east. I understand that there are deep regional inequalities in this country that need to be addressed, and we all recognise that there has been severe under-investment in other parts of the country. However, the political consensus in recent years has been to pit the regions against each other, and almost to neglect investment in the south-east and London at the expense of projects elsewhere—not because of the basis of those projects, but because it is politically convenient to do so. I think the Government need to look again at which projects can deliver maximum value, to ensure that we are not making the regions race against each other by selecting each project on its merits. I have already explained how investment in this small area around Croydon would provide benefits across the south-east of England, but we would be naive not to think that it would also create benefits right across the country. Where would the suppliers come from? The project would create jobs and business revenue for companies across the country, and that is only the direct effect. It does not include the indirect effects from improving the commuter experience into London—the capital city of this country—and the wider economic benefits that would be felt by all. It has been suggested to me that the second reason for the delay in investment in this project is to do with covid and how commuter patterns have changed. We are already starting to see a snapback to previous behaviours. If we look at passenger levels, they are almost back up to pre-covid levels, and the reduced frequency and reliability of services are stopping people going back into the workplace as often as they would like. I hear that from my wife, who goes in once a week at the moment. She wants to go in more to see her colleagues, but she does not because she cannot trust the train that she needs to catch, so there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If we really want to get people out of motor vehicles and using public transport more, we need to build those services so that people can use them. The benefits of the Croydon area remodelling scheme are clear: we would have faster, more reliable, higher-capacity rail services across one of the highest-growth regions in the country. There would also be a particular benefit to my constituency. The London borough of Sutton is one of the most poorly served by Transport for London. We do not have a single tube station or the London Overground service. We have a couple of tram stops, but they are in the far corner of the borough and do not really serve our residents. This project could unlock the potential of the London Overground and metro-like services that the rest of London benefits from. We are really excited by that prospect. I urge the Minister to look again at the true merits of the project, how many people would benefit from it and the potential for economic growth across the country. I look forward to her response.

• 2 Feb 2026 · R&D Defence Spending: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  12. What assessment he has made of the potential impact of research and development defence spending on the economy.

• 2 Feb 2026 · R&D Defence Spending: Economic Impact · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will know that investment in defence R&D has tremendous impacts on the UK economy, not only through jobs and crowding in private investment, but through the spill-over effects of new technologies helping Britain to prosper. Is it therefore not clear that if the Government were to issue defence hypothecated bonds, that would make a brilliant return for the British taxpayer too?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about Holocaust Memorial Day and the tributes he paid to the people we have lost. Last weekend, all the plotting and deceit finally reached a climax. I have to say that the man from the north who I wanted to win that battle did not quite make it. Still, Faraaz played a good game and I thought that Stephen and Rachel were worthy winners of “The Traitors”— [ Laughter. ] I thought that deserved more. Moving on, I think the whole House can agree that the world has become less safe. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the instability that Trump has brought to the NATO alliance has focused minds across Europe. We all know that we now need to find a way to increase defence spending as quickly as possible. This week, the Liberal Democrats put forward an idea about the possibility of issuing defence bonds. That would raise funds not only via the financial markets but allow ordinary Brits to take part. We could issue them on a fixed-term basis and hypothecate them specifically to capital spending on defence. We believe that that could help us achieve 3% of defence spending by 2030 and allow everybody to participate in the effort. Pension funds and investment portfolios allow people to select the style of portfolio that they would like. Sometimes people tick a box to say that they want to invest in environmental, social and governance measures. We believe that if there was a UK-focused portfolio, many people would choose to opt in. In fact, research suggests that Brits would be willing to see lower returns on their investment if they knew that their money was going to a good cause, and to British assets in particular. Could we have a debate in Government time on just how we can get to that 3% target as quickly as possible? We need to build cross-party consensus on that.