Bobby Dean MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Ten years ago, this place introduced legislation preventing banks from applying tax deductions after paying compensation for wrongdoing. Now lenders are set to pay out billions of pounds in connection with the motor finance scandal, but they will be able to reduce their tax bills because most of those companies have channelled their money via subsidiaries. Does the Minister agree that that is not in keeping with the spirit of the law, and will the Government do something about it?

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

  More

  Before I begin, I have to pull the Leader of the House up, because he did not respond to one of the critical points that the shadow Leader of the House made. I, for one, would like to hear what the Leader of the House has to say about the feud in the Beckham family. St Helier hospital is older than the NHS itself, is sited in the heart of my constituency and is crumbling. It was placed within the new hospitals programme set up by the Conservative Government, but they totally failed to deliver on it. This Government put it on a new timetable, stretching out delivery over the coming decades. Last week, the National Audit Office published an assessment of how the Government have performed so far. There is some good news for the Government: the NAO said that they have put the programme on a firmer financial footing for the long term, but the NAO warns of potential further delays, particularly to those hospitals with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which look set to miss their deadline in 2030. I have also heard that some of the phase 1 schemes have not kept pace with the programme and not drawn down on all the capital allocated to them. That could present an opportunity for other trusts perhaps to do smaller projects in the interim, such as the extension of the emergency department that my local NHS trust is asking for, or possibly even to move our scheme from phase 2 into phase 1, if the trust can prove that it is ready to go. It has been about a year since we have had a substantive update from the Government on the new hospitals programme. The National Audit Office report last week raises lots of questions, so will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Health Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer them?

• 21 Jan 2026 · Water White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome many of the measures in this White Paper. More regulation will help, but—let’s be honest—it does not get to the heart of the problem: the failure of the privatisation of the water industry. We need to be talking about ownership, but that is absent from the White Paper. I have heard the conversations in the Chamber today about nationalisation, and I agree with the Secretary of State. There would be some drawbacks to a model of nationalisation. It would put substantial liabilities on the book and would put sewerage infrastructure investment up against investment in schools and hospitals in every Budget. But there is another model, which the Liberal Democrats are putting forward: the co-operative or mutualisation model. Will the Secretary of State take that into serious consideration?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  As has been mentioned, in its manifesto Labour committed itself to reforming the business rates system, and the Red Book for the Budget referred to “permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure”. That will have given business owners the impression that their bills would be lower. The Government’s get-out about the rates being low, when they knew that transitional reliefs were being phased out and rateable values were rising substantially, is not cutting it with businesses that made plans accordingly. Last week, we on the Treasury Committee heard from the Valuation Office Agency that the Government had known for more than a year about the size of the increase in rateable values, so why has this backlash taken them by surprise?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Proposed Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  I think this House has grown tired of the Government’s insistence on framing this as a mere planning application —as a quasi-judicial process about which national Government can do nothing. That is simply not the case. This is a test of this Government’s resolve to stand up to the threat that China poses to the UK. The Prime Minister clearly thinks that handing this gift over to the Chinese in Beijing will strengthen his hand in trade negotiations, but I believe that China will just smell weakness. I challenge the Government to reject the mega-embassy, cancel the visit, and not go back there until Jimmy Lai is back on these shores.

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

  More

  There are rumours circulating around Westminster of a Bobby about to join the Reform party. I just want to clarify that it is not me. I am staying put. I quite enjoy watching the numbers to the right of me dwindle. We talk a lot in this place about the Home Office, immigration and asylum. Mostly, we talk about people’s right to come here and the shameful asylum backlog. We talk much less about the people who are already here—the ones who have built their lives, held down jobs, paid taxes, raised a family and contributed. I think the story of immigration in this country is largely a positive one, and it is sad that that is not said enough in this place. If you have worked hard and played by the rules, you deserve to be treated with respect. Unfortunately, the Home Office is treating many visa holders seeking to settle here with disrespect. People who have lived here for years—sometimes over a decade—are being made to wait years, sometimes subject to indefinite service standards, for answers about their future in this country. Recently, the Home Office has even taken to lecturing people with the line that citizenship is a privilege and not a right, as if to say how dare they ask about remaining in a country they have contributed to for so long. Will the Leader of the House bring this to the attention of Home Office Ministers and urge them to review their service standards and treat these people with a bit more respect?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Prisons: Illegal Drugs · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Committee for its investigation into this important topic. The Chair spoke a bit about the shocking developments in the supply of drugs into prisons, but can he expand on the demand for drugs, and on the availability of rehabilitation services and other forms of support for addicts in prisons?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Digital ID · Hansard source

  More

  Another day, another U-turn. Have you ever seen a new Government so lacking in conviction? When they announced their plan for change, I do not think anybody in this place realised that it was a plan to change every single one of their policies. This is becoming a shambles. The Liberal Democrats lack no conviction on this issue—we have been opposed to ID cards for over 20 years. The Minister said repeatedly that digital ID will save people money, but this is a multibillion-pound project, and taxpayers’ money is being spent on it. Will he confirm how much has been spent on the scheme so far, and how much the Government intend to spend on it?

• 13 Jan 2026 · Chinese Embassy · Hansard source

  More

  I am exasperated by the Government’s response to this urgent question. They are treating this development as a mere wrinkle in a bureaucratic planning matter, which is simply not the case. If this embassy is granted, it will be one of the largest and most prestigious embassies held by any country in Europe, and that has huge diplomatic consequences. Will the Minister reassure us that it is not merely planning considerations that are being taken account, but those of national security and diplomatic importance as well?

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

  More

  I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. The whole House wants to get the Bill right, and if a delay is what is required, I think the House will support that. I am glad that the Government have had the humility to withdraw it from tomorrow’s business, even at this late stage, in order to get it right. However, it does seem extraordinary that it would be withdrawn at this very late stage, and it raises serious concerns about what kind of ongoing engagement there has been with key stakeholders up to this moment. Will he assure us that what needs to be worked out can be done meaningfully in less than a week? Will he also commit that the Government will deliver the Hillsborough law as previously promised, and not just a Hillsborough law in name only?

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

  More

  Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and everybody in the House. To respond briefly to something the shadow Deputy Leader of the House said: I sincerely hope that Arsenal do not win the league. Over Christmas, some people have had the unfortunate experience of finding themselves in their local hospital, and they will have been met by a packed emergency department and possibly treated in the corridor. New statistics from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine this week show that over 1.5 million people had to wait longer than 12 hours in emergency departments last year, with over 16,000 excess deaths as a result of those long waits. At my local hospital, St Helier, the situation is worse than the national average, with over 80%—the vast majority —of people remaining in the emergency department for longer than is deemed medically necessary. This is, of course, down to a multitude of reasons, including the inadequacy of social care, bed capacity in hospitals, which we know is worse in the UK than in comparable economies, and the condition of the estate. The many delays in the new hospital programme mean that my local hospital is having to close wards and do repairs and maintenance, which is exacerbating the problem. When corridor care first came up in my inbox, I was shocked by it. I understood how tragic the situation was and how undignified it was for patients and families, but I hoped it was a temporary, urgent measure that would resolve itself in time. That is not proving to be the case, so can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the matter of corridor care and how we can hasten its end immediately?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making an excellent contribution to the debate. The Treasury Committee heard evidence last year about the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation. It appeared to me that it is far too small for the job that it has to do, especially compared with equivalents overseas in the US and Europe. Does he think that part of the solution is also funding OFSI properly, so it can be proactive in its monitoring of sanctions, and not only reactive?

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is making a really powerful speech. We had representatives from the gambling industry in front of the Treasury Committee recently, and that revealed to me that such stories are not tragic by-products of an industry that is actually okay, but actually part of the business strategy of that industry. The gambling industry receives 60% of its profits from 5% of its customers. It needs people like the ones the hon. Member refers to, in the circumstances that they are in, in order to make the profits that it survives on. Does the hon. Member agree that it was a disgrace that the representatives in front of the Treasury Committee said that there is no evidence of social harm related to gambling?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Subsea Telecommunications Cables: Resilience and Crisis Preparedness · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Committee for its work. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the restrictions of international law, but could he explain what evidence the Committee took about the need for international co-operation? It seems evident to me that the nature of subsea cables means that international co-operation is required to protect them sufficiently. Are there any mechanisms with which the UK should be engaging better?

• 18 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  May I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about the victims of the Bondi Beach attack? Antisemitism has no place in our society and I am glad that the House is united against hate. Mr Speaker, I join in the well wishes to you and to all the House staff at Christmas time. The Government have been engaging in another Christmas tradition this week: rushing out lots of statements in the final week before recess. I calculated that we are up to double the normal rate, with 13 and a half statements per day this week—I will let you decide what half a statement constitutes, Mr Speaker! We had the statement on local government finance yesterday, and it seemed that many Labour Back Benchers seemed to have had access to the figures for each local authority in advance, in a way that we had not. Our spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), searched the internet for the figures in advance but could not find them, so will the Leader of the House ask the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness to clarify whether those figures were made available to Labour Back Benchers in advance? Moving on to more serious Christmas matters, the BBC reported this week that Father Christmas’s pay has flatlined this year. There is good news for the elves, as thanks to the national minimum wage increase, their pay is on the up. However, this wage compression is apparently demotivating for Father Christmas and some garden centres across the country are struggling to get him to turn up. As it happens, he is also upset about the Employment Rights Bill, because it has made it much more difficult for him to get the sack—ba-dum tish. [ Interruption. ] Oh, come on! Another important Christmas matter is the ongoing bitter dispute about Christmas films. The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), insists that “Die Hard” is a Christmas movie; she even has a “Die Hard”-themed advent calendar in the Whips Office. It is of course set at Christmas time, but some say it is too violent to be a Christmas film, although in my experience violence is not absent from Christmas, usually. There has also been some controversy over “Love Actually”—it is of course set at Christmas time, but some people have been calling for it to be cancelled because of its dated romantic themes. I still like “Love Actually” and I encourage the Prime Minister to watch it this year; I would hope he might be inspired by Hugh Grant’s character’s courage. Finally, I would like to make the slightly controversial point that sometimes Christmas TV specials are better than Christmas films. I really enjoyed the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special last year and I am looking forward to “Amandaland” this year. All this demonstrates that there is a lot to be settled when it comes to the matter of Christmas films, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the matter of Christmas films?

• 17 Dec 2025 · INEOS Chemicals: Grangemouth · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister mentioned in his statement the £200 million for projects in Grangemouth from the National Wealth Fund. I would like to raise with him a concern that was raised in evidence to the Treasury Committee, which is that the National Wealth Fund has to operate on the riskier end of project proposals because it does not want to crowd out private investment, but that means necessarily that many projects will fail. The worry is that politicians will not be ready to defend projects that fail under the National Wealth Fund. Does the Minister agree with that assessment, and is he willing to accept that, given the risk profile of the National Wealth Fund, some projects will fail as part of the deal?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister indicated to the House that the Liberal Democrats were against the national minimum wage in the ’90s. My own memories are hazy, but I am reliably informed that that was not the case, so I hope the Minister will correct the record.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. As you probably know, south London is wonderful, but you may not know that it is one of the UK’s largest regional economies. Last week my local council, the London borough of Sutton, launched its economic growth plan, inviting businesses to take advantage of opportunities in the area. Will the Minister meet me and the local council leader to connect the business community with all the opportunities that exist in my borough?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Before I begin, I join the tributes to Lance Corporal George Hooley. His tragic death reminds us of the courage of all our armed forces in their determination to protect our country. My inbox, like those of other Members, I am sure, has this week been full of correspondence from demoralised businesses, after they were hit by yet another tax rise. We have spoken a lot about the cost of living crisis, but we are now experiencing a cost-of-doing-business crisis, too. Nowhere is that felt more than in the hospitality and retail industries. We in this House are quick to talk about such businesses being the heart of our communities, but they have suffered a lot in recent years. They closed during the covid pandemic, have suffered the rise of the online competition, and were hit by employer national insurance rises last year—those industries were particularly hit by that change because they employ many of the low-paid and young first-jobbers in our economy. They were promised good news on business rates in the Budget, in the form of a fairer system and lower rates, but the revaluations, combined with the tapering of reliefs, have meant that many bills are set to rise. Businesses in my Carshalton and Wallington constituency, such as Wallington Cycles and the Sun pub in Carshalton, have sent me pretty desperate emails setting out their worries for the future. I have tried to reassure them about the transitional relief that the Government have put in place, which should offset some of the damage, but that is small comfort against the backdrop of so many rising costs. We talk about fairness, but Harrods’ bills are set to fall by over £1 million, while the bill of the average pub will go up by £1,400 every single year. The Government gave themselves powers to offer a discount of 20p in every £1, but so far they have offered discounts of just 5p. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister to make a statement to clear up all this confusion and reassure businesses that they will be supported in the coming years?

• 11 Dec 2025 · US National Security Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I do not think we should tiptoe around this issue. The section on Europe talks of “civilisational erasure”. It says that the continent will be “unrecognizable in 20 years”. It says that they want “Europe to remain European”, and that within a few decades NATO members will be “majority non-European”. We need to recognise this for what it is. It is a document rooted in racist, white supremacist ideology, and it should be called out accordingly. The Minister has talked about respect, but they are currently showing us none. Mild disagreement will not cut it. History is watching us, so will the Minister take this opportunity to call that language out?

• 4 Dec 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Leader of the House in his tributes to Sir John Stanley and Paul Barwell. He referred to the Christmas spirit getting going in and around the House, and I ask him to spare a thought for the Lib Dem staffers clutching coffees this morning after their Christmas party last night. I cannot confirm or deny whether I joined them. Earlier this week, the Government announced a trade deal between the US and the UK on drug prices and medicines. Having reportedly rejected a price increase of £2.5 billion earlier this summer, the Government’s negotiators went back to the table and will apparently now pay £3 billion more instead. There is a live debate over how much the NHS should pay for drugs, which I respect. Big pharma has always wanted to drive up prices and has clearly not liked the purchasing power of the NHS, but the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence thresholds have not changed for some time, and there are some who argue that that means we are missing out on particular medicines. Others make the alternative argument that the opportunity cost of that spending in other areas of healthcare means that the thresholds should stay where they are. Wherever we stand on that debate, two things are clear. First, this considered debate should not be settled by the bully-boy tactics of President Trump. He introduced 100% tariffs, breaking the World Trade Organisation rules on tariffs over this, and has come out with the explicit intention of putting Americans first. Secondly, the Government should explain how this huge price increase will be paid for. Daniel Elkeles, the chief executive of NHS Providers, says that “it is not yet clear how it will be paid for”, and there are fears among GPs, dentists and community pharmacists that they will be the ones who will suffer as a result of the increase in prices. Will the Leader of the House urge a Health Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer questions about the impact of this new deal?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  When we cut through it all, the central choices in this Budget were to increase the fiscal headroom and spend more on welfare, and to pay for it via an income tax threshold freeze. I am not sure why Labour Members are reluctant to describe it in that way, because it does contain some legitimate political choices. I welcome the increase in fiscal headroom. It was creating far too much uncertainty in our economy. I pointed that out to the Chancellor when she was before the Treasury Committee in the spring, and I am glad that the Treasury has now corrected that mistake. I welcome the abolition of the two-child benefit cap, which the Liberal Democrats voted for—I think it was one of our very first votes in this Parliament. The Chancellor explained over the weekend that she was able to afford it because of taxes on the gambling industry, but that industry existed last year, so she could have done it then. My issue is not with those measures but with how they are to be paid for. There are others that could have paid their fair share, the first of which is the banks, which have been completely let off the hook. They have made unforecasted windfall profits over the last few years, particularly because of the quantitative tightening programme and the interest rates. Many, including the Liberal Democrats, have argued that we should tax those windfall profits and put them to good use, but it seems like the banking industry’s lobbying efforts have paid off. When comparing the top 10% with the bottom 10%, the Budget appears to be progressive, but a deeper analysis shows that the top 0.1% have been let off the hook, particularly with measures such as the dividend rates, where the additional rate has been left completely untouched, and the cap that has been introduced for non-dom contributions in inheritance tax. While we are on the non-dom regime, I know that some Members have said that all the non-doms have fled the country, but I point them to page 82 of the OBR’s Blue Book, which says that the estimated revenue from that regime will remain broadly unchanged. Really, all this discussion is a dead end. We are just talking about redistribution. What is really important is what is not in the Budget. As the Federation of Small Businesses puts it, we must get out of this doom loop of tax measures to balance the books. The Budget is far too short-term in its thinking, and we need more long-term vision. Last summer the Chancellor seemed to get this. She promised that her focus would be on growth, yet her first Budget hit businesses with the rise in national insurance contributions, which has hit employment and set a mood of doom and gloom in our economy. We had a zero-based spending review from which no significant changes to spending emerged. I cannot list a single area of Government spending that changed fundamentally after that review. We have seen tax measures that are piecemeal, and no significant efforts at reform. Economists from left and right all agree that the UK tax system is in a mess. Property taxation and the way that we treat different types of income are in desperate need of reform, and we have not seen that from the Government. Then, of course, there is the elephant in the room, which only the Liberal Democrats are willing to address: our relationship with Europe. The strategy with Europe is to have tiny negotiations over small measures. We need a proper customs union. That will deliver the growth that our economy needs. Ultimately, this Government lack the ambition to rewire our economy. We need to stop capital pouring overseas by changing the incentives to invest in this country. We need to look at corporate governance and make sure that it serves the British economy well. We need to look at devolving real economic power, not a reorganisation of local government, and we need to stop triangulating between the people who think net zero is a good or bad thing and ensure that Britain can be a green superpower in the 21st century. The Budget gets us through another year, but it does not excite me for the future. The country was promised change—where is it?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Member mentions that bet365 is based in Stoke. Could he explain to us why it is also based in Gibraltar and Malta?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  First, I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about the fire in Hong Kong. I have many constituents from Hong Kong who will be thinking about their family and friends. I also note that this is UK Parliament Week. I know you are very actively involved, Mr Speaker, and I thank you for your organisational efforts on that front. It will have been a relief to you, Mr Speaker, to hear the Budget officially delivered on the Floor of the House yesterday. I know that all the leaks over the past few weeks have been a source of frustration, but it did make that long list of taxes a little easier to digest and comprehend. It felt at one point as though almost every section of the economy was getting its own special tax, except of course for those in the banking industry, who, we hear, were popping champagne corks yesterday about avoiding the windfall taxes that the Liberal Democrats were calling for. It just goes to show that all their lobbying efforts have paid off. According to reports, they got away with no new taxes because they are going to be nice about the Budget on behalf of the Chancellor, so let us see if that holds. One under-reported bit of the OBR analysis yesterday—in the final pages of the Blue Book—is the potential danger to the UK economy of a major correction in the global stock market. There has been lots of talk recently about the potential for an AI bubble, with price to earnings ratios being comparable with those of a dotcom bubble. JP Morgan has done an analysis of current valuations and the physical limits to investment because of the need to build data centres and so on, and it thinks we could be up to about $5 trillion of investment by 2030. That means AI products will need to create an additional revenue of $650 billion a year to give a reasonable return to their investors. To put that into context, that is about 150% of the revenue that Apple makes, or the equivalent of about $35 a month for every customer it has in the world. It is my feeling that eventually investors will cotton on to that, and they will choose to moderate their investment. When that correction comes, the OBR thinks that it could affect the UK current deficit by between £15 billion and £26 billion, so will the Leader of House request that a Minister makes a statement about what contingency planning the Treasury is making for that scenario?