Bobby Dean MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 3 Apr 2025 · Adoption Breakdown · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way; the number of interventions he has taken shows how important this debate is to the House. I, too, have had adoptive parents come to my surgery who are going through a breakdown, and they have told me that their experience of adoption was better in the past because they used to have a named person supporting them at the council. That council service has merged with those of eight other boroughs, so it is now a nine-borough service. Adoptive parents no longer have a named contact, and they have to go through a central hotline. Does my hon. Friend agree that the adoption breakdown rate is increasing partly because of the funding environment for local government, and that we need to improve that first to get this service fixed?

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK-US Trade and Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  In answers to questions so far, the Secretary of State seems to have dismissed the threat of the US trade negotiations to the safety of our children. I am sure he has seen the abandonment of content moderation on social media platforms and heard what Trump, J. D. Vance and Musk have said about free speech in our country: what they mean is the freedom of US social media giants to keep our children addicted to their platforms, no matter how harmful the content. I know the Secretary of State says that he does not want to get into the specifics of the negotiations, but is the Online Safety Act 2023 part of those negotiations, or will he take the opportunity to rule that out?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Croydon Area Remodelling Funding: Brighton Mainline · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making an excellent case for solving the Croydon bottleneck, as it is known. As she has outlined, it affects not only her area of Croydon, but my area of Carshalton and Wallington—the hon. Member and I have seen each other on the train on the way into this place. Does she agree that public transport and train demand in particular can be affected by the frequency and reliability of the services? If we were to fix this problem, that could actually increase the demand for train use in our areas, which would be a good thing not only for the economy, but for the environment.

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  The OBR said that the information it received on the package of welfare cuts was late, contained insufficient detail and that the estimates are highly uncertain, and it will now have to certify them in the next forecast. Can the Chancellor confirm whether that means the Government will have to go further, with even deeper cuts to welfare than they have so far announced?

• 24 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Concerns have been growing over China’s aggression in the Indo-Pacific region. Given the strategic importance of the Taiwan strait to global security, what has been the Department’s response to those rising tensions?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Down’s Syndrome · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) for securing the debate today and for articulating the key points of the Act so well. I cannot move on without also thanking the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for her inspiring contribution. She really did her community proud today. This issue came to my attention because I have a constituent called Lucienne who sits on the National Down Syndrome Policy Group and runs a local group called Get On Downs. I was at its annual celebration this morning—we had tea and cake, we threw balls around a ball pit, and I wore funky socks as demanded by the event—unfortunately, you cannot see them, Mr Turner, but I am still wearing them. I got to meet Noah, Lily, Stephen and Charlotte, all people living with Down syndrome and thriving in that loving space. I asked Charlotte what she would like me to say to the Minister, and she said she would like me to tell the Minister that she is fantastic—so I have done that. I also spoke to parents there, who told me about the relief of having that space, including for themselves, so they could talk to other parents and share experiences. They also had some serious points to make about the Act, which they were all aware of. A common theme was the education system and that the specific needs of Down syndrome children are not being met, even though the smallest of adaptations and interventions can make such a massive difference. Schools are not aware of that and we need to get the guidance sorted for them. I also heard a story about someone moving on to post-16 education and the demands on them to take maths and English to a particular level, when what they actually need is the vocational skills. They want to become an animal carer and wish they could just have access to a vocational course without the hard maths and English requirements. I also heard about the need for more support to stay in work. Charlotte did Christmas cover in retail, but companies were not looking to keep her on. There were warm words for Lucienne—or Lu, as she is known—and she was described as a “life saver” for setting up that local group. She has also set up an amazing initiative with the local hospital trust. The healthcare information provided at birth can be daunting, warning about some of the things that parents of children with Down syndrome will have to face. Lu wanted to flip that on its head and provide care packages to new parents of children with Down syndrome that congratulated them and talked about all the joys ahead of them. I want to recognise that brilliant initiative. It is fitting to give the last word to Lu, and these are the questions that she wants to ask the Minister. What is happening with the guidance, and why the delay? Will the Minister agree to meet the National Down Syndrome Policy Group? Can the Minister reassure us that the draft guidance will be Down syndrome-specific? Lu wanted to labour the point about the specific learning profile that requires specific interventions. She asks, “What is the point in a Down Syndrome Act if it is not specific to people with Down syndrome?”

• 17 Mar 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak in favour of new clause 35 and amendment 174, both in my name, as well as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). The Corporate Parenting Forum was one of the more enjoyable committees I was on when I was a local councillor. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that the forum has quite a cold name, given all the warm work that it does. It shows the dedication of social workers, the compassion of foster carers and adoptive parents, and the resilience and character of the children. However, anyone involved in that forum would also have seen that the hard work of those involved was often undermined by a system that held people back from caring to the best of their ability. I am pleased that the Bill will make significant progress in that regard. However, there are areas where it could go further, and I intend to speak about a couple of them. One area of particular interest to me is the so-called care cliff edge. Those leaving the care system at 18 are forced to grow up so much faster than their peers. I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House before—in particular the age differential for universal credit. That impacts young care leavers far more than any other group. The Bill seeks to lessen the care cliff edge. The “staying close” support requirements are of particular of interest to me, as is strengthening the support provided up to the age of 25. However, there is an anomaly on housing. I understand that the Government may accept that care leavers should not be regarded as becoming homeless intentionally, but my new clause 35 would go a step further and extend priority need status under the homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of all assessed vulnerabilities. The Bill provides that status to young care leavers aged 18 to 20, but that is out of line with the rest of the support available to young care leavers. Given all we know about the vulnerabilities of care leavers, which have been spoken about in the Chamber today, we should not put them in a position where they have to prove their vulnerability at that crucial crisis point. Last Friday, I was at a homeless shelter in my constituency. I met a young carer who had spent eight months in a tent prior to arriving at the shelter. He told me the story of how that happened. He had been in supported accommodation before the age of 18, but that home shut down just as he reached the age of 18, so his transition plan was completely undermined in a moment. He bounced about from place to place for the following few years. He has now reached the crucial age of 25, but he has not received the support he needed in the last few years. New clause 35 could help rescue people like him in the future. My other area of interest is kinship care. I must admit that I had not heard of kinship care until a few years ago, but I grew up in kinship care. I was the eldest of three boys. My mum had me at 19, and times got pretty tough as a teenager. Things boiled over, and eventually the relationship with my parents broke down. I left home and I never went back. As cocky as I was at 14 or 15 years old, I could not have lived on my own. but luckily my grandparents stepped up to take me on. My Nan and Pops, as I knew them, helped pick up the pieces and put me back on the straight and narrow. I went from being a boy who had started to fall behind in school and drink a bit down the park, to slowly taking my education more seriously and getting my act together. If it had not been for my grandparents, I am pretty sure that I would not be sitting on these green Benches today. It was not easy for them, though: they were on a state pension, lived in a council house and did not have a lot to give, but what they did have to give was love, guidance and support. Crucially, that was accepted readily by me because they already had my trust and respect, and they had authority over me because they were my grandparents. That is the real power of keeping care within the family. There are bonds that are ready made, which is difficult to replicate in any other form of care, and they provide the foundation that children need to thrive. I acknowledge that the Bill is groundbreaking on kinship care, but we have so few opportunities to make change in this area, and I am determined to get it right the very first time. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has tabled amendments on kinship care leave, kinship allowances, extending the pupil premium and prioritising school admission arrangements, all of which I have put my name to. I strongly hope that the Government can find a way to support those amendments. I have also tabled amendment 174, which would ensure that kinship families are actively engaged in shaping and forming the local authority policies that are outlined in the legislation, as families are in developing policies for children with special educational needs. The simple principle is: nothing about us without us. Kinship is a particularly complex form of care. The relationships have history. We need to appreciate the special nuances, and listen to kinship carers when developing policy. We must ensure that the authorities hear the voice of kinship families when designing the system to support them. I wish that my grandparents had lived long enough to see me take my place on these Benches; they would have been very proud. I hope today that we can begin to say thank you to them, and to the thousands of kinship carers like them, by working towards the strongest possible rights and support.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Community Theatre · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s passion for her local theatre is clear to see. She mentioned the form of ownership, a charity in that case. In Carshalton, we have the CryerArts centre, a local theatre owned and operated by the local community, by a company specifically set up for that purpose. Does she agree that that kind of ownership structure should be encouraged by the Government and supported as much as possible?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Prison Leavers: Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  7. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of ensuring that all prison leavers receive resettlement support from mentors.

• 11 Mar 2025 · Prison Leavers: Resettlement · Hansard source

  More

  At my surgery a couple of weeks ago, I had two fantastic volunteers show up from Sutton Night Watch, a local homeless charity. They had been working with prisoners, both before and after they left their cells, to help them reintegrate into the community. They are doing fantastic work, but they now need to expand. They need more space and more people. Can the Minister explain what support is available to volunteers like them to help them to do their work with prisoners?

• 5 Mar 2025 · River Wandle Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for graciously allowing me to trip over our shared boundary into her constituency now and again to do media reports on this issue. She is absolutely right to point out the polluter pays principle, and also ask how speedily it might be implemented, because the damage is happening right now and we need to rectify it as soon as possible. Moving on to that accountability process, there are still many questions that the community wants answered. We want to know when exactly the spillage happened. We want to know if 4,000 litres is an accurate estimate of the diesel. We want to know precisely how it made its way through the sewage network into the river. We want to know whether the Environment Agency’s response was quick enough. We want to know whether there was a pre-existing plan for this kind of accident; the way the sewage system is connected means that we would expect there to be one. If there was such a plan, was it put in place immediately? Of course, we also want to know who will pay not only for the response but for the damage that has been done to the river. I have already said that the Environment Agency’s engagement with me was quick, which I very much appreciate. However, I am also conscious that the agency is marking its own homework on the speed and the detail of the response. Like Thames Water and Transport for London, it has tough questions to answer—all of these bodies do. Key partners, such as the National Trust and the South East Rivers Trust, have had to operate on their own initiative at times, without information cascading down from these bodies or a clear plan to follow. There are some fears among people in the community that the Environment Agency might have been playing down the impact of the incident, and it is not totally clear what actions were taken at what time. As I have talked to conservationists, I have come to understand that when diesel dissipates, that is not the end of the destruction it can cause, because it will have broken down into the water body, and entered the sediments of the soil and into fish gills.

• 5 Mar 2025 · River Wandle Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree. As I hope to describe, the River Wandle is just one example of what is happening to rivers across the country. I am sure the outcome of that review will be extremely important. I was talking about the revival of the river over time, and it is thanks to the efforts of lots of local community groups. As part of those restoration efforts, I have put my waders on and gone into the river, seeing the effect of the work myself. We have worked inside the channel of the canal and brought it back to its natural state, narrowing the river at points with deflectors, so that the water can flow and clean the gravel much better, bringing back the natural meandering, allowing the river to deposit sediment in the right places, and overall much improving the health of the river.

• 5 Mar 2025 · River Wandle Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered pollution in the River Wandle. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I thank the Minister for the reply to my letter of 20 February, received today, and I hope she will shortly be able to provide further clarity in her reply to the debate. The prompt for the debate is the latest environmental disaster on the Wandle, where 4,000 litres of diesel were spilled by a bus garage in Thornton Heath into the sewage network, and eventually into the River Wandle. As I will go on to explain, the incident was not a one-off but an example of the sort of threat that the River Wandle faces every day. Before I do that, I would like to set out my relationship with the River Wandle. I live right beside the river and, although I have not spent my life as an environmental campaigner, like many people in my area I have formed a bond with the river by walking my dog alongside it every day. About a year and a half ago, I got together with a group of local filmmakers to make a documentary about the history of the Wandle, the threats it has faced and the community work around it. During the making of that film, my love for the river crystalised and ended up feeling quite protective. I found out about its special status as a chalk stream. There are around 200 chalk streams in the world, famous for their crystal clear water and clean gravel. The River Wandle is globally unique because around 1 million people live in the catchment of the river, which is mostly publicly accessible all the way, running through south London to the Thames. It is probably the only urban chalk stream of its kind in the world. The Wandle is famous for its industry. The fast-flowing water made it attractive to mills and over time much of the river was straightened to serve those mills. The textile industry was particularly attracted to this river; William Morris was inspired by it. It was said to be one of the hardest-worked rivers in the world. I am told that the historical significance stretches way back. It was used by the Romans and was the location for the statute of Merton, one of the earliest statutes in English history, passed on the banks of the River Wandle at Merton priory in 1235. After the mills declined, their legacy remained, with the canal-like structure that built up to them. Eventually the river became better known for carrying waste, until the 1970s when it was officially declared a sewer. That was a turning point for the river, with lots of grassroots activism inspired by that moment. We had anglers, other fishermen, the Wandle Trust, which became the South East Rivers Trust, and Wandle Valley Forum, as well as smaller groups such as Friends of Poulter Park.

• 5 Mar 2025 · River Wandle Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am glad to see another of my constituency neighbours in the room today. New housing developments are a massive opportunity for the industry to implement new infrastructure that we need, and to understand what connects where. If we get it right, and companies work with the Environment Agency and other authorities, this should result in a net improvement in sewage discharges. Coming back to the major infrastructure question we have, and the point that some of that work will be too slow. I understand why. The Institute for Civil Engineers has estimated it could cost over £100 billion to fix this issue over the long term. There is more we can do now, however. Someone who is sitting behind me, Dr Jack Hogan from the South East Rivers Trust, has said, “There can be a rainbow at the end of this disaster that is not the sheen of diesel.” I agree with him. South East Rivers Trust is running a crowdfunder to get increased monitoring along the Wandle. That has got off to a fantastic start, with over £20,000 raised already. Increased monitoring would be a good thing. I have already spoken about restoration projects happening up and down the Wandle, but they could get so much bigger in scope. We are not talking about billions of pounds here; we are talking about millions. There are things called downstream defenders, which are an excellent innovation. We will not be able to fix the entire infrastructure overnight but we do know where the outfalls are and where the sewage network meets the river. If we put interventions in those spaces we can clean up the quality of water before it reaches the river itself. Ultimately, we have the potential to reconfigure parks, wetlands, fish barriers and overall access to the public and to make the River Wandle an internationally significant river park if we put our minds to it. In addition to answering my specific questions on the diesel spill inquiry, can the Minister outline what support there is to make these improvements to the River Wandle? More broadly, can she explain the fundamental infrastructure problem of combined sewage systems and run-off from roadside drains will be addressed? Will the Department look again at the formalisation of the Water Restoration Fund? This is important for the principle of polluter pays. I know the Government recently did not back an amendment to the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025 on this, but it is important to campaigners, who want to ensure all polluters pay—not just the water companies—and that those payments go directly into affected areas, such as the River Wandle. I thank the Minister for listening to my speech. I hope it is clear that I love the Wandle just as much as many of my constituents do. This has been a horrible moment for it, but we also hope it is the start of fresh hope.

• 5 Mar 2025 · River Wandle Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his intervention; he makes the same point that others have made, namely that the polluter must pay. That is a core principle that I hope this Government will implement in the strongest possible terms, including bans on bonuses for water bosses. Let me finish my point about the Environment Agency. As I have already said, its response to me was quick and I hope that it has acted with all the resources that it can deploy. However, there are some concerns that it has played down the impact of this incident. The email that I received from the agency on the day talked about how the pollution will wash away once it reaches the Thames. The latest update that I have received says that the diesel is clearly dispersing around the river and that reports about it are declining in number. However, as I have just explained, the fact that the number of reports is declining does not necessarily mean that the damage has gone away. A key point is that I do not understand what baseline monitoring the Environment Agency was conducting in the first place in order for it to make the assessment that this incident has caused very little damage to the river. I have some specific questions for the Minister about the diesel spill; I appreciate that some of them might need to be followed up in writing. Can she advise us on how we can co-ordinate the investigations by multiple stakeholders into a single independent inquiry? If there is such an inquiry, will the Government ensure that it establishes a clear timeline of events and accountability at every stage? Will she enforce the principle that the polluter pays, which so many Members have discussed today, and ensure that any fines will go directly towards improving the River Wandle, rather than into a general fund? This incident has been truly shocking, not only to me and the local community but to the region as a whole, mostly because of its scale—that is what has caught the public’s attention. However, this kind of pollution happens every single day, not by accident but by design. The combined sewerage system has become high profile as a result of the campaigning against sewage that has been happening over the last year. However, we have heard less about the road run-off network, which makes an urban river like the Wandle especially vulnerable to such incidents. What goes down the drains can end up in our river, and when we think about a massive diesel spill such as this one, we should also think about all the types of pollutants that are running off our road network into our rivers every single day. At the moment, there is a lack of monitoring, so we do not really know what damage that pollution is having. We have a poor understanding of what the sewerage network looks like. Which drains connect directly into the river? Which ones go via the sewage treatment works? We do not really know the answers to those questions. There are also very limited mitigation measures. I know that fixing the entire infrastructure of this network would be difficult, but there are also measures that we can take further downstream. We have inadequate resilience, which could be addressed by the nature restoration projects that I referred to earlier. All the industrial adaptation that I also spoke about earlier—basically, how the river been canalised over the years—is choking off the river’s capacity to heal itself. We can see that the Wandle does not have much of a chance when there are 1 million inhabitants and a road network surrounding it. I am glad that the Government recognise that chalk streams need special protection, but I would love it if they recognised that urban chalk streams, such as the River Wandle, deserve even greater protection. The renewed attention on water quality in all of our waterways nationwide is extremely welcome. I know there are concerns that progress may be too slow: for example, in my area the major upgrades planned by Thames Water are not due to begin until 2035.

• 5 Mar 2025 · River Wandle Pollution · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The polluter pays principle is a key point I am going to come on to. As we are hearing, this is not just an issue that affects my constituency, but constituencies right across the United Kingdom. The centrepiece of my film was about sewage. We built up to a crescendo where eventually we saw footage of raw sewage running along one of these channels and meeting the River Wandle. This was the moment where people realised that their toilets are plumbed into the river. The latest episode on the Wandle is one that I hope will raise public awareness about the fact that the drains on their streets are plumbed into the river, too. On Monday 17 February, we released a new film about a brilliant nature restoration project happening just downstream from where I live. Just the week before that, we had a very happy meeting where 60 local people turned up to a local community centre to hear about a further restoration project that will happen around the corner from my house. Yet just 24 hours later, after the high of releasing that positive news, I received images on my phone of a bird covered in oil; it was shocking. I got straight onto the Environment Agency and contacted other local organisations such as the South East River Trust and the regional media. The next day I was walking my dog, as I have always done, along the riverbanks. I have got to admit that at first I did not really notice the damage, but as I progressed downstream and got to the area near Poulter Park, the smell hit me and I could see the sheen of rainbow-like fluid on top of the river. The reason why I did not see it immediately outside my house is because the diesel had entered the river via the drainage system, and there is a key point, a canal point, where it meets the Wandle, so although the area around my house was fairly protected, once I hit that point the visible shock of the diesel spill was very evident. I had a call with the Environment Agency that morning, and it reassured me about its response and I met with lots of other conservation charities later on that day. I was glad to hear that booms were eventually put in place to help protect the Wandle.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Online Safety Act: Implementation · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. Social media has the power to provide spaces for connection, free speech and content creation that were unimaginable just a few decades ago. I remember what it was like to be a part of the first generation of teenagers to use social media. I hear the likes of MSN, Myspace and Bebo are no longer a thing among the youth, but I understand the joy of platforms like them and why we would not want our parents involved and snooping around on them. None the less, exactly how much space and freedom we should afford teenagers as parents and as society is the subject of intense debate. When I speak to parents or teachers about social media, they tell me that they are concerned about how much time children spend on their devices, who they are speaking to and the fear that comes from not knowing what they are watching and reading. That is no surprise, because we as adults are struggling on the same platforms in the same way, and there is very little reassurance that the experience that young people get is much different from our own. The violence, the pornography, the hate—we all see it, and they see it too. Just a few weeks ago, there was a horrific stabbing in my constituency involving a teenage boy. The video was posted all over social media within minutes. It kept popping up in my feed on Facebook, as it was shared across local groups, and I was tagged in the video on X. The video depicted the whole scene, unfiltered, without a warning. My thoughts went to the victim’s family and to the young teenagers at the college around the corner, who I am sure will have been watching it, too. I do not think I am imagining it when I say that, not long ago, a video like that simply would not have got around as quickly or been seen as frequently as that one. It would have been taken down, at least eventually, but with the purposeful rolling back of moderation by giants like Meta and X, violent content is not just becoming more frequent, it is becoming normalised. How have we got here? Ultimately, it is because we have allowed the tech giants to become too powerful, with regulation arriving too slowly and without enough teeth. Once upon a time, the greatest minds took up careers in law and medicine, but now the big money and prestige is in big tech, an industry that, on the face of it, sells us nothing, but while we do not pay for their services with money, we pay for it with our attention. The longer they can keep us looking at their platforms; the more ads we see, and the more money they make, so we have the world’s most talented people working out the circuitry of our brains and creating products that are, by design, addictive. What we look at does not matter, only that we are looking, so there is no inherent commercial incentive to fix the problem of dangerous and harmful content. Just imagine if all that energy and talent was directed into fail-proof age verification, taking fake accounts down, and other safety-by-design measures. Tough law and regulation is our only answer. The concern expressed in this debate is that the Online Safety Act was watered down on its way through Parliament, and further weakened by Ofcom’s guidance; my fear now is that it is under further threat, as in trade negotiations with the US this tech bro-fuelled Trump presidency may demand a further weakening. As it stands, small companies are already off the hook. It does not matter how harmful the content is as long as its user space is small. The large companies have the legal representation and increasing soft power in practice to avoid compliance, and we are already seeing the consequences of that. Will the Government give us assurances in this debate that, as the mood music in America is to backslide on protections, the UK will stand strong? Will the Government commit to do the opposite of backsliding, to engage with children’s charities and other campaigners who have deep concerns about the gaps in the existing legislation and regulation by Ofcom, and to work to strengthen those protections further in the coming year? It sounds very obvious, but the kids of today will soon become adults. The world that surrounds them as children will shape their views as adults. One of the most depressing things I have read recently is that teenage girls are the group most likely to be victims of domestic abuse. That is attributed in part to the rise of misogynistic content. If we fail to get the most profitable companies in the world to act, we fail everybody.

• 6 Feb 2025 · Financial Education · Hansard source

  More

  I am not quite sure how I am supposed to follow the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince). He was extremely entertaining and informative. I wish to thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for securing this debate. He spoke with passion and empathy for those who are struggling with financial literacy and made sure that this House knows how important that topic is. All Members in this House have probably at some point come across somebody—perhaps a constituent on a doorstep, a family member or a friend—who says that people just do not get taught what they need to know in life at school. That is overdone slightly; the fundamentals of maths, science and literacy do serve us well in life, but there is truth in that statement. Some of the hard, practical, daily challenges of adulthood are often not addressed properly, at least not in an applied way, during our education. Nowhere is this more apparent than in financial literacy, which is, of course, distinct from numeracy. It is not just about adding and subtracting, or even working out percentages, but budgeting, debt management, saving for the future and investing. These are things that can empower people to make better decisions for their lives and set them up to achieve their goals. But we let people down when we view these skills as specialist rather than essential. Let me focus on two elements in particular: investing and debt. The British seem to have a big problem with investing. There is an assumption that it is for traders or the rich, and our national conversation tends to shy away from it. Pensions is about the only arena in which it is discussed properly, but even then it is kind of pushed to the back of our minds. It is all about auto-enrolment and it is dealt with out of sight by others. I wish to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) about how few of the self-employed invest in their own pensions. That certainly happened to my parents who were self-employed all their life. I was self-employed too and, for the large bulk of my career, I did not invest in a pension. If Brits were equipped with the knowledge and the skills to make relatively safe, sensible investments over the course of their lifetimes, the benefits to those individuals and to the economy as a whole would be enormous. Research by Moneybox reveals that two thirds of Britons are £65,000 worse off on average due to low financial confidence and knowledge. Astonishingly, it suggests that if these people were better equipped it would equate to a potential £2 trillion of extra spending power in the UK economy over their lifetimes. Members might think that this difference merely correlates with the haves and the have nots, but Moneybox’s research found that, in most instances, the key indicator of success was financial confidence and not where people started in life. This alone should motivate us to improve the delivery of financial education in schools, but also to ensure that all adults can better equip themselves today. Although this is beyond the scope of the debate today, this is where the advice guidance boundary review could be crucial for Britain’s growth prospects. We must upskill all of Britain today and not only the citizens of the future. Let me turn now to debt. The consequences of getting this wrong are grave. Our failure to equip people with the knowledge that they need to manage and escape debt puts the most vulnerable in our society at risk—risk of hunger, risk of ill health and risk of financial ruin. My inbox is full of emails from people who reach crisis point before seeking help. In each case, there were so many straightforward steps that they could have taken to prevent escalation, but a combination of shame and financial illiteracy leaves people stranded, helplessly watching on as their situation goes from bad to worse. I wish to pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Harlow about people not being able to budget their way out of poverty. He is absolutely right, but we can stop people from spiralling and making things worse. This point is deeply personal to me. I have seen my family suffer from the crippling nature of debt on more than one occasion—both as a child and as an adult. I sometimes think to myself that I just wish that they had reached out to me sooner. But I have a better wish than that: I wish that our education system and society more broadly talked about debt and how to deal with it far more openly. When I visited my local citizens advice bureau in Wallington recently, staff told me how predatory companies are offering individual voluntary arrangements to people who are totally ill-suited to them. On the face of it, the attraction is clear. Instead of struggling with debt on multiple fronts, a person can make one simple regular payment to a company and that company will deal with everything for them. The trouble is that these companies do not always act in the individual’s interest. They have an incentive to sell IVAs, as they make money from them, and they end up being sold to people who have better alternatives, such as debt management orders. This practice needs to be regulated better, but we should also empower citizens to know better. The Liberal Democrats support a modernised curriculum—a curriculum for life that ensures that children are equipped with the skills required for adulthood, with a focus on a better understanding of personal finance and financial responsibility. Clearly, financial education needs to start early and must become a key part of the primary curriculum. Research shows that money habits are set at the age of seven, yet there is no statutory requirement to teach personal finance in primary schools in England. Furthermore, we must support teachers to deliver that education effectively. That means providing centralised guidance, teacher training and signposting to quality resources. The Government should back the national campaign to raise awareness of financial education and its benefits, and support initiatives such as My Money Week, which promotes financial literacy in schools and communities. But the job does not end in school, and the urgent need to address financial illiteracy cannot be overstated. As the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) outlined, today’s young people are increasingly turning to social media for financial advice. Just last week, the financial wellbeing charity Your Money found that six in 10 young people follow so-called financial influencers, or “finfluencers”, which is difficult to say, with 77% trusting their advice. Alarmingly, one in 10 said that they would act on that advice without doing further research. If we do not fill the gaps, others will. The Liberal Democrats will continue to push for measures that address financial exclusion. That can be done by supporting banking hubs, with their crucial offer of face-to-face advice, as well as by protecting funding for citizens advice bureaux, such as the one that I visited in Wallington. The evidence is overwhelming: financial education is not a “nice to have”; it is essential for the wellbeing of our citizens and the future of our economy. I urge the Government to act decisively and ensure that every child in the UK has access to the financial education that they need and deserve.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Overseas Territories: Tax Transparency · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I join others in thanking the hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell). He has been a relentless campaigner on this issue for a number of years, and I hope that now he is in this place he can make a real impact on it. I want to make a few short points. The first, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), is about fairness, and the injustice that many of our constituents feel about this issue. Those who are most able to pay are also most able to avoid paying. The hon. Member spoke about his constituent being chased by HMRC, yet on a global scale it feels like that is not being done in the same way. The sense of injustice really burns people up. This is about restoring trust in politics and our economic system more broadly. The hon. Member for Kensington and Bayswater talked about how global corruption gets to hide under this, too. That underlines the unfairness of this issue. My second point is about revenue. It is clear that our public services are under strain, and we should be able to assess what tax is owed and collect it. That is a very basic principle. I know that the Government have done some good work in terms of investing in HMRC. I welcome that and hope that it can be a model for what we do on a global scale, so that we go further and faster on this issue, too. My final point, and the one I wanted to make the most, is about Britain’s responsibility on this global issue. It is a global problem, but it is one in which Britain has a really important role to play. We have probably all seen the statistic that one third of all global tax dodging is enabled by British overseas territories. I share the frustrations of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) about British overseas territories not necessarily abiding by their constitutional demands or sharing the values we have been talking about today. It is incumbent on us to make sure that our Government act in the fullest and strongest possible way. I hope the Minister will pledge that Britain will show leadership on this issue, that the Government will ensure that the deadlines are met quickly, and that trusts will be added to the register. I will add that Britain has shied away from participating in discussions on the UN tax convention. One way that we can play a leadership role on this issue is by choosing to be an active participant in that conversation and showing our leadership there too. In conclusion, this is the right thing to do, it is in our interests to do it, and it is on Britain in particular to lead on it.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Social Security Benefits · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point about the long-term benefits to the economy from treating the benefits system seriously. Does he agree that that applies to the two-child cap as well because if we were to remove that not only would we lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty, which is inherently a good thing, but we would also improve health and education outcomes and ultimately make a more productive population over the long run?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Outsourcing: Government Departments · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy. I would like to make a few points about public sector capabilities, compatibility with the profit motive, and the process for outsourcing. Before I start, I would like to reinforce the comments that the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman) made about ideology. It is important to point that the claims that are made about the outsourcing benefits are not rooted in scientific fact; they are very contestable beliefs, and Members have put forward evidence against that notion today. That is worth underlining, because too often when I talk with officers at a local authority level, or Government bodies, it is accepted as fact that the public sector is somehow clunky and more expensive than the private sector. We need to continue to push back at that at every level. I know there will be some people of a socialist persuasion in this room, but getting this question right is also important to those who care about social justice in a well-functioning, mixed economy, too. I think we are currently getting the question completely wrong. On public sector capabilities, I think we infantilise the public sector. We talk about it as incapable of producing top talent or brilliant innovations, yet we have so much evidence to the contrary. We seem to accept that, because the private sector can offer higher wages, it somehow always delivers better outcomes, but that is clearly not true. People take a lot of pride in public sector work, and that can motivate them in ways that the private sector can never motivate individuals. If I had more time today, I would point to some of the many innovations that started off in the public sector, which are sometimes picked up by the private sector, which then claims the credit for it. We can attract talent, but we need to facilitate that in the right way, with the right pay, conditions and working culture in the public sector. I understand the many ways in which the profit motive can be in conflict with the aims of those of us in the public sector. I have seen it at a local authority level, where we contract out housing repairs, and jobs are always done to task instead of to the satisfaction of the resident. We have since brought our housing repair services in house, and have seen much better outcomes from the perspective of residents, because people are arriving at their properties and trying to make them good, rather than just working to the job that is on the ticket. The other thing, which worries me more, is market regulation. We have very poor market regulation of contractors, which allows monopolies or oligopolies to build up very quickly. We have seen that probably worst of all in the children’s home sector, which is a service that used to be delivered by the public sector. In many respects, the public sector has lost the expertise and capability to deliver properly in that area, and now we have private equity firms that have eaten up the sector—completely oligopolised it—and, as a result, captured that market and charged local authorities through the roof for services that the public sector should certainly be delivering. I make those points to explain how I understand the profit motive and how poor markets can lead to bad outcomes, but it does not always have to be that way. Crucial to this is procurement and contracting expertise. I default to the position that many Members have expressed, which is that insourcing will very often be the better way forward, particularly when proper pay and conditions for the labour force are enforced. However, there will be situations where outsourcing makes sense, particularly where specialist skillsets cannot be retained in house, perhaps because local authority budgets mean that it is not the right thing, and so on. In those situations, we need to make sure we have the very best and toughest negotiators and contract specialists in house. That is where outsourcing falls down time and again, because there is an over-reliance on the private sector’s expertise and views on what is best for the contract, and we end up losing out every single time. We need much better standards for what we expect from the outcomes of contracts and an ability to break them much sooner if those outcomes are not being delivered. We also need to be able to monitor and enforce them better. The points made about labour conditions and pay need to be non-negotiable, because if the only way that outsourcing works out cheaper for a local authority is by treading down on workers, that is not a good enough reason to outsource a service. In conclusion, the Government have inherited decades-worth of assumed knowledge about this area, whereby people feel that outsourcing is the only route forward for many services. I hope that this Government will start to review that and think again.

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House supports a focus on growth, which is good for our prosperity and key to funding our public services. However, growth has not only a rate but a direction, and how we seek to achieve growth is about choices. If we choose to back measures that undermine our net zero targets, we may be going for growth today with severe consequences for tomorrow. How do the Government justify their choice to back Heathrow expansion over more sustainable rail transport projects across the country?

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I fear that the Government’s drive for growth has meant that they have become fearful of the tough regulation that my hon. Friend suggests. They see it only as an impediment, instead of the basis for a stable economy. Does he agree that weak regulation is not only bad for consumers and for the environment, but also for investment over the long run?

• 22 Jan 2025 · Competition and Markets Authority Chairman · Hansard source

  More

  The power vested in large corporations is greater than ever. Tech giants are exerting monopolistic power over the market, so I am becoming exasperated with the Government’s Thatcherite-like attitude towards deregulation. Do the Government understand the risks involved in going for short-term boosts to growth over long-term stability of the economic market?

• 21 Jan 2025 · Supporting SMEs, Retail, and Hospitality and Tourism · Hansard source

  More

  The Labour manifesto committed to replacing the business rates system. However, last week at the Treasury Committee, the Minister seemed to rule out the kind of comprehensive reform that the Liberal Democrats and others have been campaigning for, and indicated that there might only be a tinkering around the edges of rates and reliefs. Can the Minister confirm today whether the Government still intend to replace the business rates system, or will they just be tinkering around the edges of this broken system?