Bobby Dean MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2024 · Prison Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  2. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the condition of prisons.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Prison Conditions · Hansard source

  More

  A constituent who is now a prisoner of HMP Coldingley wrote to me recently about the appalling conditions in his prison. He spoke about the prevalence of drugs, violence, discrimination and denial of access to healthcare. In his most recent letter to me, he said that the conditions had got so bad that he made an attempt on his life. Another report on Coldingley has described the conditions as “inhumane”. Can the Minister tell me what urgent work is being done to ensure that all our prisons have humane conditions for prisoners?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Before I address capital gains tax directly, I will make a few short remarks about the state of the national conversation about tax more generally, which I think is highly relevant. I note that tax is always something to be “hit by” in politics—it is violent; we are “hammered” by it—so the debate ends up focusing on who is deserving or undeserving of such punishment. As a result, few organisations are viewed as legitimate targets for taxation. Very rarely do we in politics have the bravery to talk about the virtue of paying tax—what it pays for, how it benefits us all, and why collectively contributing to schools, hospitals and physical infrastructure is sensible investment that we should be proud to make. That is where the political conversation falls slightly out of step with the mood of the public. Believe it or not, I have had conversations about tax on the doorstep, and I mostly meet people who are proud to make that contribution. Let me be clear: this is not some special plea to talk about tax in a warmer, fuzzier way in order to improve the civility of public discourse. Nor should it be confused for advocacy of a high-tax based economy. I raise that point because our distorted public conversation means that we end up with a dysfunctional tax system that is neither efficient nor equitable. Where we are with capital gains tax is a good example of that. Decades of wrangling over whether capital gains tax stifles entrepreneurship or is merely a ruse for the rich often results in a pretty reductive focus on rates. It seems that that happened again in the Budget, and I fear that we have missed an opportunity to make that tax better. As others have explained in putting capital gains tax into context, it is paid by around 350,000 people and raises around 2% of total tax revenue, and 12,000 people account for two thirds of that revenue. That tax does not necessarily affect a broad section of society, but it does play an important role in investment in the economy and in the overall sense of fairness in our system. Let me start with the economy. It makes no sense to me for the Government to make changes to capital gains tax without sorting out the tax base. If we do not index capital gains for inflation, we are not really taxing the thing that we say we are taxing. We should be focused on the real gains—otherwise, we risk taxing those who simply hold on to an asset for a long time, and ultimately we end up discouraging long-term investment. Secondly, we ought to be targeting capital gains tax at those making the larger gains—if large gains are to be had, those investments will be made anyway. Smaller gains, however—the stuff at the margins—are where investment decisions could be at risk. Raising the CGT allowance a bit would go a long way towards addressing that, as would designing better-targeted reliefs that more precisely encourage investment. Finally, we come to capital gains tax rates, whose alignment with income tax rates is often called for. The Government have of course moved a bit on that, but a focus on rates alone means that an inherent unfairness remains. There would still be the sense that there is one rule for small businesses and another for the giants. When he appeared before the Treasury Committee, Paul Johnson of the IFS remarked on another unfairness: someone can simply leave the country for a few years and dispose of an assets overseas—somewhere like Monaco—and they are then no longer responsible for capital gains tax. That is another inherent unfairness. Ultimately, with the proposed changes only, the system will continue to disproportionately benefit the very wealthiest. It is for that reason that I cannot support the measure. If it passes, I hope the Government will consider carefully the impact of the change in isolation, and whether further reforms are necessary in future. Our tax system needs to ensure that everybody pays their fair share, and I do not think the Government have quite got this one right yet.

• 26 Nov 2024 · “Get Britain Working” White Paper · Hansard source

  More

  A fantastic local social enterprise in my constituency has been helping adults with disabilities back into work. It recently set up a café that is run entirely by adults with learning disabilities. How does the Department plan to take evidence from innovative organisations of that kind, and will the Secretary of State meet members of this organisation to find out about the work it has been doing?

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

  More

  This is a bad day for human rights, but for the Hongkongers living in my constituency it is a frightening day. Beyond the broad reassurances that the Minister has already given, what specific action will the Government take to protect Hongkongers living in the UK from state surveillance?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  In the London borough of Sutton, we started to in-house some children’s care home provision back in 2020, and we now care for six children with complex needs. What assessment has the Department made of the potential scale of local authorities taking on services directly, if given the right support by the Government?

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Dame Siobhain. I thank the right hon. Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate. It is shocking that this might be the first proper debate we have had in this place on this topic. We have discussed whether live facial recognition technology is a legitimate tool and, if so, under what circumstances and controls it should be used. It is clear from the debate that there are many doubts, and we should probably be thinking about halting the use of the technology until we have cleared them up. I will start with the concern about discrimination, which was articulated well by the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler). It is clear that black people and people from other communities are likely to be disproportionately misidentified by this technology.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the evidence is quite clear in this area. Somebody might watch this debate and have doubts, but the research is quite clear.

• 13 Nov 2024 · Facial Recognition: Police Use · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with the hon. Member that some evidence has been cited in the Chamber today, but there is other evidence that we can look at. Let us not forget that the technology exacerbates the known problem—particularly with the Met police in London, where I live—that black communities feel over-policed and underserved. That has built up over time, and the use of this technology could exacerbate that problem further. The hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) made a comment about how polite conversations do not always register as polite conversations. That is because of the persistence of those conversations over time. A repeated polite conversation starts to become an aggressive conversation to the person on the receiving end, if it is that persistent. There was also discussion about the findings of the national physical laboratory, but it is clear that those findings are disputed— [ Interruption. ] Well, it is clear that they are disputed; they have been disputed in the Chamber today. Until we get to the bottom of that, we need to think carefully about the controls that we have in relation to discrimination. I want to talk about the general principle of privacy. As a liberal, I feel a general depression about how we have come to devalue privacy in society, and how we trade it away far too readily for other societal aims. We often hear the claim, “If you’re not doing anything wrong then there’s nothing to worry about,” as if the only value of privacy were to hide things that someone might be doing wrong. That is not the case. Privacy delivers so much more than that. It delivers personal wellbeing and gives people control over their own data. It allows us to have freedom of association and dignity. We need to think very carefully before we so readily trade away the principle of privacy in pursuit of other goals in society. The opportunity for slippage has been discussed at length. One would think that such technology would come with strict controls, but it is clear that at the moment we have the opposite; in fact, Big Brother Watch has described it as a “legal vacuum”. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry) talked about the creeping expansion of its use in London. I have seen that myself; what started off being limited to large-scale events, such as football matches, has turned into routine trials on high streets, such as mine in Sutton. We have also seen expansion in the photos that are used. The technology started off using only photographs of people known to the police, for good reason, but it has been expanded to potentially including everyone who has a passport or driving licence photo. What started being strictly about warrant breakers and sex offenders could expand to be about pretty much anything the Government of the day want. If we think about the clampdown on protest under the previous Government, that potentially has a chilling impact on the right to freedom of association. With all of those doubts, it is clear that we need proper parliamentary consideration of the issue. The Lib Dems ask the Minister to immediately halt the roll-out of live facial recognition technology until we get it right. It should be down to this place to determine the correct controls and whether there is a legitimate use of the technology at all, given all the concerns about discrimination and privacy. Privacy is a fundamental civil liberty. We have undervalued it far too much in recent times. This is an opportunity to protect it, and we should take it.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Young Carers: School Absence · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps her Department is taking to help tackle persistent school absences among young carers.

• 4 Nov 2024 · Young Carers: School Absence · Hansard source

  More

  One thing that might be driving absences from schools for young carers is long-term mental health conditions. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health says that as many as one in five young carers could be suffering from long-term mental health conditions. Can the Minister explain what measures the Department is taking to ensure that sufficient help is in place for people suffering from those conditions?

• 31 Oct 2024 · Income tax (charge) · Hansard source

  More

  The first Budget of a new Government is always significant, but one can rarely have been set in such tricky circumstances. This one comes following a series of major shocks—some of them external and unpredictable, as Opposition Members have said, such as the covid pandemic and the energy crisis, but some of them down to policy decisions, such as the Brexit deal and the mini-Budget. It also sits in the long shadow of the financial crisis and over a decade’s worth of cuts to public services. Growth has been stubbornly sluggish, the cost of living has eroded people’s wages, and as tax as a proportion of our national income has ticked up, the capability of many to contribute more has diminished. The result of all of this is that our public services are under strain, our public finances are under strain and the British public are under strain. It is in that context that I try offer a constructive opposition to the Budget today—pointing out what I agree with, what I do not and where I think it can be better. Healthcare is the biggest issue for my constituents, so I will start there. At first glance it looks like we have a big injection of cash into the NHS. That is a relief. I have previously warned about the counterproductive nature of further austerity, and I am cautiously optimistic that we might escape it in this area. But the rate at which the cash is being injected, alongside the speed at which it drops off, presents questions about how well it can be spent and what the hangover from this sugar rush might be. That requires further scrutiny. On capital expenditure more broadly, I am glad that we are waking up to the real calculation that needs to be made by seeking to borrow to invest in vital infrastructure. I made my maiden speech on Second Reading of the Budget Responsibility Bill, and I took that opportunity to encourage a change to the fiscal rules. That is exactly the kind of geekery that you will get from me, Madam Deputy Speaker, now that I sit on the Treasury Committee. Next week, I will go into more detail on “persnuffles”—PSNFL, or public sector net financial liabilities—and so on, but I will spare the House of that today. Overall, I am pleased to see a move in that direction. I say “overall” because in my maiden speech, I used the example of rebuilding my local hospital as the perfect no-brainer project that could be unlocked by greater willingness to borrow to invest—St Helier hospital is older than the NHS itself, and some parts of the estate are literally crumbling and desperately need investment in major works and a new building—so I was disappointed that we did not even receive greater assurances about the progression of that project. I hope that the Health Secretary will soon return to the Chamber with further announcements. The other big gap in the Chancellor’s Budget was on social care. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) said yesterday, it is still undeniably “the elephant in the…waiting room.” Without addressing social care, any investment in the NHS will be fundamentally flawed. Billions of pounds will pour in, but it will be undermined by the failure to get people who would be better treated at home out of hospitals. Of course, that has a knock-on impact on local authorities. I fear that the £600 million put forward yesterday to support councils on social care will be spread too thinly, especially when factoring in the impact of the national minimum wage and employer NICs, so I ask the Government to consider extending the public sector exemption to the care sector. The Budget means that councils that are already on the brink are going to have to make some pretty unpalatable cutbacks just to survive. It means that the mismatch between what taxpayers pay and the local services they receive will get worse. I hope that we get much greater clarity next year on local government funding. My final point on the NHS relates to its potential to get our economy going again. Far too many people are economically inactive because of ill health. That places a huge strain on our welfare budget, and if we are honest, we do not really have enough data on what is driving it. I am worried that the Labour Government think that it is because we have suddenly become a nation of shirkers. There was tough talk yesterday of carrying over the Tory plan to get more punitive on work capability assessments. Chasing down benefit cheats might go down well with some newspapers, but that kind of demonisation of the sick is both shameful and ineffective. Let me point to just one example. My dad, a proud scaffolder for most of his life, has worked his socks off from Monday to Saturday every week, but he is now in his late 50s, and that kind of work is not easy. He started having trouble walking and has had to stop work, and it took months to get a diagnosis. When he finally found out that he had a hip problem, the NHS basically told him to come back in a year, because it could not treat him until then. He asked what he was supposed to do about work, and was told that he would have to sign off sick. Do Members think that my dad enjoys doing that? He hates it; he is a proud working man being denied the opportunity to work. If the NHS could fix him today, he would be back in work tomorrow. Here is my big bet: there are far more people like my dad than there are the benefit cheats that Labour focused on yesterday. So let us have some compassion and focus on what will really get people back into work. Before I bring my remarks to a close, I will touch on two big elements that I plan to take up further on the Treasury Committee. The first is tax. I want the country to start a more honest conversation about tax. I know what some Labour Members will be thinking, but the Liberal Democrats set out in our manifesto £27 billion-worth of tax and spend proposals, because we knew that public services desperately needed the cash injection. The Labour manifesto proposed only £5 billion in tax rises, but yesterday we were presented with an increase of £40 billion. I am willing to accept that a black hole was left behind, but those numbers do not add up. The Conservatives proposed tax cuts in their manifesto, and at the previous Budget, but it turns out that they were not based on realistic figures either. Tax is always something to be “hit by” in politics—always deemed a punishment instead of a contribution. It leaves in tatters the debate about what a fair distribution of tax is, and trust in politics plummets as a result. We all need to do much better. My other point is about growth. We have had months of hearing this Budget being pitched as one of growth, yet the OBR thinks that its effect will be broadly flat—at least over the forecast period. The conversation around how to achieve growth must get much more serious. Growth in GDP—a very specific measure—should not be the sole way in which we evaluate the country’s success, and someone who believes that it should must at least recognise that growth has not only a rate, but a direction, and it up to us, in this place, to set that direction. Finally, I was advised recently that the key way to critique the Budget is to look out for the big numbers in the Red Book that the Chancellor did not mention. Well, I will save that, but I will highlight a small number that the Chancellor did not mention: £40 million to trial a kinship care allowance. I moved into the care of my grandparents as a teenager, and they would have been immensely grateful for that support, so I welcome the trial and hope that it is a roaring success.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Chinese Communist Party: Threat to Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  Thousands of Hongkongers have made my local community their home under the British national overseas visa scheme, but too many of them still face the threat of surveillance, harassment, and intimidation by the Chinese state. Will the Government confirm that they have raised the issue of transnational repression in conversations with the Chinese Government, and made clear that it is a totally unacceptable interference in British democracy?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Chinese Communist Party: Threat to Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  10. What recent assessment he has made of the level of threat to UK democracy posed by the Chinese Communist party.

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

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this debate. I associate myself with his comments about how the previous Government should be congratulated on honouring the BNO scheme in the first place. My borough of Sutton is home to more than 5,000 people on the BNO scheme. I represent the eastern half of the borough in Carshalton and Wallington, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) will talk about the west side in Sutton and Cheam later. We have had lots of constituents coming to us to share their concerns, some of which have been aired already. The one that came up most on the doorstep and in the events that I hosted was about access to jobs, and qualifications not being recognised. More specifically, in our area it was about social work. There seem to be quite a lot of Hongkonger social workers in my area. Their qualifications were not being recognised because they had not had the required conversion courses or because an unco-operative Hong Kong Government were holding back proof of their careers and qualifications. I am also a local councillor and I was aware that Sutton council desperately needed social workers, so I reached out to my local council and asked whether there was anything we could do. I am pleased to say that next month we will be launching an innovative internship programme where we have linked up with a local university, Kingston University, which has been providing formal study for Hong Kong social workers that we have identified. They will also get the opportunity to get some in-the-field experience with social workers who are already employed by Sutton council. We hope that that will result in the necessary recognition of their qualifications by Social Work England. I am sure that that problem is widespread across the UK and perhaps in other professions, too. I know that there are some debates about what constitutes formal study, but I would really like to work with the Minister to see whether we can find a way of scaling up this kind of initiative across the country so that we can get a lot more of these qualified Hongkongers recognised and into the work that they are skilled at. I have a statistic that I want to share. Somebody told me that up to 98% of the Hongkongers that have arrived in recent years have a degree. They have the skills and we need those skills, so let us make sure that they can put them to good use. My next point around university admissions has already been raised a couple of times. It has been a frequent complaint that despite the fact that all the arrivals are extremely well qualified academically, as demonstrated by the figure that I just mentioned, they are worried about their children not being able to access the same level of education because of the scale of fees that international students face. They tell me that they have British national status, but that it does not feel that way when applying for university, so that is something we need to fix. Finally, the point about security has been well made already. It is critical that Hongkongers feel safe in the United Kingdom. We all know why they fled, but they are still living in fear of surveillance and persecution here. I have mentioned the Hong Kong Government holding back qualifications so that Hongkongers cannot get the work that they need here, and there is evidence of other records that they need access to being destroyed. They have been holding on to criminal records for things that we should not recognise in this country, such as taking part in protests. Pension entitlements, which I think have already been mentioned, are also being held back. Closer to home, for a long time there were widespread reports of some sort of secret Chinese police station operating out of Croydon, around the corner from me. I have to put it on record that the Met found no evidence out of that, but that demonstrates the fear among the Hong Kong community. We have also heard repeated concerns about Confucius institutes at universities, which have called for lecturers and others to be sacked and intimidated Hongkongers so that they feel they need to be silent. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) mentioned cyber-harassment. My borough council experienced that when an event we put on to welcome Hongkongers was subject to a series of threatening posts telling people that they should not attend and making up all sorts of reasons why it should not go ahead. As a local MP, I will always stand up for my constituents’ rights. As a country, we have a duty to ensure that all our citizens feel this is a democratic, free country, full of opportunity for them. I hope we can deliver that for Hongkongers.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Carer’s Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  Colleagues have outlined the scale of the crisis, so I shall focus on a story of one of my constituents in Carshalton and Wallington. She was told that she had to repay more than £2,300 in carer’s allowance over- payments. This constituent already makes huge sacrifices to keep her family afloat, while caring for her disabled son. She gave up her full-time job to take on caring responsibilities and has limited her part-time hours to ensure that she remains qualified for carer’s allowance. It made me so angry to hear how meticulously she tried to manage her pay cheques each month, only to have it thrown in her face. She turned down pay rises, turned down overtime and turned down Christmas bonuses to ensure that she stayed under the limit. Her employers agreed to keep her on an advance rota to help her plan her earnings. Despite her diligence, she received no notice, no warnings and no forgiveness when one day the payments stopped and the bill came in for over two grand. Here is the bit that really gets me. The repayment demand that she received is for the entire entitlement for each occasion when she earned too much. That means that the smallest indiscretions come with the heaviest of consequences. In one month, it was because she earned £28 too much. In another, it was £20. It gets worse: one November, she was £8 over the limit—not even an hour’s work in London. Finally, and most depressingly, she once dared to earn £2 too much. She owes the whole of the allowance back for each of those periods, and then a £50 fine to boot from the Department for Work and Pensions. This is nothing short of a national scandal, and the DWP should be ashamed of itself. Today, the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to right this wrong, to stop pursuing hard-working carers for these innocent overpayments, and then to fix the system that let this scandal emerge in the first place. We need to taper the allowance, raise the earning limits and treat carers with the compassion they deserve. I am conscious of time, so finally, I welcome and am encouraged by the Minister’s comments about the review. However, for it to be successful, carers need to play a big part and have full input. We also need to make sure that carers now in debt distress get some immediate reassurances and support and do not have to wait until the end of the review.

• 10 Oct 2024 · Sport: Team GB and ParalympicsGB · Hansard source

  More

  I have enjoyed this debate, the maiden speeches and hearing about all the local successes that added up to our national success at this year’s Olympic and Paralympic games. We might be a small island, but we punch above our weight. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons) talked about the Paralympic coverage on Channel 4, which was fantastic, but others have mentioned how sport is increasingly going behind paywalls, which will limit people’s opportunity to be inspired. We need to make sure that the crown jewels of British sport, both domestic and international competitions, remain free to air as much as possible, even if only for a single fixture each season or the biggest fixture in that sport. We need to make sure that all sports are available on free-to-air, and we need to make sure that we do not push too many behind paywalls. Grassroots investment is important to making sport, in all of its diversity, available and inclusive for all potential players. I am lucky enough to still play football on Saturdays. At the age of 34, I can find a standard that fits me, but others are not able to find a suitable standard. My wife is looking to play football but she does not have many options; she would have to play at highly competitive level or not at all. Inclusivity in women’s football does not seem to be happening in the right way at the moment. There have been concerns about access to different sports by people from different backgrounds. There has been a worrying trend towards people from privileged backgrounds, who may have been educated at private schools, ending up as our elite athletes. Quite a high proportion of our competitors this year were from such backgrounds. We need to ensure a diversity of people, from all walks of life, get into sport so that everybody has the opportunity to make it at an elite level. Finally, I pay tribute to an athlete who has done more for disability sports than most: I congratulate six-time paralympic gold medallist and constituency local hero David Weir on his inspiring career. I wish him a very happy retirement from international sport, as his last race was at the Paris games. David’s journey began in Wallington—more precisely, on the Roundshaw estate, in my area—and he first represented Sutton in wheelchair athletics at the London youth games. His talent quickly became evident as he won the junior event at the prestigious London marathon. David’s path has not always been easy. At his first Paralympics in Atlanta in 1996, he remembers feeling disheartened by the meagre turnout of spectators for his sport, only being able to spot five or so people in the crowd that day. In 2002, David won his first London marathon. He reflected on that moment, sharing that he had no sponsorship deals or media coverage, and was left feeling overlooked and undervalued. Fast forward to the London 2012 Paralympics. As he did his victory gold medal lap around the track, he looked up at a roaring stadium full of thousands of supporters, highlighting not only his personal journey but the evolving landscape of disability sports. Despite these achievements, David has been candid about the challenges that still exist. He continues to advocate for greater visibility and support for Paralympic athletes, noting that the gap between the perception of the Paralympics and the Olympics remains significant. In the community of Carshalton and Wallington, we are taking important steps. The David Weir leisure centre in St Helier offers inclusive cycling lessons for individuals of all abilities, fostering an environment where everyone can participate. Sutton and Epsom rugby club is to host an international visually impaired rugby tournament on the weekend of 23 November. However, we cannot ignore the broader challenges that remain. Data from the Activity Alliance reveals that disabled adults are twice as likely to be physically inactive, compared with their non-disabled peers. Statistics show that many disabled individuals face barriers to spectating sports because of inaccessible venues and prevailing attitudes. That data shows we must ensure the legacy of Team GB includes a commitment to encouraging investment and support for disability sports. It is vital that we ensure everyone, regardless of ability, has the opportunity to engage in sports and physical activity. I know that David will continue to be a champion for this cause and I hope I can support the expansion of disability sports in my own small way in this House.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Impact of Energy Costs on Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  In my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington, Scope research estimates that disabled households face bills of up to £1,500 a month more than the average household. We also know that disabled households are much less likely to claim the benefits that they are entitled to. Has the Government Equalities Office made any assessment of the potential disproportion-ate impact on disabled households of cutting the winter fuel allowance?

• 9 Oct 2024 · Impact of Energy Costs on Disabled People · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on the potential impact of the cost of energy on disabled people.

• 9 Oct 2024 · Maternity Services: Gloucestershire · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) for introducing this debate. The experiences that he and others have shared about maternity services in Gloucestershire are similar to those in my constituency. In Carshalton and Wallington, the Epsom and St Helier trust has an overall good rating from CQC. However, its maternity services have recently been downgraded to requires improvement, and, more worryingly, the safety element of those services was downgraded from good to inadequate following the inspection. A critical reason for the downgrade was the state of the building, which makes it hard for staff to perform their jobs efficiently and for patients to have the comfort of quality services. Some examples highlighted in the report were that the bereavement room was not soundproofed, the ensuite facilities had a shower curtain instead of a door, and, at the time of inspection, the two operating theatres opened directly on to the delivery suite corridor and were not secured, allowing anybody using the service to gain access to potential deliveries and surgeries. A hospital that is crumbling, where three quarters of the building is not up to standard and where infection control is tricky because of the cramped conditions, risks tragic consequences for maternity care. It is an exhausting atmosphere for staff to work in and has led to low morale. What we need is urgent investment in the hospital’s infrastructure. A new building was promised by the previous Conservative Government, but so far it has turned out to be unfunded and we are waiting to see what happens with the forthcoming review. I am due to meet the Health Secretary in the next couple of weeks, and I will make it clear that it is essential to deliver a new building for both A&E and maternity services. Preferably that site will be at St Helier, which serves a densely populated area with greater deprivation levels and higher health inequalities, which are particularly pertinent to maternity care. The building is not the only issue; the phoneline is also an issue. I have noted other hon. Members’ remarks, and as one Member mentioned, having the ability to pick up the phone and speak to somebody to get simple advice after a baby is born is critical, and that is not functioning properly in our hospital either. Another point I wish to make, on staff retention and recruitment levels, has been well made already. Our staff, too, are hard-working, dedicated and doing their best, but they are under immense pressure, which is leaving them feeling burnt out and fatigued. The bottom line is that there are simply not enough staff members to go around. The CQC report for the St Helier trust highlighted a shortage of midwifery staff with the necessary qualifications in lots of critical areas, and it further noted that not all staff had completed all the mandatory training. We have spoken to the chief executive officer of the trust about that, and he explained that it is not because staff are unaware of the problem, but because they are simply so stretched that getting them through those courses while trying to maintain a minimum level of care for people coming through the hospital has proved impossible. Childbirth, of course, waits for no one, and in that high pressure, life and death situation, it is a matter of working with the available staff or having no staff at all. If we can get the recruitment and training of midwives right, we can go a long way towards solving the conundrum. The consequences of understaffed and underfunded maternity care are dire. In recent years, there has been a stark increase in maternal mortality, rising from around eight deaths per 100,000 to over 13 per 100,000. Women from lower socioeconomic and ethnic minority backgrounds are disproportionately affected, being twice and three times more likely to experience maternal mortality, respectively. Those last statistics are particularly harrowing in constituencies such as mine. It is an urban constituency, and we have a higher than average number of women from both ethnic minority backgrounds and more deprived areas. Improving maternity care must be a key priority for this new Government as they seek to address the overall crisis in our healthcare system. Giving birth has been one of the most dangerous medical procedures for women throughout history and nobody wants to give birth in a crumbling and potentially unsafe hospital where there are not enough qualified staff to help them. If the Government are serious about improving women’s equality and closing the gender healthcare gap, the UK’s serious decline in maternity care needs to be addressed. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the UK Government to ensure that the commitments made in the NHS workforce plan are backed by adequate funding and include the expansion of the wider maternity and neonatal workforce. In the meantime, I will continue to fight for the upgrade in maternity services that my area so desperately needs.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  We have spoken a lot about the take-up of pension credit in this debate already, but it is important to say that 800,000 pensioners—I think that is what the Minister said—are still not taking it up. Those people will, by definition, be harder to reach and the most vulnerable. I do not understand how the Government can, in good conscience, take away this guaranteed benefit at a time where there is no certainty whatsoever about their being able to get the other people signed up to pension credit in time.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Rehabilitation of Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  2. What steps she is taking to support the rehabilitation of offenders.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Rehabilitation of Offenders · Hansard source

  More

  My point speaks to what the Minister just said. The lack of prison capacity means that some people are locked up in their cells for 22 or 23 hours a day, and many prisons are ranked insufficient or poor for delivering purposeful activities such as education and training. How does the Minister plan to address that while we still have a bulging prison population? How will he increase the provision of those purposeful activities?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Medicines · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to a hear consensus building across the House on naloxone because, as we have heard from other Members, it is a lifesaver. Since its roll-out in the UK, that highly effective antidote to opioid intoxication has doubtlessly saved hundreds of lives and prevented many more harmful overdoses, as organisations working in my community have known for some time. On the day that my local branch of Cranstoun—the harm reduction charity—received its first supply of naloxone, staff members noticed that someone was overdosing in the reception area. They were still unpacking the pallet, but they were able to get access to the medicine, administer it, bring the person back around, and then help them further. Within an hour after that vital medication was received, it potentially saved a life in my borough. The local staff describe naloxone as a game changer. That is why I and the Liberal Democrats welcome this motion to expand access to that vital treatment. Naloxone is not a difficult drug to administer: just 30 minutes of training can be enough to equip somebody to treat a person in need. Naloxone is also low-risk. The person administering it does not need to know for sure what drug someone is on: if they have taken an opioid, Naloxone will help; if they have taken something else, it will likely do no harm. The combination of it being easy and safe to use, along with its life-saving potential, means that, as long as the correct training is given, it is common sense to get naloxone into as many hands as possible. That is particularly true given the frightening rise of the use of synthetic opioids, such as nitazenes, in our country. Most people are aware of the dangers of one particular opioid—heroin—but the crackdown on supply in Afghanistan means that a new synthetic alternative is rapidly taking its place in the market. Nitazenes are estimated to be anywhere between 30 and 500 times as potent as heroin. That is scary. If we do not act fast, we could be dealing with a national emergency comparable to the fentanyl crisis sweeping across the United States. Although I welcome the measures, this urgency means that I must encourage the Government to think quickly about going further. The expanded roll-out of naloxone to police, prison, probation and youth justice services is welcome, but I ask the Minister to monitor the success of that expansion closely, to listen to the organisations on the ground, and to keep under review whether it is practical and desirable to expand access even further. For instance, some charities have called for taxi drivers and nightclub door staff to be able to access if they want it. That would have to go alongside the appropriate training, so that they can recognise the effects wearing off in 30 minutes. If that training is in place, we should expand access further still. If we build the evidence base, we can be led by it and ensure that harm reduction measures reach as many people as possible. Going further also means taking a whole-system approach to drugs policy—from appropriate sentencing to investment in addiction services and other specialist support for users. We have tried the tough talk and the war-on-drugs route in this country, but they have left us with one of Europe’s worst drug-related death rates. If we transferred the departmental lead on drugs policy from the Home Office to the Department of Health and Social Care, it would go a long way towards our recognising that our drugs policy should ultimately be driven by the desire to reduce harm and save lives. The Liberal Democrats support this measure to improve access to naloxone, and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward.

• 30 Jul 2024 · Budget Responsibility Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on that heartfelt speech. It was gracious of him to say that his was not the most beautiful of constituencies, but I think he is at least in the top 600 and possibly even higher after one or two whiskies. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) on his maiden speech. The points he made about engaging with the public and making sure that we restore trust in this place are really important. I am not going to speak about Scotland in my maiden speech. I am going to start by talking about where I came from. My parents are in the Gallery and I promised to stay grounded, so this is the place I want to start. I grew up on a council estate as the eldest of three boys. My dad worked long hours as a scaffolder and my mum worked two jobs, one in Burton’s by day and one as a cleaner at night. Things were not always easy, and times got so tough at one point that, as a young teenager, I moved into the care of my grandparents. I have found out in recent years that this is called kinship care. It is a pretty formal-sounding name, but it is basically where family agree to take on family. I am very grateful to my Nan and Pops for helping me back on to the right path, and I know that they would have been very proud of me if they had got to see this day. Of course, it was not just family that got me here. I have had encouraging teachers, supportive friends, guiding therapists, a campaigning wife and a totally unreasonable bunch of people called activists who volunteer a silly amount of time to the cause. To all those that have been involved in my messy pathway to now, and especially to the people of Carshalton and Wallington who have put their faith in me: thank you. I am utterly humbled to be here and I do not take this responsibility lightly. I had planned on describing my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington as a hidden gem, but since I started in this place a few weeks ago, I have kept bumping into staff that live there, so it is clearly a popular place. For those that do not know, Carshalton and Wallington is on the south London border with Surrey—or in Surrey, depending on who you speak to. I describe it as hidden because, despite being a London borough, you will not find us on the tube map. There are no London underground or London overground services in our borough, and this is an issue that I will return to at a later date. But my constituency is a gem. I am not going to say it is the most beautiful, but it is pretty beautiful. It has beautiful ponds and many award-winning parks, and we have the historic River Wandle and so many good pubs that it is really difficult to avoid them at the weekends. I would like to take this moment to recognise my predecessor, Elliot Colburn. This House will remember when he bravely spoke out about his own struggles with mental health. I have great respect for his willingness and openness to share his story, and I am certain that his bravery will give courage to others to speak up and seek help, too. I would also like to put on record my recognition of another predecessor, Tom Brake, who served my community of Carshalton and Wallington for over 22 years. He is a true local champion, and he is still spoken about fondly on the doorstep. The House will probably be aware of his tireless campaigning for St Helier hospital, and I plan to take up that issue at a later date, too. There is much more I would like to share about my constituency over time but, unlike the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire, I will not take up that time now because I am keen to get involved in today’s debate as well. I want to start by joining my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) in welcoming the thrust of the Government’s proposals to give more powers to the Office for Budget Responsibility to scrutinise major fiscal announcements. The inappropriately named mini-Budget sent shockwaves across the country, with mortgages soaring, pensions on the brink of collapse and market confidence damaged so badly that I feel we will be dealing with the trust issues caused by that disruption for quite some time. Yet the state of our country’s finances is not just down to one fiscal event. The populism that infected everything that the last Government did was laid bare by the Chancellor yesterday, and I am so angry about the mess that has been left behind. It is always the most vulnerable that suffer the most when the Government gets things so drastically wrong, and we must never let such reckless gambles be taken with our country’s finances ever again. While I am optimistic that the fiscal lock will provide the public and markets with some reassurance on this, I do hope that the Government do not feel locked into one particular model of fiscal management. The key lesson to take from the disastrous mini-Budget should be not that there is only one way to run the economy, but that, whatever choices the Government make, they should be informed by good information and stand up to rigorous analysis. It will be my intention from these Benches to encourage the Government to take seriously the calls from many respected economists to ensure that fiscal responsibility goes hand in hand with maximising the growth potential of the country over the long term. This is particularly relevant to major capital investments such as the rebuilding of St Helier hospital in my constituency. Our local NHS trust faces huge costs every year trying to maintain an unfit building. We must not forget that there is a cost to not investing, too. When talking about growth, let us remember that it has not only a rate but a direction, and that necessarily involves political choices and cannot be left to expert analysis alone. While the OBR can rightly describe what actions will increase growth and by how much, we in this House still have a crucial role to play in selecting what actions will meet all of society’s goals. A purpose-driven industrial strategy, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, will ensure that we deliver the right sort of growth, not least in relation to green industries. The Chancellor is right to reiterate that the Government should not commit to any unfunded spending pledges, but there are many ways to fund the investment we so desperately need in our public services, and we do not have to increase tax on ordinary workers to do so. If the Chancellor is stuck for ideas, I would invite her to have a read of the Liberal Democrat manifesto, which includes ideas such as raising capital gains tax and reversing the Tories’ cuts for banks. There are fairer ways of raising the revenue we need, and we should look at them seriously. It is at this point that I look back up to the Gallery, and I have some regret that my maiden speech was on the intricacies of fiscal responsibility. If Members would indulge me for a moment, before I close, I would like to make a brief translation by putting my points into footballing terms—Dad, this is mainly for you. The former manager played six up front and got hammered, but that does not mean that the new manager has to revert to a defensive five at the back. There are many different styles of play out there, and I think some will have bigger rewards. So let us get the balance right and get our country winning again.