Bobby Dean MP: speeches

4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026 · year in progress

How these years work

Our reporting years run from 4 July to 3 July, starting with the 2024 general election. They are not official parliamentary sessions. Office costs keep IPSA’s April–March financial years. Records may cover only part of a year; a missing record does not mean no work was done.

Read what this MP said, asked and contributed in Parliament.

2 published records · newest first.

Speeches

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

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

  • 1 Sept 2026 · UK Financial Services · Hansard source
    More

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

Explore activity by topic or department

Contributions by debate topic

4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained.

View as listCommunities and local government: 4Communities and local government4Defence and foreign affairs: 1Defence and foreign affairs1Democracy and constitution: 2Democracy and constitution2Economy and business: 8Economy and business8Education and skills: 2Education and skills2Environment and energy: 4Environment and energy4Health and care: 1Health and care1Housing and planning: 4Housing and planning4Social security and pensions: 2Social security and pensions2Transport: 1Transport1Unclassified: 4Unclassified4
What this shows and doesn't show
4 Jul 2026–16 Oct 2026. Existing keyword taxonomy applied to official debate titles and contributions; a contribution may appear in more than one topic and unclassified records are retained. Published records do not measure effort or effectiveness. Methodology.
Department or topicPublished records
Communities and local government4
Defence and foreign affairs1
Democracy and constitution2
Economy and business8
Education and skills2
Environment and energy4
Health and care1
Housing and planning4
Social security and pensions2
Transport1
Unclassified4

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →