Bobby Dean MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member give way?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I cannot proceed with my speech without putting on record my admiration for the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Dr Tidball). She made a courageous and passionate speech, and I hope that all Members listened to it very carefully. Let me start on a personal note. My dad is currently receiving PIP. He has been a proud scaffolder throughout his life, and Members should trust me when I say that he is not happy to be sitting at home. He would much rather be contributing to society, but his hips are giving up on him, and the NHS waiting lists are so long that he has been told he has no choice but to stay at home. Home life is difficult. He does not score four points on any particular measure, but he cannot move around as he used to, and he needs support to manage the basics. PIP does not solve everything, but it gives him dignity and independence, helping him to live his life while he waits for treatment. Cutting his entitlement will not incentivise him back into work. He needs no incentive. He just needs treatment. Following the Government’s recent announcement, I understand that my dad will no longer lose out, but the next person like him will. The Secretary of State talked earlier about a better tomorrow, but her proposals mean discounting the value of tomorrow’s disabled, suggesting they are less worthy of support than today’s. It is for that reason that I still cannot support the Bill. Let me be clear. I agree that the welfare bill is too high, but we have to look at why that is. It is not because we have suddenly become a workshy nation, but because we have become less well. If the Government were serious about reducing the welfare bill, they would focus solely on fixing the root causes: chronic ill health, a broken social care system, and a mental health crisis among young people. While the Bill does good things—and I am sure that the reviews to come will propose more good things—to address the reasons for people being out of work, that is not its primary driver. The motivation for it was made clear in its timing, just before the Chancellor’s spring statement, with the core savings resulting not from helping people back into work but from tightening the eligibility criteria for a disability benefit. The Bill also removes carer’s allowance from thousands of unpaid carers—people who provide tireless, often invisible care that props up our NHS and social care system. Taking away their support is not just unjust, but economically reckless. Let us be honest about the consequences. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the Bill will push hundreds of thousands of people into poverty by 2029. How can anyone in this place look at that figure and truly believe that the Government are making these reforms to help people rather than to balance the books? I appreciate that some will feel that the new deal struck over the weekend is a fair compromise, and in political theory it may be, but in practice it remains unsupported by disability groups and unsupported by the public. The majority in the country see the Bill for what it is: an unfair cost-cutting exercise. This is not reform; it is retreat—a retreat from compassion, from evidence and from the values that should underpin our welfare state. I believe that there is a better way, a fairer way, one that supports people into work by investing in health and care rather than punishing them for being ill, one that helps disabled people to live independently rather than stripping them of the support that they need to survive, one that values carers rather than treating them as an afterthought, and one that does not create an arbitrary division between today’s disabled and tomorrow’s. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment tabled by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and vote against Second Reading. We believe that reform must be fair, sustainable, and rooted in dignity. My dad wants to work. He is not looking for a handout. He wants to be well again. I believe that there are many more like him, and that this Bill will make their futures worse. I urge Members to think carefully about the legacy of tonight’s vote. I say, “Vote for compassion, vote for fairness, and vote against the Bill.”

• 1 Jul 2025 · High Net Worth Individuals · Hansard source

  More

  2. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the data her Department holds on high net worth individuals.

• 1 Jul 2025 · High Net Worth Individuals · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will no doubt be aware of reports of the so-called exodus of millionaires. Those reports are from “high profile individuals” and city spokespeople, but there are rarely hard numbers behind them. Are Treasury Ministers able to verify the Tax Justice Network’s research that says that just 0.3% of millionaires have exited the UK and that that number has remained low and stable over the past decade, and will they publish their own figures as well?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Leader of the House in congratulating the Deputy Speakers on their birthdays, and in celebrating our armed forces. Earlier this year, when the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced the welfare reforms, her argument to this House was that they were all about getting people back into work. That argument was undermined somewhat by the timing; in the spring statement the following week, we discovered that the £5 billion saving we achieve from the welfare reforms makes up fully half of the fiscal headroom that the Chancellor is relying on. When we take a closer look at the reforms, we find that most of the savings are generated by changes to the eligibility criteria for the personal independence payment. Entitlement to PIP is given to those in work, those out of work and those unable to work. It follows that many of those who stand to lose out as a result of the reforms will not be incentivised into work, because they will already be in work, or will be unable to join the workforce any time soon. No wonder, then, that when the Bill was published last week, there was condemnation from all sides of the House. If the books need to be balanced, we need to make sure that they are not balanced on the backs of the disabled. The Leader of the House will be well aware of all the rumours circulating around this place that the Government are preparing to make concessions on the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill. What is the procedure for doing that? We understand that a reasoned amendment, if one is tabled, would kill the Bill off entirely. What are the options for the Government to make concessions? Will they have to withdraw the Bill and re-present it, or is there some other mechanism by which they can make compromises with their Back Benchers before next week?

• 18 Jun 2025 · Political Prisoners · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Western. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) on bringing forward this debate on behalf of not only her constituent, but everybody who cares about freedom and democracy across the world. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about British nationals being detained abroad without due process or fair legal justification. That is not just a matter of foreign policy, but one of principle, human rights and our duty to protect British citizens wherever they may be. Jimmy Lai is a British citizen. He is a courageous journalist, a businessman and a tireless advocate for democracy in Hong Kong. Since 2020, he has been unjustly imprisoned by the Chinese authorities. Jimmy Lai is also a father, and his son has continued his good work with the same courage. I had the privilege of meeting Jimmy’s son Sebastien and hearing at first hand the story of his father’s resistance to being silenced. Sebastien spoke movingly about the family’s ordeal following his father’s imprisonment, and of his father’s unwavering commitment to the values of freedom and democracy. It was a powerful reminder that behind every political prisoner is a resilient family enduring unimaginable emotional pain. For nearly two years, Mr Lai has endured solitary confinement, but his crime is nothing more than speaking up for the freedom and democracy we all believe in. This man has risked everything for the values we hold dear, yet the UK Government have failed to secure his release for the last five years. Can the Minister update the House on the detail and nature of the conversations he has had with his Chinese counterparts? On the point made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca), we are worried that they may have part of “by the way” diplomacy and that the issue has not been raised in enough serious detail. The read-outs from the high-profile visits have not really told us anything, so I would appreciate it if the Minister told us more. I also question the merits of high-profile visits when so little progress has been made on key diplomatic issues such as this one and on the transnational repression happening on our shores. Can the Minister tell us when the long-promised China audit be published, and will he intervene on the plans for a Chinese super-embassy in our capital? Jimmy Lai deserves to be at the top of our diplomatic engagement with China, but he is not alone. We are also deeply concerned about the continued detention of Jagtar Singh Johal in India. Arrested in 2017, Mr Johal has reportedly been tortured and held without due process. A UN working group has declared his detention arbitrary and called for his immediate release, yet the UK Government have still refused to take a clear position. That must change. In Egypt, British citizen Alaa Abd el-Fattah remains in prison for the simple act of sharing a Facebook post. He has endured hunger strikes, inhumane conditions and the heartbreak of a family fighting for justice. His mother Laila has been hospitalised in protest, and we must do more. These are not isolated incidents, but part of a disturbing pattern in which British nationals are detained abroad without fair trial, without consular access and with the Government’s diplomatic efforts falling on deaf ears. I believe that says something about Britain’s new standing in the world. After pulling back on multiple fronts, the Government must act now to restore our global role. The Foreign Office claims to support 20,000 to 25,000 British nationals abroad each year, including thousands who are detained, but too often that support is discretionary, inconsistent and opaque. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a legal right to consular assistance for all British nationals, including dual nationals, who are politically detained or face human rights violations abroad. We also support the appointment of a dedicated envoy for hostages and detainees, although that must not come at the expense of ministerial accountability. Britain should never abandon its own people for the sake of tiny diplomatic gains. Nations such as China and others are not weighing up whether we have been polite about them when drawing conclusions on large economic trade deals; they are calculating the cold hard facts. It is our duty not to be silent in the face of injustice, and I believe that doing so also signals our strength. We should not rest until Jimmy Lai and all others unjustly detained are free.

• 11 Jun 2025 · Spending Review 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, during the mayoral election, Sadiq Khan claimed that a Labour mayor working with a Labour Government would be a game changer for the city, but just now he has released a statement criticising the spending review for underfunding the Met police, failing to invest in our transport infrastructure, and potentially making the housing crisis in our capital worse. Was Sadiq Khan wrong to put his trust in this Labour Government?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Planning and Infrastructure Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has made some excellent points about the need to set a target for social homes. I believe that the destruction of council house stock is one of the most regressive actions that the country has ever taken, and that we need to replenish that stock as a matter of urgency. However, I fear that 90,000 a year is not enough. Does she agree that we need to aim for 150,000?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Disadvantaged Communities · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend talked about communities being overlooked because they are contained within wealthier communities. My constituency is in the outer London borough of Sutton, which, by London standards, is on the wealthier end. We have two distinct communities in St Helier and Roundshaw, and those estates absolutely need more support, but they consistently get overlooked because of the way that local government funding works. First, it is on a borough-wide basis, so when the deprivation scores are added up, they are not entitled to much. Secondly, the indices used are extremely outdated and fail to take account of the true cost of housing. Housing prices in London and the south-east have skyrocketed over the last 10 years, and the indices do not take that into account, which means the average Londoner is now worse off than the average person in many other regions of the country, once we take housing costs into account. Does my hon. Friend agree that whatever reforms we make to better target resources at disadvantaged communities, we must ensure that local government funding formulas take housing costs properly into account?

• 14 May 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q15. The plans to upgrade St Helier hospital, including the delivery of a new specialist emergency care building, have been put back by 10 years. I am talking to the trust about a way to bring all or part of those plans forward, but in the meantime there is a very real fear that some of the buildings on the existing estate are at risk of catastrophic failure before the decade is out. Will the Government reassure me that they will work with the local trust on a plan to maintain and adapt the existing estate to ensure that St Helier hospital can survive all the way through to the completion of the major works?

• 13 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. Nearly every single child is at risk of famine in Gaza as the Israeli Government use starvation as a weapon of war. We have heard from Ministers today about the action that the Government have taken so far, but there are still some actions that they have not taken, including the recognition of Palestine as a state, individual sanction and a total suspension of arms to Israel. If now is not the time to take those actions, when will that be?

• 30 Apr 2025 · Licences and Licensing · Hansard source

  More

  I speak on behalf of my party when I say that we join everybody in supporting this order, which will provide communities the opportunity to celebrate in many different ways across the country. Whether it be street parties, private gatherings or, indeed, going down the pub, people will want to mark the occasion in their own way and ultimately honour those who gave such sacrifices towards for our country. They fought for our democracy, our freedom and our way of life 80 years ago, and that should never be forgotten. Of course, the order will also provide a boost to our local hospitality industry. We have many great pubs in Carshalton and Wallington, and I am going to try to name them all, if I can. We have the Butterchurn, the Railway Tavern, the Hope, the Sun, the Racehorse, the Greyhound and the Windsor Castle. We have the Coach and Horses, the Woodman, and the Cryer Arts. We have the Duke’s Head, the Whispering Moon, the Star, and the Harvest Home—I am a hostage to fortune here, I know. We also have the Dog House and the Plough, and we have the Jack & Jill, which is occasionally closed, but we are hoping to keep it open permanently. I will not say I am going to go to all those pubs on VE day, but I do try to go to many of them as often as I can. Finally, I would just like to say a personal thanks because of something else that is happening that day. I am sure the Prime Minister will be particularly pleased to know that Tottenham are playing in Europe that night, and that if we win—if we get victory in Europe of our own—then we will be through to the Europa league final. I am sure many Spurs fans will appreciate the opportunity to stay out a little bit longer that evening, too, so I want to thank the Government for introducing this order. It is utterly appropriate to mark the occasion—it is in the national interest, and it is in my personal interest, too. Question put and agreed to .

• 3 Apr 2025 · UK Democracy: Impact of Digital Platforms · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sorcha Eastwood) for an excellent opening speech. It almost made me feel like putting down my own speech, because I thought there was nothing more I could contribute. I thank her so much for that introduction. It is worth saying that the people who will be speaking in this debate are probably not fearful of technology itself. I consider myself a digital native: I grew up with MSM and Myspace, and I enjoy the connectivity that social media brings to us all. It has transformed our society in ways that are for the good, but without a doubt we do have a problem: we have a big problem with content, we have a big problem with addiction, and, as the hon. Lady articulated so clearly, we have a problem with power. I will begin with content. There has been a huge rise in the level of hate, misogyny, violence and pornography we are seeing on our social media feeds. I am certain that I am not imagining that. I am sure that the stuff that pops up on my “For you” feed on X was not there a few years ago, prior to Musk’s ownership. The sorts of things that have been pushed towards me as a youngish man are an absolute disgrace. A few months ago, there was a knife crime incident in my community, just yards away from my office. The footage of it circulated online within minutes. Again, I am sure I am not kidding myself that a handful of years ago that piece of content would eventually have been taken down. Today, Meta-Facebook has shown no interest in taking that down. That shocking footage is still circulating around my community, and shame on them for that. That sort of content rises to the top of algorithms because it is emotionally charged: it disgusts, it enrages and it sparks fear. That works for social media companies, because that is how they generate their profit. When we apply that kind of emotionally charged content to news, it is no longer judged by its veracity or the insight it provides, but by its ability to provoke, with the result that misinformation travels much more quickly than the truth. On addiction, we have to understand that this form of emotional engagement is new. There are people out there who say that we have always had emotionally engaging content via TV, radio and newspapers, but the type that happens on these platforms is genuinely new because it is addictive by design. Once upon a time, the brightest minds in the world all wanted to work in law and medicine. Now many of them are working for big tech companies, trying to work out the circuitry of our brains to keep us addicted to their platforms. They do that because we do not pay for those platforms, but we do pay for them with our attention. The more we look at their platforms, the more ad revenue they generate. That is new, and we need new regulation to address it. The second, interrelated element of addiction is the way it interacts with algorithms. We funnel people down echo chambers and reduce their exposure to the other person’s view. Ultimately, that damages critical analysis and leads to the kind of polarisation that I believe we are seeing in our politics today. With unregulated content full of misinformation being supplied to people incessantly, as we remain addicted to our devices and stuck in bubbles, we think to ourselves, “Just imagine how dangerous this could be if the technology got into the wrong hands.” But, of course, it already has. As a liberal, I am always sceptical of concentrations of power, because we know how vulnerable it leaves society. We have somehow allowed big tech to make the argument to us and to Governments across the world that its oligopolistic power over this industry is justified—a natural order, somehow, and something we should make an exception for in our global economy. In doing so, we have allowed a handful of firms to dominate the digital world. They control huge amounts of our personal data, and now they control our discourse, too. As has been mentioned, the vast majority of 18 to 24-year-olds use social media as their primary news source. As each generation passes, the role of TV, newspapers and radio will only continue to diminish. I was at a careers fair at a local school the other day, and a young kid came up to me—he must have been about 13 years old. Almost immediately, he started talking to me about Donald Trump in a positive way. When I asked him where he was hearing all this stuff, he of course answered, “TikTok”. His mates all giggled, because they were all doing exactly the same thing. I do not think we are treating this with the seriousness that we need to. I will make just one more remark about the media environment. Lots of the more clickbaity outlets generate their revenue not by the quality of their content, but by how many people they manage to get on to their website. That is how they get ad revenue. Many of the more considered—and, perhaps, critical—publications are often behind a paywall. This situation is driving a lot of our public conversation at the moment, because of what media is available to people for free. If most people are getting their news from these digital platforms, we are left at the whim of those in charge of those platforms. Those people not only have control of their platforms to manipulate our discourse, but have huge amounts of personal wealth, and can, sadly, interfere with politics in a way that people have always been able to: through donations and the influence of their personal wealth. This is a double-edged sword for us. As we have seen, this kind of wealth and influence has had real-world impacts. Most recently, we have seen Elon Musk’s role in the US elections; if we think back a bit further, there was a kind of intransigence from Facebook over the dark ads that ran during the Brexit campaign, when nobody knew who was responsible for running those campaigns for some time. As was explained earlier, the organised pile-ons and everyday disruption attempt to silence politicians in their contributions to everyday debates. Over the past few years, it felt like we were starting to make some progress in society on this topic; we had the formulation and introduction of the Online Safety Act, and it felt like greater efforts were being made to check the power of social media giants. However, right now, it feels like we are about to go backwards again. In reaction to the election of President Trump, we saw Meta rolling back its moderation capabilities. In the UK, legislation such as the Online Safety Act and the Digital Services Act—some of the few tools we have in our toolbox to tackle these social media giants—are up for discussion as part of a wider trade negotiation with the US. We must fight hard to keep those tools in our toolbox and keep those protections, but we are kidding ourselves if we think those alone will be enough. A free press is a fundamental pillar of a liberal democracy, and these digital platforms are threatening it. As well as protecting the legislation we already have, this House needs to start talking about what further action we can take. Without it, all our places are under threat.

• 3 Apr 2025 · Adoption Breakdown · Hansard source

  More

  It is great to hear the Minister’s support for the fund, but this year it was allowed to expire before it was renewed. Can we have assurances that we will get much better notice next time about the renewal of the fund?

• 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.