Josh Dean MP: speeches

Speeches

• 8 Jun 2026 · Digital Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  The vast majority of Members in this place had the benefit of growing up in a world without social media, and with social media, but today’s young people have not had that benefit. They have grown up with their lives intimately intertwined with the digital world, and in lockdown they were pushed even deeper online without being given a say. Whatever we do next, we must bring young people with us. Beyond the consultation, what will the Department do to meaningfully engage with young people in this area of policy, so that we can build a digital world that is safe for young people with young people?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  I really welcome this Government’s investment in our young people’s futures, but almost half of NEET young people are disconnected from the benefit system and traditional support. I know from my experience of leaving school at 16 just how much of a difference youth workers and trusted adults can make in giving those hidden young people a bridge into support. Can the Secretary of State say a little more about the role that he sees trusted adults playing in supporting young people into work, and reflect on the work of the pilots and the youth trailblazer areas in looking at the co-location of youth services and employment support?

• 2 Feb 2026 · China and Japan · Hansard source

  More

  Last Thursday, I held a public meeting with the Hong Kong community in Bishop’s Stortford. We met to discuss the proposed changes to indefinite leave to remain, but there was real strength of feeling about the case of Jimmy Lai and democratic freedoms in Hong Kong, so I was very pleased to hear the Prime Minister raise the issue. Will he take this opportunity, for the benefit of my constituents, to set out the details of those discussions again? Will he also assure my constituents of this country’s commitment to those from Hong Kong who have made their home here, and reassure them that this Government will listen carefully to their views in the Home Office’s consultation on earned settlement?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Mental Health Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  In the interest of time, I will turn straight to new clause 25, tabled in my name. The Bill sets out a range of situations where the competence of a patient aged under 16 will be relevant, but it does not set out a framework for how it should be determined. That puts patients under 16 years old at a huge disadvantage. Unlike those aged 16 and over, there is no clear mechanism for determining whether a child under 16 can make decisions and the law assumes that under-16s cannot make decisions for themselves, unless they demonstrate they are able to do so. That means that under-16s may not benefit fully from the rights and safeguards set out in the Bill because they are assumed to lack competence to make the relevant decision. For example, they may not be able to exercise their right to choose a nominated person or to access enhanced safeguards around treatment. There is currently no statutory test for determining a child’s ability to make decisions. While some may refer to Gillick competence, the Joint Committee on the draft Mental Health Bill noted that Gillick competence is “broad”, “ambiguous” and that there were significant inconsistencies in its application. A similar observation was made by the Court of Appeal in a decision earlier this year, which also indicated the Court’s approval of a functional test to determine a child’s competence. New clause 25 addresses this disparity by introducing a “functional test” to determine an under-16’s ability to decide. This reflects the suggested approach in the current code of practice, adopted by some judges. The Law Commission has recommended a similar test as part of its proposed legal reform concerning disabled children’s social care. This test fills a significant gap in the Bill, providing important clarity for professionals when a child’s competence needs to be determined. Crucially, the test set out in new clause 25 is explicitly limited to decisions made under the reformed Mental Health Act. It does not cover decisions falling outside of the Act, so does not affect the existing decision-making powers of the courts or those with parental responsibility. A clear and consistent approach to assessing a child’s competence can only be achieved by including a test on the face of the Bill, as the code of practice can only reflect the law—it cannot prescribe a test for competence. I would be grateful if the Minister addressed that point at the end of this debate, and if he would consider meeting me to discuss my amendment in more detail. This Bill has many strengths that will deliver for people and modernise mental health care, and it is crucial that we ensure children and young people can benefit from those strengths in the same way adults can benefit.

• 22 Jul 2025 · Metachromatic Leukodystrophy Screening · Hansard source

  More

  In 2024, two-year-old Lily Stock was diagnosed with metachromatic leukodystrophy, a rare and progressive disease that will, in her family’s words, “slowly take Lily away”. Libmeldy, a lifesaving gene therapy, is available through the NHS, but I understand that it must be administered before symptoms develop. Sadly, that means it is too late for Lily to benefit from the treatment. Emily and Sean, Lily’s parents, are campaigning for MLD screening to be added to the heel-prick test on newborns, so that MLD can be identified early and treated effectively and no family will have to go through this devastating experience. Will the Minister and her officials look into adding MLD screening to the heel-prick test, and will she and the Secretary of State join me to meet Lily’s family and hear their story at first hand?