Transport in the South-East

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller), not only for securing this debate but for the clarity with which she articulated the case for transport improvements across different modes, including both infrastructure and operational improvements.

I will focus on one particular infrastructure issue: CARS. Not the cars that the former Roads Minister is used to, but the Croydon area remodelling scheme—a train infrastructure project, as I am sure she will know. This is one of the most important commuter corridor projects not only in the south-east but in the whole country. It is a Network Rail-backed plan that is designed to add capacity, modernise a couple of key stations, improve track and signalling, and unclog the Croydon bottleneck, as was mentioned earlier.

What does that mean? Well, it centres on the so-called Selhurst triangle, in which so many trains running through to the south of England get caught up. Its inefficient layout bungs up the whole line, particularly for those who rely on the Brighton main line, but it also has a knock-on effect on other lines because trains are not able to get to stations on time, operators cannot get their stock back, and so on. This small bottleneck, with a radius of a couple of miles, causes cancellations, reduces frequency and leads to poor punctuality and slower journey times right across the south-east of England. When we think of what the Government are trying to do with their growth plan, and particularly things such as Gatwick airport expansion, it makes no sense not to invest in a project like CARS.

This needs to be put in context, because some of the infrastructure projects across the country that have been committed to cost tens of billions of pounds. We are talking hundreds of millions of pounds to get CARS off the ground and through phase 1, with a total lifetime project cost in the low billions. I know that will sound a lot to many people, but in the realm of infrastructure, this is really good value for money.

CARS has been raised for years as a project that should be invested in, and the last debate in the House was an Adjournment debate secured by the hon. Member for Croydon East (Natasha Irons)—not to be confused with East Croydon station—in which she made an extremely strong case, just ahead of the spending review, but we saw nothing about it in that spending review.

When I think of the opportunities that the scheme would unlock, I have to wonder why it has not been chosen. On its merits, it should be pursued. I think the Government have not invested in the project because, like the last Government, they have a strange aversion to investment in London and the south-east. I understand that there are deep regional inequalities in this country that need to be addressed, and we all recognise that there has been severe under-investment in other parts of the country.

However, the political consensus in recent years has been to pit the regions against each other, and almost to neglect investment in the south-east and London at the expense of projects elsewhere—not because of the basis of those projects, but because it is politically convenient to do so. I think the Government need to look again at which projects can deliver maximum value, to ensure that we are not making the regions race against each other by selecting each project on its merits.

I have already explained how investment in this small area around Croydon would provide benefits across the south-east of England, but we would be naive not to think that it would also create benefits right across the country. Where would the suppliers come from? The project would create jobs and business revenue for companies across the country, and that is only the direct effect. It does not include the indirect effects from improving the commuter experience into London—the capital city of this country—and the wider economic benefits that would be felt by all.

It has been suggested to me that the second reason for the delay in investment in this project is to do with covid and how commuter patterns have changed. We are already starting to see a snapback to previous behaviours. If we look at passenger levels, they are almost back up to pre-covid levels, and the reduced frequency and reliability of services are stopping people going back into the workplace as often as they would like. I hear that from my wife, who goes in once a week at the moment. She wants to go in more to see her colleagues, but she does not because she cannot trust the train that she needs to catch, so there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation. If we really want to get people out of motor vehicles and using public transport more, we need to build those services so that people can use them.

The benefits of the Croydon area remodelling scheme are clear: we would have faster, more reliable, higher-capacity rail services across one of the highest-growth regions in the country. There would also be a particular benefit to my constituency. The London borough of Sutton is one of the most poorly served by Transport for London. We do not have a single tube station or the London Overground service. We have a couple of tram stops, but they are in the far corner of the borough and do not really serve our residents.

This project could unlock the potential of the London Overground and metro-like services that the rest of London benefits from. We are really excited by that prospect. I urge the Minister to look again at the true merits of the project, how many people would benefit from it and the potential for economic growth across the country. I look forward to her response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

This Government are backing investment in Teesside to create the good jobs that my hon. Friend’s constituents deserve. I know that Teesside is very well placed to lead for our country across a range of sectors. For example, £4 billion is going into the UK’s first carbon capture, usage and storage cluster in Teesside, including the world’s first at-scale gas power station with CCUS.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Ten years ago, this place introduced legislation preventing banks from applying tax deductions after paying compensation for wrongdoing. Now lenders are set to pay out billions of pounds in connection with the motor finance scandal, but they will be able to reduce their tax bills because most of those companies have channelled their money via subsidiaries. Does the Minister agree that that is not in keeping with the spirit of the law, and will the Government do something about it?

Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the important point that the last Government had no plans to continue to extend the pandemic support. As for his other question, I will not comment today on the speculation. He and others can see the words that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have said about this matter at the Dispatch Box and during various media interviews, and I have no more to say about it.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

As has been mentioned, in its manifesto Labour committed itself to reforming the business rates system, and the Red Book for the Budget referred to

“permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure”.

That will have given business owners the impression that their bills would be lower. The Government’s get-out about the rates being low, when they knew that transitional reliefs were being phased out and rateable values were rising substantially, is not cutting it with businesses that made plans accordingly. Last week, we on the Treasury Committee heard from the Valuation Office Agency that the Government had known for more than a year about the size of the increase in rateable values, so why has this backlash taken them by surprise?

[Dan Tomlinson]

As I have said, the Government were aware that a revaluation was taking place. That revaluation, which was initiated by the last Government, took account of property values in 2024, and will be in place from April this year. We were also aware—and Members in all parts of the House would probably agree on this—that by the end of the decade it would not be appropriate to retain the full pandemic relief almost 10 years after the height of the pandemic. In the round, as a result of those decisions, we came forward with a significant package of £4.3 billion of protection for businesses across the country—large and small, high street and non-high street—to help them adjust to the potential for higher bills that some are experiencing. Let me add that, as I said in my opening remarks, the business rates bills of about 50% of businesses are either flat or falling.

Budget: Press Briefings

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right that I cannot speculate on the contents of the Budget, but I can thank his mother for her years of service to HMRC. I can also reassure her, him and the whole House that tackling tax avoidance and evasion and closing the tax gap is a top priority for the Government.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Minister is right to point out that speculation ahead of a Budget is not abnormal, but we have had speculation throughout most of this year. I wonder whether he will accept that part of the reason for that is how the Chancellor has both constructed and applied her fiscal rules. She set them up, with good intentions—we do need fiscal rules in place—but left herself with minimal headroom in a pretty volatile global economy, which has driven speculation all year round about how she would fill the gaps that have emerged throughout the year. Does he think that was a mistake?

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the importance of fiscal headroom to ensure that public finances are resilient. That is exactly why the Chancellor set out that one of her priorities in the Budget, in meeting the iron-clad fiscal rules, is to ensure that we have more resilient public finances so that the Government are freer to act when the situation calls for it.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Ask any economist, or indeed most Members in the Chamber today, and they would say that stamp duty is a bad tax. It creates friction in the market, whether we are talking about someone in a one-bedroom flat who is trying to take the step up to a family home, but who finds that their savings goal is now that much more, or whether we are talking about someone whose kids have flown the nest, and who is considering downsizing but finds the bill a disincentive.

It is important that we do not overstate what abolishing stamp duty will do. There have been lots of claims about how it will help millions of young people on to the ladder. For most people, this would not be the case. There is an exemption for first-time buyers of properties worth up to £300,000, and a further discount all the way up to half a million. It is important that we recognise that the proposal would not make a difference for huge numbers of people, including young people. I appreciate the points made about the fluidity of the market as well, but that is not the critical point.

The central problem in the housing market is the disparity between people’s wages and house prices. People have said to me, “I had to save hard to get my home,” and “You should have seen the interest rates back in the day.” I have no doubt that it has always been hard and a struggle to save up to buy a property, but the extent to which it has become out of reach today is not properly understood. Around the time I was born—1990, if Members are interested—the difference between the average wage and the average house price was about three times a person’s income, but today that average difference is eight times a person’s income. I represent a London constituency, and for people in London, that difference is 15 times the average income. That means that people in the top 10% of earners in the capital cannot afford the average home. It is an absolute disgrace that we have allowed ourselves to get to this situation.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member is making a powerful point in support of our motion. Does he intend to support it this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean]

Surprise, surprise, I do not. I will come on to the reasons why.

Mortgage companies will lend around four times someone’s income, so we can see how big the problem is. A couple may stand a chance of getting a mortgage; someone on their own has no chance. The other problem with house prices accelerating away from wages so much is that the 10% deposit that people often need to raise is completely out of reach. To put this in context, in 1990 the average wage was around £8,000 a year, and a person might have needed to save about £2,000 for a deposit. Today, a person on the average wage of £33,000 would have to try to save £28,000. People simply cannot do it unless they have the support of their mum or dad, or others in their family.

This is the death of meritocracy in our country. We now live in a society where a person’s family wealth, not their work or talent, defines their future financial security. We are back to Victorian-era levels of social mobility. That is absolutely abhorrent, and no amount of tinkering around the edges is sufficient to fix it.

Scrapping stamp duty will not be a silver bullet. In fact, on its own, it might represent a bit of a giveaway to those who are already faring better than most in society. If we are serious about fixing the housing crisis in our country, we need a generational change in the level of house building, and a holistic approach to redesigning the property tax system.

[Jack Rankin]

I agree with the hon. Member wholeheartedly, and he is making an excellent speech, but I would gently say that lots of us in the shires who face Liberal Democrats in our constituencies get leaflets from his colleagues that oppose building almost anywhere, ever. What would he say about that to some of his colleagues?

[Bobby Dean]

I think the hon. Member will find that across the country there will be opposition politicians opposing developments. In Sutton council in my borough, where we are in control, we are outstripping all of London in house building, and I am very proud of that record.

In order to fix the housing crisis, we need sustained wage growth, so that wages come up against the increase in house prices. I do not hear that on offer from the Conservative party today. I am sorry to say that we have a Trussite proposal on the table: an unfunded tax cut that lacks real credibility.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the shadow Chancellor, he would have heard him say that half the £47 billion in savings will come from reducing welfare spend. Another significant proportion will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was back in 2016. The proposal is fully funded, and he does himself no favours by inventing other facts.

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing me on to my next point early. I want to address this proposed £47 billion in public spending cuts. If the Conservatives were to hand over that proposal in its current form to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it would laugh them out of the front door. Those cuts are not credible at all. Over half of that figure is based on welfare cuts—a welfare bill, by the way, that rose on the watch of the Conservative Government, not least because of the defunding of the NHS, which caused people to be in ill health in the first place.

The Conservatives are also talking about reducing the size of the civil service. Can any Member hazard a guess as to why the civil service has grown since 2016? It is because we have in-housed a lot of bureaucracy that we used to outsource to Brussels. One of the primary reasons why the civil service has grown is the number of services that we now have to deliver in this country.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned covid, which is the largest single contributor to the increase in the size of the state. He also did not mention the £5 billion reduction in welfare spending proposed by the Government; the Conservative party supported that, but the Government just gave in on it. There is plenty of money to be saved.

[Bobby Dean]

When the hon. Gentleman refers to covid, I think he is referring to total debt, which has increased. We are talking specifically about why the civil service has increased in size. A lot of that can be attributed to the new functions that the UK Government have had to take on.

On the welfare budget, yes, the Government struggled to get through their welfare reforms, but so did the previous Conservative Government. That is why the proposal that half of the £47 billion will come from welfare cuts lacks credibility.

[Daisy Cooper]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. It really does irk me that the Conservatives keep talking about the welfare bill going up when they blew a hole in the public health budget, eroded primary and community care, and did nothing to fix social care—and NHS dentistry has been hollowed out. Is it any wonder that when people cannot get the care that they need when they need it, we end up firefighting and spending loads of money on welfare and the NHS further down the line? We should be investing to save.

[Bobby Dean]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I made the point earlier that the welfare bill went up on the Conservative Government’s watch, not least because they cut back NHS funding.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bobby Dean]

I will make some progress; I have been intervened on quite a few times. In the Chamber, we may agree on the analysis of stamp duty’s failings, but the Liberal Democrats cannot support the motion, because it is not a credible plan. Also, if a stamp duty cut were made in isolation, it might not deliver what Conservative Members say it would. It might just gum up the housing market further for the next generation.

It is high time that we had a serious debate about property tax reform. Some of that has happened in the Chamber today, but the motion does not reflect that serious debate, so I will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir James Cleverly]

Yes, pretzel-like. One after another, the speakers on the Lib Dem Benches stood up and said, “We agree that this is a bad tax. We agree that this is a counterproductive tax. We agree that it is a tax that needs to go.” I, and I suspect others on the Conservative Benches, thought, “Here we go. Here is the crescendo, the pièce de resistance,” and that those speeches would end by saying, “Which is why you will see us in the Lobby with you, ensuring that the motion is passed.” But that is not what we heard.

[Bobby Dean]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir James Cleverly]

In a minute—I have a punchline to get to.

That is not what we heard. What we heard was, “We think this is a bad tax that should be got rid of, but we are not going to vote to say it is a bad tax that should be got rid of, because blah”—which is always the Lib Dems’ punchline. I was waiting for an explosion of political integrity, only to be presented with a political damp squib.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way after his fantastic punchline, which everybody really enjoyed.

[Daisy Cooper]

Where was it?

[Bobby Dean]

Exactly. He obviously was not paying enough attention to our argument. Yes, we did agree with the analysis that stamp duty is a poor tax, but we could not support the motion, because we do not think there is a credible plan for abolishing it. We would like to see a much more holistic review of property taxes, alongside a credible plan. There is no credible plan in the motion. We do not trust the public spending cut proposals that have been put forward.

[Sir James Cleverly]

You’ve gotta love ’em, haven’t you? Never seen a fence they would not sit on, never seen a position they would not contort around. “These are our principles”, they say, “but so are these, and so are these other ones as well.” It is that clarity that we value from the Liberal Democrats.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We want to ensure that the better futures fund is targeted where it is most needed and that the investment is spent in a way that really improves life chances, in particular for young people and children who face some of the biggest challenges ahead. I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the area he represents and the part of the UK he comes from; it is something we will consider as we develop the details of the fund.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

9. If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of undertaking a zero-based review of all tax reliefs before the autumn Budget 2025.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

Tax reliefs are an important feature of the UK tax system, and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has invested significant resources in improving understanding of their cost and effectiveness. Since 2019, it has produced costings for 350 reliefs, including detailed analysis of the 38 largest non-structural reliefs, which cost more than £500 million a year.

[Bobby Dean]

The Minister detailed that about 350 reliefs have been assessed, but my understanding is that more than 1,200 tax reliefs are on the books, amounting to hundreds of billions of foregone revenue for the Treasury. Given that the Treasury examined the spending of all Departments in detail over the summer, I wondered whether it was considering applying the same level of scrutiny to itself.

[Dan Tomlinson]

It is worth noting that some 800 of the 1,200 reliefs the hon. Member mentions ensure that the tax system operates as intended by defining the scope of tax correctly and that it operates fairly and simply. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member, but I will not be able to comment specifically on any changes that we may or may not make to tax reliefs—any decisions will, of course, be announced at the Budget, which is not today.

Financial Services Reform

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call a Treasury Committee member, Bobby Dean.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Chancellor announced quite a list of reforms yesterday. I note that many were on the shopping list of industry, so the Committee will examine them closely to make sure they also work for the consumer and for the long-term stability of the economy. One change in particular, on ringfencing, will worry those with strong memories of the 2008 financial crash. The shadow Economic Secretary indicated that perhaps we need to look at removing the ringfencing entirely. That would be a big step backwards. These reforms were driven by the Liberal Democrat Vince Cable, and the idea was to separate everyday customer deposits from the risks of investment banking. Will the Minister give us assurances that the hard-earned savings of families across the country will not be put at risk by the speculative activity of people playing with other people’s money?

[Emma Reynolds]

It is always a great pleasure to come and give evidence to the hon. Gentleman’s Committee. I reassure him that the Government are upholding the ringfencing regime. We must strike the right balance between protecting financial stability and safeguarding depositors. Equally, we think that there are some flexibilities that should be explored within the ringfencing regime that will allow further growth and further capital to be deployed in the real economy.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The fiscal rules are important because when we control the nation’s finances, we bring stability to family finances. We have all experienced the consequences of previous Governments losing control, and our mortgage rates and rents have gone through the roof. This Labour Government will never let that happen again.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

The Government committed to one fiscal event a year in the name of economic stability, but by having an OBR forecast and these constraints, they had only one lever to pull: spending cuts. This time, disabled people paid the price, and the Government have since had to row back. Does the Government regret placing those restraints on themselves over tax measures when OBR forecasts are published?

[Darren Jones]

The Government are committed to the independence of the OBR. We will keep setting out future fiscal plans at one fiscal event a year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Unfortunately, I cannot see the relevance of the question. I call Bobby Dean.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

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

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs uses a range of data sources to monitor the wealthy population. International exchanges of information, including the common reporting standard and US Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act data, offer opportunities to develop deeper insight into the international financial affairs of some of the UK’s wealthiest taxpayers.

[Bobby Dean]

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?

[James Murray]

When considering fiscal measures or financial changes, the figures that matter are those provided by the Office for Budget Responsibility. The OBR has certified that the non-dom reforms that the Government have implemented will raise £33.8 billion in total revenue, and that figure accounts for some non-doms who are ineligible for the new regime choosing to leave the UK.

Spending Review 2025

Bobby Dean Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the changes to the Green Book, which will better enable the Government to invest, and will stop the situation whereby the Treasury used to wield the Green Book against local communities when it came to the investments that they wanted to make. This was a good spending review for the east midlands, as my hon. Friend mentioned, with investment in nuclear fusion and small modular reactors. Many businesses in the supply chain right across the east midlands will benefit from that significant investment and the jobs it will bring.

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

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?

[Rachel Reeves]

For London, today we have increased the spending power of the police by 2.3% in real terms every year; we have record investment in the affordable homes programme, which includes building new homes in London; and we have free school meals, lifting around 10,000 children in London out of poverty, and much more. We are also backing a third runway at Heathrow and investing in tunnelling to take HS2 to Euston. This is a good spending review for London, but most importantly, it is a good spending review for the whole United Kingdom.