(1 day, 16 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join you, Mr Speaker, in thanking Tom Goldsmith for his immense service. I also wish those celebrating this weekend a happy Holi. There are three events in my constituency this weekend, and I intend to get covered in colour.
Moving on to the spring statement that we had this week, there were no policy announcements. That has left many young people feeling cut adrift. Youth unemployment is now almost a million. That is the highest rate that we have had in a decade and it is now higher than the EU average; it has become a specifically British problem that has accelerated under this Government. Why? It is not down to any one thing, but an accumulation, yet many of those things are under the Government’s control. Businesses are citing the living wage, national insurance and business rates all as reasons why it is more difficult to hire young people. The Government may want to defend each of those in exclusivity—I, for one, defend the rise in the living wage—but if we pile costs on businesses all at once, there comes a point when they baulk.
We are lectured on these Benches sometimes for not supporting every Labour tax rise, as if it is the only way to get revenue for public services. Yet economics is not mere accounting. We cannot simply shift numbers from one column to another; every action has an effect. If businesses are raided for multiple taxes all at once and their response is to cut hours, cut jobs and possibly close altogether, that tax revenue does not come in. That is why business confidence is at an all-time low, growth is flatlining and we now have almost a million young unemployed. Given that youth unemployment was not addressed in the spring statement, will the Leader of the House organise for a Treasury Minister to come to the House and make a statement on youth employment so that we can hold this Government to account?
Before I go on to agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, let me begin by disagreeing with the position his party takes on discussions around tax, particularly business tax. It is quite simple: we cannot wish for the end without also supporting the means. That is simple and straightforward, as far as I am concerned.
As the hon. Gentleman says, youth unemployment is too high, but youth employment is also at a record high. I join him, however, in what he says about every young person deserving a chance to succeed. We are introducing a range of reforms to help young people take that vital step into the workplace. The fact is that young people were forgotten by the previous Government, and we are clearing up their mess.
The youth guarantee will help young people get into work, with 50,000 new training and workplace opportunities in sectors that include construction, health and social care, and hospitality provided to young people on universal credit to help them develop their job skills and employer networks, along with a CV and interview coach. Fifty-five thousand young people will gain from a Government-backed guaranteed job, which will roll out this spring, and we are also expanding Youth Hub centres, where young people can receive vital help to get them back on track. That will be in every area of the country, bringing the total to over 360.
(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Ukraine. It is clear that Vladimir Putin underestimated Ukrainians’ resilience and Europe’s willingness to stand by Ukraine. He will find out that we will all stand by Ukraine right to the end of this war.
The cost of living has been piling pressure on people for years, and people have been plunged into debt. Bodies such as Citizens Advice and StepChange offer advice on how to get out of debt situations, and one thing they commonly raise with me—I see it in my inbox as well—is the aggressive debt recovery actions of those in the public sector. If people fall behind on council tax payments, councils are often quite quick to cancel their existing payment plans and order them to pay a fine. They also get to a stage involving bailiffs quite quickly—often within six weeks. This is different from what happens in the private sector, which is more heavily regulated and where there is a need to show more meaningful engagement with residents, offer payment plans, and get to court action much later.
I see this again in the case of the Department for Work and Pensions. We have spoken in this place about the carer’s allowance overpayment scandal and how those people were chased for payments, but in the last couple of weeks I have had examples in my inbox of somebody whose debt with the DWP rose to £10,000 due to errors on the Department’s part, and started being chased aggressively for that. Of course, the DWP can automatically deduct payments of up to 15% from someone’s universal credit almost immediately, leaving them with no understanding of what happened in the past, let alone how they will manage going forward. The Government are seeking new powers to go into bank accounts and take payments directly, which is extremely worrying given the errors that the DWP has made in the past.
This relates not only to the DWP, but to all public sector bodies, so I am not sure who is the relevant Minister, but I would appreciate it if the Leader of the House engaged with the Government to see if they can get more sympathy and understanding into the debt recovery process across public sector organisations.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks on Ukraine. It is important that every party in this House stands with Ukraine, and it is a pity and a disgrace that that view is not shared by everyone in the House.
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the matter of debt recovery, because it must be fair to everyone; if someone falls into debt, they must be treated fairly and supported to get back on their feet. That is why we are reforming the enforcement sector to safeguard debtors and creditors alike while building a more sustainable future. It is a question of balance, because any Secretary of State has an obligation to protect public funds and ensure that, wherever possible, overpayment and penalty debt is recovered; it should, however, be recovered as quickly and as cost-effectively as possible without causing undue financial hardship to debtors. I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s remarks to the attention of Ministers, starting with those in the DWP, to ensure that they have heard what he has said today.
(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberI call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Over the last few weeks, there has been a national debate raging that, so far, this place has been pretty silent on. It is on the matter of student loans. I know what some on the Government Benches may be thinking, but I am not prepared to duck difficult subjects.
Let us face it: the student loans system has changed beyond recognition since its introduction, and that is one of the key complaints of graduates. Maintenance grants have been scrapped in favour of loans, which means that the poorest students now arrive at university with the largest debt. Interest rates, tied to inflation, have soared in recent years; following the period of high inflation, people have been saddled permanently with much larger debts than they expected. Thresholds have been repeatedly frozen, including by this Labour Government at the last Budget, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates will add around £3,000 on average to people’s debt pile.
All that means that the agreement that students struck has been repeatedly, and unilaterally, changed by the lender after the agreement. I do not believe that would be tolerable in any other walk of life. When the Chancellor was challenged on this last week, she said that the system is “fair and reasonable”. I do not agree, and I think many graduates do not agree, so will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on the changes that have been made to the student loans repayment system?
The UK is home to some of the world’s most respected universities, and we all benefit from the opportunities, knowledge and growth that they create. It is important that we pay attention to access to universities to ensure that people who want to go can go, but it is also important that we put the sector on a secure financial footing. That is why the Government are making tough but fair decisions to find the balance between value for money for taxpayers and students and graduates. We know that the cost of living is important for everyone. We are seeking to support graduates by protecting lower earners by lifting the threshold this year, but we appreciate the concern, not least because it is probably being expressed through our inboxes as I speak. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to attend the Westminster Hall debate on Wednesday 25 February, in which he may want to make his points more fully.
(1 month ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I agree wholeheartedly with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Jeffrey Epstein and his relationship to Peter Mandelson. I do not intend to repeat those words, but as the political discussion intensifies in the coming days, we must not forget the victims, who are at the centre of all this, and their bravery, not only in retelling their trauma but in risking taking on powerful men—possibly some of the most powerful and connected men on the planet—and all those who serve to protect and legitimise them in those behaviours.
I feel a duty to raise some under-discussed issues, including Storm Chandra and its devasting impact on communities, particularly in south-west England, where flooding has damaged homes and a road has collapsed into the sea. It is difficult to know when these storms will hit, but we know that they are going to happen more frequently. That has put more intense scrutiny on the role of the Environment Agency, and I fear that it has been found to be lacking. Last year, the EA gave up on main rivers maintenance, saying that it could no longer afford to do it. That is just part of a pattern of the EA not being equipped any more to do its job.
In my constituency, I can think of at least two major failures in the last couple of years. This time last year, there was a major diesel spill in my local river, the River Wandle. Some 4,000 litres were spilt, which were suspected to be from a nearby bus garage. The EA was sent to investigate, but one year on, we still do not have its report and nobody has been held to account.
We also host an incinerator in my constituency. If regulated properly, an incinerator is better than landfill, but over the last 18 months there have been hundreds of emissions breaches, and the EA has failed to punish the operators sufficiently. In fact, the EA says that it is minded to approve an expansion in the capacity of the incinerator, despite strong opposition from me, the local authority and apparently the Government, who have stated publicly that they think we have reached capacity for incineration in England, yet still nothing can be done. When I challenged the EA on this matter, it said it feels that it does not have the legal grounds to object to the expansion. I ask the Government: what is going on? Can the Leader of the House organise a debate to ensure that we can hold the EA properly to account?
Despite the hon. Gentleman’s understandable concerns, the Environment Agency does vital work, managing our rivers and protecting our environment. We need to recognise the work of people at the Environment Agency, who are out doing their very best as we speak, but I understand the concern expressed not just by him, but by other hon. Members. As he says, severe weather, including this winter, makes the challenges even harder.
Under this Government, we have increased the Environment Agency budget by £188 million, and our flood budget of £10.5 billion is a record investment—the most that has ever been spent on flooding. I accept that this is a matter of great importance, particularly to rural areas, and it interests and concerns Members across the House. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears the hon. Gentleman’s concerns and his request that these matters be the subject of debate in this House.
(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberI call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about Holocaust Memorial Day and the tributes he paid to the people we have lost.
Last weekend, all the plotting and deceit finally reached a climax. I have to say that the man from the north who I wanted to win that battle did not quite make it. Still, Faraaz played a good game and I thought that Stephen and Rachel were worthy winners of “The Traitors”—[Laughter.] I thought that deserved more.
Moving on, I think the whole House can agree that the world has become less safe. Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and the instability that Trump has brought to the NATO alliance has focused minds across Europe. We all know that we now need to find a way to increase defence spending as quickly as possible. This week, the Liberal Democrats put forward an idea about the possibility of issuing defence bonds. That would raise funds not only via the financial markets but allow ordinary Brits to take part. We could issue them on a fixed-term basis and hypothecate them specifically to capital spending on defence. We believe that that could help us achieve 3% of defence spending by 2030 and allow everybody to participate in the effort.
Pension funds and investment portfolios allow people to select the style of portfolio that they would like. Sometimes people tick a box to say that they want to invest in environmental, social and governance measures. We believe that if there was a UK-focused portfolio, many people would choose to opt in. In fact, research suggests that Brits would be willing to see lower returns on their investment if they knew that their money was going to a good cause, and to British assets in particular. Could we have a debate in Government time on just how we can get to that 3% target as quickly as possible? We need to build cross-party consensus on that.
The Government are absolutely committed to increasing spending on defence to 2.5% of GDP by April next year, and the Prime Minister has set out his ambition to spend 3% of GDP on defence in the next Parliament, but I take the hon. Gentleman’s point, because the world appears to be a less safe place. That means that we need to build better, deeper coalitions with our allies, but of course we must also play our part fully by increasing defence expenditure, and the Government are absolutely committed to doing that.
I find the idea that the hon. Gentleman raised of a defence bond genuinely interesting. I will raise it with the Secretary of State, at least to get the hon. Gentleman a response. I happen to believe that we do not debate defence enough in this House. [Interruption.] Well, not compared with how it was some time ago. I will therefore see what prospect there is of bringing forward a defence debate in the near future, in which we talk not just about what is happening in the world, but about how we might best support our armed forces.
(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Before I begin, I have to pull the Leader of the House up, because he did not respond to one of the critical points that the shadow Leader of the House made. I, for one, would like to hear what the Leader of the House has to say about the feud in the Beckham family.
St Helier hospital is older than the NHS itself, is sited in the heart of my constituency and is crumbling. It was placed within the new hospitals programme set up by the Conservative Government, but they totally failed to deliver on it. This Government put it on a new timetable, stretching out delivery over the coming decades. Last week, the National Audit Office published an assessment of how the Government have performed so far. There is some good news for the Government: the NAO said that they have put the programme on a firmer financial footing for the long term, but the NAO warns of potential further delays, particularly to those hospitals with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete, which look set to miss their deadline in 2030.
I have also heard that some of the phase 1 schemes have not kept pace with the programme and not drawn down on all the capital allocated to them. That could present an opportunity for other trusts perhaps to do smaller projects in the interim, such as the extension of the emergency department that my local NHS trust is asking for, or possibly even to move our scheme from phase 2 into phase 1, if the trust can prove that it is ready to go.
It has been about a year since we have had a substantive update from the Government on the new hospitals programme. The National Audit Office report last week raises lots of questions, so will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Health Minister to come to the Dispatch Box to answer them?
As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, the RAAC replacement scheme has been folded into the new hospital programme—a major Government plan to rebuild and refurbish NHS hospitals. We believe that this will give a greater return on investment, enhance digital technology and improve emergency performance. Patients and staff deserve safe, modern hospitals and an NHS that they can rely on. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the reality is that plans were announced by the previous Government without the money ever being there to pay for them. I can offer him a meeting with Ministers to raise his constituency matters, if that is what he wishes, but I will also draw to the attention of Ministers his remarks about the recent NAO report. I am sure they will be willing to update the House.
(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
There are rumours circulating around Westminster of a Bobby about to join the Reform party. I just want to clarify that it is not me. I am staying put. I quite enjoy watching the numbers to the right of me dwindle.
We talk a lot in this place about the Home Office, immigration and asylum. Mostly, we talk about people’s right to come here and the shameful asylum backlog. We talk much less about the people who are already here—the ones who have built their lives, held down jobs, paid taxes, raised a family and contributed. I think the story of immigration in this country is largely a positive one, and it is sad that that is not said enough in this place. If you have worked hard and played by the rules, you deserve to be treated with respect.
Unfortunately, the Home Office is treating many visa holders seeking to settle here with disrespect. People who have lived here for years—sometimes over a decade—are being made to wait years, sometimes subject to indefinite service standards, for answers about their future in this country. Recently, the Home Office has even taken to lecturing people with the line that citizenship is a privilege and not a right, as if to say how dare they ask about remaining in a country they have contributed to for so long. Will the Leader of the House bring this to the attention of Home Office Ministers and urge them to review their service standards and treat these people with a bit more respect?
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight the positive impact of immigration, but he also has to be cognisant of the concern about levels of immigration, which the Government are taking seriously. We have made it absolutely clear that no one should have to wait a long time to hear about a decision, and the Home Office is implementing reforms. However, there was a considerable backlog when we came into office, and that extends not only to making decisions but to making sure that people hear about them in a reasonable timeframe. Significant progress has been made in reducing the decision backlog, with the number of people awaiting an initial decision down by more than half from the June 2023 peak, but if the hon. Gentleman has specific cases that he wishes me to raise, I will certainly raise them with the relevant Minister, as I will his general concern.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. The whole House wants to get the Bill right, and if a delay is what is required, I think the House will support that. I am glad that the Government have had the humility to withdraw it from tomorrow’s business, even at this late stage, in order to get it right. However, it does seem extraordinary that it would be withdrawn at this very late stage, and it raises serious concerns about what kind of ongoing engagement there has been with key stakeholders up to this moment. Will he assure us that what needs to be worked out can be done meaningfully in less than a week? Will he also commit that the Government will deliver the Hillsborough law as previously promised, and not just a Hillsborough law in name only?
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has approached this with understanding. In thanking him for that, may I say that there has been extensive debate on these matters, and I am grateful to everyone who has taken part. This is an ongoing situation, but it is important that we get the Bill right. It will be the meaningful Bill that we set out to achieve. It is not in the interests of the Bill to try to resolve the next stage by tomorrow. That is precisely the reason I have decided to move it until the beginning of next week—to give that bit of extra time.
(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Happy new year to you, Mr Speaker, and everybody in the House. To respond briefly to something the shadow Deputy Leader of the House said: I sincerely hope that Arsenal do not win the league.
Over Christmas, some people have had the unfortunate experience of finding themselves in their local hospital, and they will have been met by a packed emergency department and possibly treated in the corridor. New statistics from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine this week show that over 1.5 million people had to wait longer than 12 hours in emergency departments last year, with over 16,000 excess deaths as a result of those long waits.
At my local hospital, St Helier, the situation is worse than the national average, with over 80%—the vast majority —of people remaining in the emergency department for longer than is deemed medically necessary. This is, of course, down to a multitude of reasons, including the inadequacy of social care, bed capacity in hospitals, which we know is worse in the UK than in comparable economies, and the condition of the estate. The many delays in the new hospital programme mean that my local hospital is having to close wards and do repairs and maintenance, which is exacerbating the problem.
When corridor care first came up in my inbox, I was shocked by it. I understood how tragic the situation was and how undignified it was for patients and families, but I hoped it was a temporary, urgent measure that would resolve itself in time. That is not proving to be the case, so can the Leader of the House ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the matter of corridor care and how we can hasten its end immediately?
First, I pay tribute to the staff who are currently working across our NHS and who worked throughout the holiday period, in what is still a challenging situation, despite the progress that this Government are making. We are committed to investing in the NHS not just for today but for the future, to improve waiting times and access to care. Spending will increase by £29 billion in real terms by 2028-29. We are committed to cutting waiting lists, which have fallen for the first time in years, and we are investing £450 million in our urgent and emergency care plan.
The Secretary of State understands the scale of the challenge that we inherited and the challenge going forward. However, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s comments to his attention, because the Secretary of State is not short in coming forward to this House to update it about the challenges but also the progress we are making in the NHS.
(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
May I associate myself with the comments made by the Leader of the House about the victims of the Bondi Beach attack? Antisemitism has no place in our society and I am glad that the House is united against hate.
Mr Speaker, I join in the well wishes to you and to all the House staff at Christmas time. The Government have been engaging in another Christmas tradition this week: rushing out lots of statements in the final week before recess. I calculated that we are up to double the normal rate, with 13 and a half statements per day this week—I will let you decide what half a statement constitutes, Mr Speaker!
We had the statement on local government finance yesterday, and it seemed that many Labour Back Benchers seemed to have had access to the figures for each local authority in advance, in a way that we had not. Our spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), searched the internet for the figures in advance but could not find them, so will the Leader of the House ask the Minister for Local Government and Homelessness to clarify whether those figures were made available to Labour Back Benchers in advance?
Moving on to more serious Christmas matters, the BBC reported this week that Father Christmas’s pay has flatlined this year. There is good news for the elves, as thanks to the national minimum wage increase, their pay is on the up. However, this wage compression is apparently demotivating for Father Christmas and some garden centres across the country are struggling to get him to turn up. As it happens, he is also upset about the Employment Rights Bill, because it has made it much more difficult for him to get the sack—ba-dum tish. [Interruption.] Oh, come on!
Another important Christmas matter is the ongoing bitter dispute about Christmas films. The Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), insists that “Die Hard” is a Christmas movie; she even has a “Die Hard”-themed advent calendar in the Whips Office. It is of course set at Christmas time, but some say it is too violent to be a Christmas film, although in my experience violence is not absent from Christmas, usually.
There has also been some controversy over “Love Actually”—it is of course set at Christmas time, but some people have been calling for it to be cancelled because of its dated romantic themes. I still like “Love Actually” and I encourage the Prime Minister to watch it this year; I would hope he might be inspired by Hugh Grant’s character’s courage.
Finally, I would like to make the slightly controversial point that sometimes Christmas TV specials are better than Christmas films. I really enjoyed the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special last year and I am looking forward to “Amandaland” this year. All this demonstrates that there is a lot to be settled when it comes to the matter of Christmas films, so will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the matter of Christmas films?
I have been very generous because it is Christmas, but the hon. Gentleman has taken a minute longer than he should have done. Hopefully he will get a new watch as a Christmas present, ready for the new year.