Official portrait of Bobby Dean
UK Parliament, CC BY 3.0

Bobby Dean

Liberal Democrats MP for Carshalton and Wallington since (elected). An MP continuously since .

Parliament recordVoting recordWritten questionsEarly day motions

Entries on this tracker

205

Each filed under the party they sat for that day

Register entries

6

As currently published

Declared while sitting for Lib Dem

£4,058.77

4 of 5 entries state an amount

Declared outside these periods

£0

0 of 1 entries state an amount

Party affiliation

PartyOfficeAreaPeriodBeganEndedSource
Lib DemMPCarshalton and Wallington – presentelected—Party history

Parliament's party history for this member: Liberal Democrat ( – present).

Register of interests

Every entry the member has in the Register of Members' Financial Interests, as Parliament currently publishes it. The wording and values are the member's own declarations; nothing here has been assessed by this site.

Totals add only the entries that declare an amount received: payments for work, donations, gifts, and funded visits (register categories 1.1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). Ongoing employment is listed but not added, because its figure is a rate rather than a sum received. Each entry is dated by when the benefit happened, not when it was registered, and placed under the party the member sat for on that date. A member who changed party therefore has a separate total for each.

DateCategoryEntryDeclared valueSitting forSource
3. Gifts, UK sourcesSimon Ruddick - £948.00£948Lib DemRegister record
3. Gifts, UK sourcesNational Liberal Club - £1,140.00£1,140Lib DemRegister record
4. Visits outside the UKInternational visit to Switzerland between 17 September 2025 and 18 September 2025Deluxshana Kuganesan; Subramaniam Kuhanathan£494.92Lib DemRegister record
3. Gifts, UK sourcesNational Liberal Club Ltd - £1,475.85£1,475.85Lib DemRegister record
date registered8. MiscellaneousCouncillor on Sutton Council, (unpaid since 30 July 2024 and previously registered under Category 1)—Lib DemRegister record
8. MiscellaneousUnpaid Director of Right To Manage company, looking after the block of flats I live in.——Register record

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 205

  1. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Budget Resolutions

    Some have dubbed this a “steady as she goes” Budget. That has been interpreted differently by those on different sides of the debate: some have taken it as praise while others have taken it as a criticism. You might be surprised to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I fall on the side of that being a criticism. That is because I hold the really controversial view that avoiding market turmoil is a minimum requirement for a Budget; it is necessary but not sufficient, especially given the challenges we face in this country. I accept that we face constraints, given the war in Iran and everything that is doing to the country’s finances, inflation, energy prices and so on, but we have more challenges to face up to. This Government actually recognise those challenges. They have commissioned reports on welfare reform, but they have pushed it to the other side of the Budget. They have a Chancellor who recognises that we need a plan to spend 3% of GDP on defence, but those decisions, too, have been pushed further down the track. They understand that growth has been appalling in this country for a long time, yet they have not revealed what their plan for growth will be. These are all known issues that are unaddressed in this Budget, and I think that is a massive missed opportunity. That is not for want of measures in this Budget. There are a record-breaking 98 measures in the Budget, but they add up to the lowest total value we have seen for a very long time. Let us get into some of those. The Government have praised themselves for their £100 energy support package, and who can be churlish about £100 in times like these? But the truth is that the scheme is insufficient and poorly targeted. The tragedy is that we had an energy crisis in 2022, when we had to deliver huge sums of money, almost universally. Everybody said, “We cannot let this happen again; we must have a much more targeted scheme in future.” Four years on, what is the system we have? We are relying on the valuations of properties from 1991 to target our support. What a failure of Government. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of low-income households are now set to miss out on support, and those most in need of support will not get enough. Looking at all the “breathing space” measures combined, those in the very poorest deciles will get, on average, just £15 more than all the others. This Government could have done far more to deliver on breathing space. For instance, they could have looked to the Liberal Democrat proposal for an essential energy guarantee, which would be more targeted and would provide more support at the right income levels. This has been a real failure of Government. A second measure for which the Government have been praising themselves is the bank tax and the contributions that they have got that sector to make. We called for a bank tax and so we broadly welcome it, but why did they not go further? The banking industry expected this measure to be permanent and expected it to be set at 8%, and bank shares went up when we found out that that was not what the Government were going to do. In the Treasury Committee this morning, we heard from people in the banking sector, who said that they did not believe the tax would affect competitiveness and that they would be unlikely to pass on the costs to the consumer. Basically, the banks have been getting £1 billion a week this year because mortgage rates and interest rates are so high. They could have been squeezed some more, and this Government failed to do it. On living standards, this morning the Resolution Foundation described the situation as “catastrophic”. The 2010s was the worst decade on record, with 14% growth in real household disposable income. For the 2020s, the OBR’s growth forecast is 1.4%. This is a tragedy for every working family in Britain, and that is before we get on to the cost of doing business or the spending pressures that are pencilled in for down the track. Courtrooms, classrooms and councils are all set for real-terms cuts under this Government—it is all in black and white. That is their proposal to come. All of this can be solved in only one way: via growth. I said at the beginning of my speech that there is a lack of a growth plan, but there is one waiting on the table for the Government. We would like the Prime Minister to stop having an open, frank conversation with himself on Europe, and to actually start putting forward some concrete proposals such as rejoining the single market. That is the quickest single measure to boost growth in this country, and we should get on with it. This Budget has deferred decisions on welfare, defence, Europe, public services and growth. The Prime Minister came into office promising to end 40 years of neoliberalism, but it will surely make its 41st birthday. It has been a missed opportunity that the Government will come to regret. Budgets do not come around very often—just ask any of the six Chancellors in the last six years. Political capital is a depreciating asset—it is best to spend it early, and the Government have utterly failed to do so.

    Hansard source
  2. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Business of the House

    Our thoughts, too, are with the victims of the train crash in Spain and their families. I also want to add to the congratulations to Harry Kane, and say on behalf of all Tottenham Hotspur fans that he is one of our own. It is tempting to get into yesterday’s Budget, but I have not spoken in the debate yet, and I fear that if I start now, I might run out of things to say. Of course, there were a record number of measures in that Budget, but they had the lowest cumulative value that we have seen in decades. I think that makes it the most extravagant display of looking busy for the boss in history. Turning to other events, on Monday the AI debate was bumped off the agenda. I am afraid that that makes Parliament look slightly ridiculous. We last debated AI properly in this Chamber back in 2023; given how technology moves on, that is light years ago. Instead, we debated the performance of Royal Mail—an important issue, but one that was debated only the previous week in Westminster Hall. Critics are saying that this exposes how this House spends more time engaging with popular local issues than with some of the complex challenges our country faces. My view is that we must make time for both of those things; we need to make sure that we tackle those important local issues in our constituencies, but also rise to the challenges of our time. There are huge questions to answer on the growth opportunities presented by AI and how we get it adopted widely across the country, but also on the safety concerns and the threat that superintelligent models pose to our society. Those are critical questions for this Parliament to engage with, so will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time as urgently as possible, so that colleagues can engage with these big questions of our time?

    Hansard source
  3. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Business of the House

    I join the Leader of the House in his reflection on the Aberfan disaster. Our thoughts are with all those affected and, indeed, the whole community.<span id="1292" class="column-number" data-column-number="1292"></span> It was deeply concerning to hear a US envoy last night describe Vladimir Putin as a “humanitarian”, as Russia continued to bomb Ukraine. I sincerely hope that the Government will move quickly to condemn those comments and will make time to progress the Russian Frozen Assets (Seizure and Aid to Ukraine) Bill, brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller). Closer to home, the NHS Alliance sparked a row among health professionals this week when it said that up to 20 maternity units may have to close in England. The alliance made the case that the shortage of doctors and the increase in C-sections means that consolidation will be necessary to keep mothers and babies safe, but obstetricians and midwives are saying that having maternity services close to home is critical and that workforce issues must be addressed in a different way. In my constituency of Carshalton and Wallington, the women’s health unit, including the maternity unit, is facing closure not due to clinical reasons but because of ageing pipework and issues with the water quality. That is particularly stinging for our local community because we have known about issues with the building for years, and the promise of a new building keeps being delayed. Can the Leader of the House organise for a debate on the future of maternity services in this country? I am aware that there is an Adjournment debate on this issue today, but that does not give MPs across the House an opportunity to explore this issue in full, so I hope he will make Government time to have this debate in full.

    Hansard source
  4. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Retirement of the Clerk of the House

    I echo the tributes paid from across the House and express my gratitude on behalf of the Liberal Democrats to the Clerk of the House, Tom Goldsmith, as he retires from his role today. I would also like to congratulate his successor, Eve Samson, in her appointment as the new Clerk of the House. Eve will be the first woman to hold the role, and I am sure that she will continue Tom’s excellent work. Parliament is famous for its architecture, history and traditions, but all of us who spend time here know that it is the people who make Parliament’s status as a world-leading institution continue. From the Doorkeepers to the catering staff, cleaners and security, thousands of staff keep this place going and deal with us sometimes awkward MPs with impressive patience and positivity. The Clerk is the steady presence at the Table, who ensures that whatever the heat of the debate, our proceedings run with fairness, order and respect for precedent. Members from every part of the House have relied on Tom’s guidance, patience and deep knowledge of our procedures. Getting all the parties to agree is an achievement in itself, and the fact that today’s tribute motion is supported by parties from across the House is a testament to his ability. We thank him sincerely for his service to the House and wish him a long and happy retirement. Thirty years of duty to the House is an incredible achievement. That service goes all the way back to 1996, and given that the shadow Minister mentioned that he was eight at the time, I will say that I was six—I am not sure whether this will become a competition. From head of the Committee Office to co-author of “How Parliament Works”, Tom’s guidance has come in many forms and has been invaluable to us all across the House for several decades. He has navigated the House through periods of turbulent change. In his time as Clerk of the House, Tom has navigated three Prime Ministers from two different parties, as well as dealing with the largest intake of new MPs in parliamentary history, with such a huge proportion entering Parliament in 2024. I certainly had a lot to learn when I arrived in this House from Carshalton and Wallington for the first time, and I am very grateful for the support that Tom and all the wonderful House staff have provided and continue to provide.<span id="1313" class="column-number" data-column-number="1313"></span> Tom has been a steady and impartial presence, keeping the business of the House running smoothly despite shifts in leadership and political direction. His calm authority and commitment to fairness have earned the respect of Members on all sides, and he has worked tirelessly to help newcomers learn the traditions and procedures of the Chamber. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are especially grateful for his guidance as we adjusted to becoming the largest third party in a century. We had always found him fair when we were the fourth party, but his support as we grew from 15 to 72 MPs was crucial, and his even-handedness, professionalism and advice have been hugely important to us throughout this period. I have always found Tom to be a diligent and calming presence, with a firm and fair hand, while guiding us through Commission meetings. Tom is ever dependable, and I think it is very telling of his character that all Members here, across the House, have found consensus today in our gratitude and praise towards him as Clerk. I and all the Liberal Democrats wish Tom the very best for the future.

    Hansard source
  5. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Business of the House

    I join the Leader of the House in this tribute to Sir David Amess. It is clear how well loved he was across the House, and our thoughts are with his family. The Leader of the House mentioned the party conference season. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Prime Minister moving towards our positions on Europe, social care and electoral reform at conference. We urge him to go further and faster on all three fronts. <em>[</em><em>Interruption.</em><em>]</em> Not appreciated by those on the Conservative Benches, but we certainly appreciate progress on Europe, social care and electoral reform. There is an emerging scandal that relates to the treatment of Hongkongers entitled to British national overseas status. The UK has a historic commitment to those people, with the promise of democracy being maintained in Hong Kong or a pathway to UK citizenship, which many of them have taken up. However, we have received reports that many BNO applications are now being refused on the basis of past convictions in Hong Kong. UK rules state that if the conviction is an offence in the UK and the sentence is for longer than 12 months, that should result in an automatic refusal. Some Hongkongers were convicted for longer than 12 months for the offence of rioting, which is an offence in the UK but, of course, they were not really rioting; they were engaging in peaceful democratic protest. We have raised these concerns directly with the Home Office, which says that discretion can be applied, but the guidance we have seen says otherwise. The fact is that people are now being rejected on this basis. To add insult to injury, the rejection letters say that these decisions have been made by a competent foreign court. I hope the Leader of House will agree that this would be a betrayal of the UK’s historic commitment to those people, so can he organise for Ministers to issue clear guidance about the specific discretion that is required in these cases?

    Hansard source
  6. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    The Liberal Democrats understand the purposes of this Bill and accept some of the Government’s conclusions about how the grant needs to change, but we continue to be concerned about transparency. It is important to make it clear at the start that the sovereign grant provides no personal income to the King or Queen or any member of the royal family; the funding is tied entirely to the running of the institution. We recognise that the household’s budget has increased, but the bulk of that increase is earmarked for a maintenance backlog across the royal palaces, green infrastructure, and cyber-security in an increasingly hostile international landscape. We agree that it is right for the grant to be reset now that the Buckingham Palace programme has finished. However, taxpayers will rightly have questions about where and, importantly, who this money goes to. The Government must ensure that not a penny of this grant goes to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who disgraced his title in office —

    Hansard source
  7. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will move directly on to our amendment, which would insert a new subsection stopping the royal trustees from proposing any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used in the grant formula unless three conditions are met first: the National Audit Office must be commissioned to carry out a value-for-money assessment of the proposed change—

    Hansard source
  8. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    Clearly, I have been very well briefed. I think my comments at the beginning were probably sufficient. We understand the purpose of the Sovereign Grant Bill. We have some concerns about transparency, but I will return to those later.

    Hansard source
  9. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the Bill. We understand why the royal household budget has increased and agree that it is right for the grant to be reset now that the Buckingham Palace programme has finished. However, we remain concerned about transparency and have put forward an amendment to that effect. Our amendment would insert a new subsection that would stop the royal trustees proposing any future increase to the percentage of Crown Estate profit used in the grant formula unless three conditions are met first. The National Audit Office must be commissioned to carry out a value-for-money assessment of the proposed change; that NAO report must be laid before both Houses; and finally, the House of Commons must debate and approve the change by resolution. This contrasts with the Bill as drafted, which sets the figures straight into primary legislation on the strength of the royal trustees’ own conclusions, with no separate independent check built in for the next time that the percentage is revisited. That matters because it is the royal trustees who produce that report—the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Keeper of the Privy Purse. In other words, the people proposing the change are marking their own homework, with no independent body or vote required to test whether it represents good value for the taxpayer. Our amendment is not about opposing the grant or blocking today’s readjustment, which the Liberal Democrats accept is right now that the reservicing works are complete. Instead, it is about ensuring that if a percentage increase is proposed again in the future, taxpayers get an independent, NAO-assessed value-for-money check, with their elected representatives getting an actual vote on it, rather than the change simply following through the trustees’ own formula. To conclude, the Liberal Democrats believe that greater transparency and independent scrutiny of taxpayer money must be built into the system for the future, not treated as optional, and that that is best guaranteed by external checks, not simply taking the Government’s word for it.

    Hansard source
  10. ParliamentBobby Dean

    Sovereign Grant Bill

    I thank the Minister for his comments on the Liberal Democrat amendment that was discussed earlier, and we recognise the arguments that he made in response. I support the Bill. <em>Question put and agreed to.</em> <em>Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.</em>

    Hansard source

2024 General Election: Carshalton and Wallington

Held . Recorded result: LD Gain. Majority 7,905. 46,670 votes cast from an electorate of 74,362. Parties are as each candidate stood at the time.

CandidatePartyVotesShare
Bobby DeanLiberal Democrat20,12643.1%
Elliot ColburnConservative12,22126.2%
Hersh ThakerLabour6,10813.1%
Elizabeth CooperReform UK5,94112.7%
Tracey HagueGreen Party1,5173.3%
Atif Abdul RashidWorkers Party of Britain4410.9%
Ashley DickensonChristian Peoples Alliance2310.5%
Steve KelleherSocial Democratic Party850.2%

Election result on Parliament's site

Parliamentary career

Seats held

SeatDates
Carshalton and WallingtonElected 1 time – present

Opposition posts

PostDates
Liberal Democrat Shadow Leader of the House of CommonsOpposition Department – present

Committee memberships

CommitteeDates
House of Commons Commission – present
Members Estimate Committee – present
Restoration and Renewal Client Board – present
Modernisation Committee – present
Treasury Committee – present

Elections contested without winning

ConstituencyDate
Lewisham, Deptford
Lewisham, Deptford

Career on Parliament's site

Published contact details

Parliamentary office

House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA

[email protected]

X (formerly Twitter)

x.com/Bobby_Dean

Only the details Parliament publishes for this member. Contact page on Parliament's site

Profile data retrieved from Parliament on .