Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks

1. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Gambling Advertising

   As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate. I wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Perhaps the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts is off celebrating St George’s day in his own Scottish way somewhere—I was looking forward to delivering that joke to him, so I am disappointed he is not here. Although I welcome the Minister covering this very important debate, I know there will be some confusion among the public about why no one from DCMS with direct responsibility for this policy area was available to respond. Hopefully, the Minister will still be able to answer some of the key questions on behalf of the Government before their complete collapse. We all know that the Government are yet again distracted by their latest scandal in Downing Street, and that Labour MPs are preparing the runners and riders for their leadership contest; but we meet today to discuss gambling regulation at a very important juncture in terms of how we move forward with the regulated gambling industry in the UK. As we predicted would happen before Labour’s latest tax-hiking Budget, jobs are being lost and high street shops are closing, as we have already heard. Sponsorship for British sport is also being cut, and an illegal, dangerous black market continues to grow each week. Quite clearly, Labour did not properly vet the information they were being provided. This is also a crucial time for the Gambling Commission. Major changes are happening at the top of the organisation and, as I understand it, it is deliberating on whether to move forward with controversial affordability checks despite major concerns from a range of stakeholders about their accuracy and, again, the unintended consequences of fuelling the illegal and dangerous black market. Today’s debate is therefore timely, and I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber. As always, there are a range of views. On the left, we have some who are more prohibitionist and view all forms of gambling through the prism of harm. On the right—thankfully not represented in the Chamber today—there are those who believe that party leaders should be allowed to promote their own crypto and pyramid schemes with no accountability. Then we have the rest of us, more in the middle ground, who are trying to find a sensible and pragmatic approach to regulation that provides protections and support for those suffering from addiction while recognising the regulated gambling sector’s contribution to jobs, the economy, British culture and sport. As I have said in previous debates, I have no problem bashing the bookies; it is a British pastime between punter and bookmaker, and I am unashamedly pro-consumer. But as we are seeing now, the Government have inadvertently stacked the deck in favour of the illegal black market. In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of what gambling looked like when I was growing up in south-east London: those dark and dingy betting shops with beads covering the shop doors, and the wall of smoke that would occasionally escape, allowing some fresh air into the building. While some of those small pens might have stayed in some shops, times have changed. The regulated industry has modernised, and technology has transformed how many people gamble across the country.

   Hansard source
2. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Gambling Advertising

   That is an interesting point about how bookmakers operate. My grandfather was really keen on horseracing when I was growing up; I remember often standing in the corner of the betting shop while he had a gamble or watching horseracing on the TV. The hon. Member’s APPG has made an interesting distinction about the carve-out of the advertising ban that it has committed to; if I understand it correctly, the APPG believes that younger people or children do not watch horseracing, compared with football—is that the argument for why there is a carve-out?

   Hansard source
3. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Gambling Advertising

   I apologise, Mrs Harris.

   Hansard source
4. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Gambling Advertising

   I thank the hon. Member for making that distinction; I understood it as being something to do with whether children watched racing. The point I was trying to make was that times have changed. When I worked in a shop—some 20-odd years ago, when I was a student—a strict rule was brought in to stop children being allowed inside the premises. There was a lot of discussion then about whether it was safer for a child to be just inside the door of a bookmaker’s or to be standing outside. That is probably not as big an issue today as it was then, but I remember that discussion being had circa 20 years ago. Times have changed, and how bookmakers operate has also changed. The debate around gambling and gambling harms boils down to a simple but important question: how do we reduce harm from gambling without driving people into more dangerous spaces? Advertising, the subject of today’s debate, forms an important part of that discussion. Gambling, when properly regulated, is a legitimate leisure activity enjoyed by more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom every month. That averages out at more than 30,000 people in every constituency across the country. The overwhelming majority of those people gamble without harm. The role of Government is to balance regulation for people who enjoy a flutter safely, while ensuring that those who need help can receive it as a matter of urgency. Government should not act as a heavy, puritanical hand prohibiting all avenues of fun. That is why the distinction between the regulated and unregulated market is so important. Advertising by UK-licensed operators is not a free-for-all, as some would have us believe; it is controlled and is subject to oversight by the anti-gambling commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been strengthened significantly in recent years. That has resulted in some good progress: for example, I understand that the whistle-to-whistle ban has reduced children’s exposure to betting adverts during live sport by 97%. The Premier League will soon ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors, and online campaigns are age-gated, with operators prohibited from using personalities with strong appeal to children. However, those regulations do not apply to those who act beyond the law in the black market. The Government have been clear that there is little evidence of a causal link between exposure to advertising and problem gambling. Crucially, the evidence does not show that advertising drives participation. Advertising influences which brand people choose, not whether they gamble at all. That matters, because restricting the regulated sector too heavily will not remove demand; the Government will simply be redirecting it to the unregulated market, where harm becomes the norm. Independent analysis from WARC suggests that UK gambling advertising spend will reach around £1.9 billion this year, with half—between £800 million and £900 million, and increasing—already coming from unregulated operators. We are approaching a tipping point. Close to half of all gambling advertising seen by UK consumers comes from operators that are not licensed in this country and can act beyond the law. It is the direction of travel that concerns me most: WARC’s research shows that while licensed operator spend has fallen, illegal and unregulated spend is growing sharply. That is a sign of a market shifting quickly and decisively, and we must be honest about what sits behind that shift. The Government have increased regulation on the legal sector, but done very little so far to stop the illegal black market. While licensed operators are seeing their ability to advertise reduced, illegal operators are expanding aggressively, particularly online, and particularly aimed at children and younger people. Those unregulated operators do not follow the rules. They do not verify age; they do not offer safeguards such as deposit limits or self-exclusion; they do not contribute to treatment or research; they do not pay tax. Those companies actively market themselves as being outside the system, with “Not on GamStop”—a favoured slogan that is deliberately used to appeal to the most vulnerable. This is not a marginal issue. Up to 1.5 million people in Britain are estimated to be using these sites already, staking as much as £10 billion a year. Today’s advertising frontline is not so much television as social media, streaming platforms and influencers. Around 62% of children report regularly seeing gambling-related content online on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitch and Instagram—I use some of those platforms myself, though I am not sure what Twitch is. What they see is not the regulated sector: they are seeing influencers who are paid to promote black market gambling sites—sites that would never be allowed to advertise through regulated channels and that offer inducements and access without safeguards. Among those young people who follow gambling content, nearly one in three report seeing an influencer advertising the products. The reality is that we have built a system that tightly regulates those who comply with the law, while those who do not are free to exploit the faster-growing parts of the media landscape. We must be honest about the risk of getting this wrong. By clamping down further on regulated advertising without tackling illegal activity, we will not clean up this space. We will simply cede the territory to the illegal operators. We will make it harder for consumers to distinguish between safe and unsafe operators, pushing more people towards platforms that offer no protections at all. The Government’s priority must be enforcement in the spaces where harm is now most concentrated. I will conclude by asking the Minister a series of specific questions that I hope she can answer or follow up in writing. First, will the Government bring forward proposals to place a clear duty on social media platforms to identify and remove illegal gambling advertising, particularly influencer-led promotion of unlicensed sites? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking against unlicensed operators targeting UK consumers online? Thirdly, can the Minister set out a timeline for action on unlicensed gambling sponsorship in sport, and will the Government go further to prevent UK clubs from entering into partnerships with operators that are not licensed in this country?

   Hansard source
5. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Gambling Advertising

   I do not believe I can answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but it might be something that other Members want to correct via a point of order to ensure that, as we have this important discussion, we have all the facts in front of us. That is vital. There is a range of views, but we are here as policymakers and we need to ensure that we make informed decisions. My fourth question is, what steps are being taken to improve consumer awareness, so that individuals can more easily distinguish between regulated and unregulated operators, as well as the dangers of the latter over the former? Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future restrictions on regulated advertising are assessed against the risk of displacement into the black market? If the Government are serious about reducing harm, we must focus on where harm is growing fastest. If they fail to act, the Government risk undermining the very protections that successive Governments have worked hard to build. While there are risks that this House should not be willing to take, there must be balance. Let us not start legislating and regulating just because some Labour Members have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

   Hansard source
6. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Gambling Advertising

   I appreciate that the hon. Lady is covering for another Minister. However, I made the point in a previous debate that the Government seem to be saying that they are keen to reduce the harm to children from gambling and that they particularly recognise the issue of social media, which I raised in my speech today. Why do they not just back the Conservative party’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s?

   Hansard source
7. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Louie French

   Gambling Advertising

   On financial risk assessments, also known as affordability checks, will the Minister pass on a query relating to the gambling White Paper? My understanding from the previous Gambling Minister and from the then shadow Gambling Minister, who is now the Sports Minister, was that the checks could go ahead only if they were truly frictionless, hence the pilot. Can the Government confirm whether the Gambling Commission has the authority to proceed if that is not the will of Parliament?

   Hansard source
8. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

   19. What recent progress he has made on implementing the Humble Address agreed on 4 February 2026.

   Hansard source
9. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mr Gagan Mohindra

   Lord Mandelson: Response to Humble Address

   Will the Minister reassure me that the Intelligence and Security Committee will be prioritised when new information comes to light, as per the terms of the Humble Address, as opposed to information first being given to Downing Street or to journalists to then publish at their own convenience, as was the case when it was discovered that Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting?

   Hansard source
10. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    UK-EU Relations

    The UK has become a global leader in agri-tech and particularly selective breeding, largely because of our flexible regulatory framework, including the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023. That would not have happened if we were still members of the European Union. The BioIndustry Association says that dynamic alignment would threaten UK leadership in biotech innovation. Will the Minister commit to securing a carve-out for precision breeding so that our success in this vital sector is not threatened by new or future EU legislation?

    Hansard source
11. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Mike Wood

    UK-EU Relations

    I think the House and the public outside will have heard that the Minister is refusing to give that commitment to the representatives of this vital sector. However, he will know that the high cost of fertilisers is one of the biggest pressures on British farming and food prices. Raising carbon prices to the level of the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism is projected to add around £100 a tonne to that cost. At a time of high food costs and squeezed food security, does he really think that now is a sensible time to hammer British farming yet again?

    Hansard source
12. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Martin Vickers

    Business of the House

    Yesterday I held a meeting with representatives from Hydrogen UK, a number of whose members have projects planned for my constituency. They expressed concern about the delay in the publication of the Government’s hydrogen strategy. The delay is costing these companies many thousands of pounds and may lead to them withdrawing investments, which would obviously be damaging for the local economy and the ambitions of the Government’s growth agenda. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early statement from a Minister to announce the strategy to let us get moving with these projects?

    Hansard source
13. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Lincoln Jopp

    UK Biobank Data

    I thank the Minister for his statement and for prior sight of it. This is indeed a serious breach. In another life, I was the chief operating officer of a tech company and we, too, had data breaches. We found that the best way to deal with them was to have developed a culture of openness and honesty in the organisation, not to flap or panic, to plug the leak and to limit the damage. Ideally that is all rehearsed, because it is too late to learn to swim when the ship starts sinking. A couple of things in the Minister’s statement require clarification. The statement says what the data does not include, with the implication being that the participants could not be individually identified. What was in the data? Could it be used to identify participants, even if only mosaically? The statement says that the research institutions identified as the source of the leak have had their access blocked. I am left thinking: is that it? Were those institutions Chinese? What sanctions are available either to the UK Biobank or to the Government on those institutions? Is their blocking permanent or temporary? How has UK Biobank reassured itself and its participants that no further copies of the data exist? What is the possibility or likelihood that the full dataset is now in the hands of the Chinese state? I hope that the Minister will forgive me for not being an instant expert on UK Biobank. Can he tell me whether any research institutions that have access to UK Biobank data are based in Russia, Iran or North Korea? What is the Government’s risk assessment? When I served on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill Committee, I distinctly remember the Government whipping their Back Benchers to vote down a Conservative amendment to oblige the Secretary of State to maintain a register of hostile actors posing a threat to the cyber-security of critical UK industries and sectors, including health. Will the Minister commit to reviewing that in the light of this serious data breach? This is a grave incident. UK Biobank is an amazing project with thousands of trusting volunteers. I hope that the Government will send in the relevant agencies to help UK Biobank to secure its systems for the future, including vetting the research institutions that it trusts.

    Hansard source
14. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Joy Morrissey

    Allied Health Professionals

    On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government placed a written ministerial statement on today’s Order Paper to update the House on the much-troubled Ajax armoured fighting vehicle programme. However, the media have reported within the last two hours that, according to urgent briefing from the Ministry of Defence, the statement will now be delayed until later next week due to the need to seek further interdepartmental approval across Whitehall. Given that the strategic defence review was published months late, the defence investment plan, including vital new equipment programmes, is still unpublished nine months on, and now the MOD is putting out WMSs on the Order Paper and then refusing to publish them, the Department is clearly in a state of chaos. Can you advise me on how we can force the MOD to clarify this utterly confusing situation later today, or on Monday at the very latest?

    Hansard source
15. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Business of the House

    Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

    Hansard source
16. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·John Lamont

    Business of the House

    May I start by congratulating the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) on the birth of his daughter, baby Lyla? I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him and his family well. Last weekend, I met the friends and family of Jamie Tweedie as they walked the St Cuthbert’s Way from Melrose to Holy Island, raising over £25,000 for the Scottish Brain Tumour Research Centre of Excellence. Jamie was a local farmer in the Borders who tragically lost his life to a brain tumour just under a year ago. I know their efforts will help advance treatments for that devastating disease. We are all watching the development of peace talks between the US and Iran. For the good of our economy and in the interests of bringing energy bills down for households and businesses, we all hope to see a swift end to the conflict. Turning to domestic politics, after weeks of chaos, this may be the lowest point yet for this Government—a Prime Minister putting his own interests above the national interest. He has already had four chiefs of staff, five directors of communications, three Cabinet Secretaries and four principal private secretaries. Does the Leader of the House agree that perhaps the problem lies with the Prime Minister himself? On Tuesday, the Foreign Affairs Committee heard extraordinary evidence from Olly Robbins, the former permanent secretary at the Foreign Office. He described a dismissive attitude in Downing Street towards vetting, and “constant pressure” to appoint Peter Mandelson to the most senior diplomatic role. He also told MPs that he was asked to give the Prime Minister’s then director of communications a senior diplomatic post—without informing the Foreign Secretary, it would seem. The Foreign Office is not a redeployment pool for failed political advisers. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether it was appropriate for No. 10 to apply such pressure over Mandelson’s vetting, or does he accept that due process was not followed? Does he believe the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House? Does the Leader of the House accept that the Prime Minister continues to make statements that are hard to reconcile with reality? Can the Leader of the House explain why Olly Robbins was sacked? Was it right and fair to sack him? The Prime Minister has never looked weaker. The Prime Minister is so weak that he has brought forward the moment of Prorogation to avoid another bruising Prime Minister’s questions. He has already lost the confidence of the entire country. When will Labour MPs finally stand up for their constituents and join us in removing this dreadful Prime Minister? While the Prime Minister is consumed by internal chaos, the issues that matter to our constituents are being ignored. Energy bills are soaring, particularly for those in rural communities who rely on heating oil, people are struggling to find work, and decisions on funding our national defence are being delayed, despite global threats. At the same time, Government Back Benchers and Cabinet members brief against each other, plotting over the Prime Minister’s future. As this parliamentary Session draws to a close, I doubt it will be remembered fondly by those on the Government Benches. In two weeks’ time, voters will go to the polls in important elections across England and in parliamentary elections in Scotland and Wales. In Scotland, Labour’s campaign has descended into confusion, illustrated by the remarkable sight of the Prime Minister visiting the nuclear base at Faslane, while avoiding any contact with his own party leader in Scotland, Anas Sarwar. It seemed that the Prime Minister needed the protection of the nuclear deterrent from his own Scottish Labour colleagues. This Government have found it easier to locate secret Russian submarines in the north Atlantic than to find the Scottish Labour leader in the south side of Glasgow. Across Scotland, voters are clear: they are tired of an SNP Government distracted from delivery and focused on independence. But people are not powerless. The peach-coloured regional ballot paper gives voters the opportunity to prevent another SNP majority, as they did in 2016 and 2021. The results of another SNP majority in Scotland would be similar to those of the current Labour majority in this House: more broken promises, more chaos and more division. Does the Leader of the House agree that whether at Westminster or at Holyrood, Governments deserve to be judged harshly if they do not stick to their promises and they inflict chaos on our country?

    Hansard source
17. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·John Cooper

    Topical Questions

    T5. Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. We face many threats, but happily dragons are no longer one of them.The Government maintain that the messages between Morgan McSweeney and his mentor Peter Mandelson are under the aegis of the Metropolitan police and therefore cannot be released, but surely the questions are critical to our understanding of what has gone on here and should be available to the House. Will the Government at least commit to publishing the questions?

    Hansard source
18. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    I join everyone in congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) on securing the debate and on making a very important contribution, which has been supplemented by speech after speech right across the Chamber identifying a common theme around medical cases, as well as other issues. I will come on to those shortly. The DVLA’s role in upholding the licensing system is essential for maintaining driver safety—that is a truism—and ensuring that the correct people are behind the wheel. We should not underestimate the scale of the task; it is a huge one. Last year, the agency collected £8.4 billion of vehicle excise duty for the Exchequer. It maintained 53 million driver records, as well as 47 million vehicle records, and it processed getting on for 100 million customer transactions. That is no mean feat. If we want to keep our country moving, it is vital that the DVLA processes its work efficiently, reaching the correct answers and doing so quickly. The huge disruption caused by the covid pandemic saw the operation creak and exposed its weaknesses, with systems unable to cope with, among other things, staff distancing. Thanks to important work under the last Government, backlogs were brought down and longer-term efficiency improvements began to be implemented. Changes were made to streamline existing processes. For example, the law was altered to enable healthcare professionals other than doctors to respond to DVLA medical questionnaires. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), when he was a Minister in the Department—he is now the shadow Secretary of State for Transport—launched an independent examination of the DVLA in 2023 to establish what the Government could do to provide genuinely customer-focused services. We had hoped that that reform process would continue with the new Administration after the election in 2024, and some of it has, but as we have heard in the debate today, the data suggests that in many instances that reforming zeal has not continued. The DVLA’s business plan tells us that the average waiting time for licensing decisions on medical cases will be within 50 days—a long time in its own right. However, the Government now admit that in October 2025 the waiting time was over 78 days. By November, the delay had increased further to over 80 days. That has real consequences. We have heard that from Member after Member, and I shall pick out one. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), in a powerful speech, referred to a constituent who has stage 4 cancer and has been waiting nine months and counting for a decision. That is totally unacceptable. Across 2025-26 the overall average was over 56 days, missing the Government’s already slack target of 50 days. That is not acceptable, because it leaves drivers hanging, uncertain of what their fate will be. I would greatly appreciate it if the Minister could explain whether the position has improved since November last year—the last date for which figures are publicly available. Have the Government met, or are they closer to meeting, the target? The DVLA has said that it is completing the migration of its digital driver licensing services from its old digital platform on to a new strategic cloud platform. While that is welcome progress, it does not appear to align with the scale of the reform programme set out by the Treasury in its 2025 departmental efficiency plans. The Department for Transport plan listed: “AI initiatives to increase automation and self-service at its contact centre”, “expanding the use of Robotic Process Automation software”, “automating Vehicle Excise Duty (VED) refunds”, and “wider organisational and workforce restructure.” It claimed that, taken together, those changes would secure net efficiencies of £39 million by 2028-29. However, the actual business plan from the Department for 2025-26, published in March, makes no mention of AI initiatives to bring forward automation and self-service, or to automate refunds for customers. What happened to the plans? Has the Minister changed his mind? Has he told the Treasury? Will he tell us? Without that focus in the business plan, how can we ever expect to see improvements in efficiency and service for the customer? Those are not the only reforms that the DVLA is struggling with. There are challenges around fee deficits. The Government have promised efficiency savings, but it is not clear how they plan to deliver them. The shadow Transport Secretary asked about the £2.50 fee charged for the release of vehicle keeper details. Unfortunately and ironically, the Department’s written answers were later acknowledged to be partially incorrect, as they included inaccurate information about the requirement for legislation. Will the Minister take this opportunity—I am sure he will—to explain whether he plans to change those fees and, crucially, whether he is confident that he can make those changes effectively, given that he was unable to provide accurate information on the process in the first place? When there are questions about efficiency savings, it appears that there is a gap between the rhetoric and the actual delivery. Cloned number plates are another problem of increasing concern that must be tackled, as was highlighted effectively by the hon. Member for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes). The DVLA has to be supported in its work with the police to crack down on the issue. In her important speech, she referenced the example of a manufacturer who had been caught and received a £5,000 fine and a non-permanent ban—a five-year ban, from memory—from the registration list at the DVLA. That is madness and she is absolutely right to highlight the issue. We have to tackle the supply and use of cloned plates. Current legislation does not properly reflect the seriousness of the crime. The Conservative party is proposing new legislation so that manufacturers and online retailers of cloned plates would face a fine of up to £1,000 and/or up to five years’ imprisonment. On top of that, any driver caught using a plate that does not match their vehicle’s registered data would incur a driving ban of up to two years, up to a year in prison and a £5,000 fine. These are not accidental infringements of driving laws; it is express criminal activity, often to facilitate other crimes, and it should be treated as such. Ultimately, we need to have laws in place that clamp down on criminality. It is an oddity that it is much harder to scrap a car than it is to buy one. To scrap a car, people need ID, a vehicle licence and a UK bank account, whereas to buy one they can just turn up and pay in cash. That is a gateway for thousands of uninsured vehicles to be used for criminal purposes. The different approaches make no sense. Why do we not tighten up the rules, so that if a person wants to buy a car, at the very least they have to record their driving licence? Will the Government consider working with the DVLA to support our proposal to tighten up that method of removing uninsured vehicles from the road? The DVLA is ripe for further reform. Its services our ideal for use of AI to improve productivity, reduce costs and improve responsiveness. Instead of being paralysed by the Mandelson affair, the Government need to focus on driving through reforms to serve the driving public and clamp down on vehicle-related crime. I am concerned that the current data appears to be going in the wrong direction, but there is still time for the Government to turn this around. We have a plan for improvements and I look forward to hearing that the Government have one too.

    Hansard source
19. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Jerome Mayhew

    Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

    This is not a party political point, because I am sure that blame could be focused on my party as well. Given that we have 34,000 registered suppliers, does the Minister recognise that it is an impossible task for the DVLA to keep any kind of meaningful record as to whether they are in fact compliant?

    Hansard source
20. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    T7. Happy St George’s day, Mr Speaker. When was Jonathan Powell appointed as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance was he given on appointment.

    Hansard source
21. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

    Hansard source
22. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    Yes.

    Hansard source
23. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    In response to my question about Jonathan Powell’s security clearance, the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said: “I do not have that information to hand.”

    Hansard source
24. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Topical Questions

    Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister said that he did not have the information to hand but did not indicate whether he was going to let me know what the answer was when he did have that information to hand. If the Chief Secretary does not provide me with a written answer to that question, what opportunities do I have in this House to get him to answer it?

    Hansard source
25. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Allied Health Professionals

    May I wish you a very happy St George’s day, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is a privilege to respond to this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition and to recognise the invaluable contribution of allied health professionals, especially those living and working in my Farnham and Bordon constituency. Having spent much of my career in the healthcare sector, including time working for the College of Occupational Therapists—before it was granted its royal title, which shows how old I am—I have seen at first hand the critical role those professionals play across health and social care, often without the recognition they deserve. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on leading today’s debate, and the hon. Member for Dudley (Sonia Kumar) , a physiotherapist herself, for her work in securing it. The House is right to give time to those who do so much, often without fanfare. I want also to mention the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), whose experience of care by allied health professionals was both extraordinarily moving and amusing. I have taken to heart his recommendation of a diet of red meat and cheese. If this debate is to mean anything, we must address the central issue, which is workforce. Without a clear and credible workforce plan, warm words about allied health professionals will not translate into better care for patients. The Government’s still-awaited NHS workforce plan, due this spring, will be crucial. It is meant to set out how the ambitions of the 10-year health plan will be delivered. Without it, there remains real uncertainty about how workforce shortages and rising demands will be addressed, as the hon. Member for Thurrock highlighted so powerfully when she summed up the situation as “a crisis”. That matters, because allied health professionals are already helping to unlock capacity across the system. We see that clearly in the expansion of independent prescribing, which we as Conservatives support. By enabling allied health professionals to take on those responsibilities, pressure is reduced on GPs and specialists, and patients receive faster, more efficient care. It is a practical reform that improves outcomes, but one that depends on proper planning and support in order to scale it. The challenge does not stop in the NHS; it extends directly into education and special educational needs and disabilities provision. As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group for SEND, I see the growing reliance on an expanded workforce of therapists and specialists to support children with additional needs. From experience of working alongside occupational therapists early in my career, I know just how critical that support can be in helping children to access education and achieve their potential. However, the pipeline simply does not match the ambition. Training an educational psychologist can take up to eight years and other key roles, such as speech and language therapists or occupational therapists, take many years to develop. Without a clear and actionable workforce plan, local authorities are left trying to bridge that gap themselves, often without the certainty or the funding required to do so effectively. I saw that at first hand in Hampshire, as I am sure you have, Madam Deputy Speaker. Proposed changes to therapy provision raised real concerns among professionals in my constituency, but through consultation, the council listened, protected staff and expanded the specialist roles. That is the difference that practical, locally informed decision making can make, protecting services while improving provision. Unfortunately, by contrast, there is a growing concern that the Government’s approach risks creating uncertainty, rather than clarity. That is particularly striking when we consider the progress that had begun under the previous Conservative Government, rightly outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) in her superb speech. Through the AHP strategy and the long-term workforce plan, clear steps were set out to expand the workforce, increase training places and grow apprenticeship routes into these vital professions. It was not perfect, but it was a plan. What we see now, however, are drifts: no published workforce plan, no clear assessment of the impact of recruitment challenges, and decisions that risk weakening the very structures needed to support AHPs. The requirement for integrated care boards to reduce their budgets has already raised serious concerns. The Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has warned about the impact on leadership roles, and we are already seeing a reduction in senior AHP positions across the system. That is not strengthening the workforce but undermining it.

    Hansard source
26. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Gregory Stafford

    Allied Health Professionals

    The hon. Lady, with whom I serve on the Health and Social Care Committee, always raises important points. What the last Government were trying to do—certainly by the end—with their workforce plan, which was the first of its kind, was to ensure that the workforce began to expand again. That is what all of us across the House are hoping that this Government will build on. The Government have confirmed that they have no plans to extend the job guarantee to allied health professionals, and have made no assessments of the impact of recruitment delays on patient care. For a Government who often speak about the importance of the NHS, it is difficult to understand why the very professionals who play such a central role in recovery, rehabilitation and patient flow are being overlooked, as the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles) passionately highlighted. If we are serious about reducing waiting lists, improving outcomes and supporting patients across both health and education, allied health professionals are not optional but essential—and essential services require serious planning. In conclusion, I will ask the Minister three simple questions. First, when will the NHS workforce plan be published and how will it specifically address the shortages in allied health professionals? Secondly, will the Government reconsider their decision not to include AHPs in the job guarantee, given the clear need to support and retain this workforce? Thirdly, what steps will be taken to ensure that NHS organisations and local services can recruit and retain the AHPs they need, particularly in under-resourced areas? Without clear answers to those questions the risk is clear: we will continue to ask more of allied health professionals while giving them less support to deliver. From what I have seen throughout my career, including in my work with occupational therapists, that is not a position that any of us should accept for the workforce or the patients who depend on them

    Hansard source
27. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    I have listened with great interest, but is it not true that the hon. Gentleman has been written to on numerous occasions by the Gambling Commission for a misuse of their figures? Although I agree with some of the things he says, I am rather concerned that if that is the case, some of the figures he is citing here in Parliament, which will be reported in Hansard, are also not correct.

    Hansard source
28. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    Three times they have written to you.

    Hansard source
29. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    I know that my hon. Friend understands this arena very well. My concern is that the unregulated black market for gambling is growing at a rapid rate—as he says, it accounts for over half of advertising. The focus on licensed, regulated gambling operators is surely going to squeeze them out of the market, meaning that the illegal market can boom, as we are seeing across the world.

    Hansard source
30. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    We are removing advertising for regulated, licensed gambling. Illegal gambling is now so large globally that, if it were an economy, it would be smaller only than that of America and China—that is how big the gambling black market has got.

    Hansard source
31. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    Is it not right to say that we cannot regulate the black economy, so what the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) is saying is not possible?

    Hansard source
32. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    I feel it only fair to raise the same points with the hon. Lady as I did earlier. She has been written to twice by the Gambling Commission for misusing its statistics and has been written to by the Office for Statistics Regulation about the misuse of statistics. As we listen to her numbers now, I wonder, are they right?

    Hansard source
33. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    Can my hon. Friend help me? A little earlier I raised a point about misinformation being used by the Gambling Commission, and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that it had not been called out for misusing statistics. However, this is listed on three separate occasions on the Gambling Commission’s public log of requested corrections. Can my hon. Friend explain the clear discrepancy on what we have heard in this debate?

    Hansard source
34. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    I ask this question through the Minister, as she obviously does not have the relevant figures because she is not the Gambling Minister. What has been the growth of illegal gambling in the UK in the last few years? As I understand it, there has been a considerable increase in the illegal market.

    Hansard source
35. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    It is on the record.

    Hansard source
36. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    Will the hon. Member give way?

    Hansard source
37. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Esther McVey

    Gambling Advertising

    I will give you the information that you don’t have—

    Hansard source
38. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst

    Business of the House

    Phoenix shops are a blight on many of our high streets, including in my constituency of Solihull West and Shirley. Councillor Karen Grinsell, the leader of Solihull metropolitan borough council, recently brought forward a motion to have greater statutory powers to close down these stores. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time to debate this issue so that we can close these stores for good?

    Hansard source
39. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Neil Hudson

    Synthetic Chemicals

    As shadow DEFRA Minister, I congratulate and thank the Chair of the Committee and his cross-party Environmental Audit Committee for this excellent and timely report. As he has said, PFAS—these forever chemicals—are hugely damaging to the environment and pose significant risks to human health, animals and wildlife. The previous Government started work with the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive to look at monitoring and risk, and as the Chair said, the current Government have taken that work forward through the PFAS report in February this year. However, as his report rightly says, more needs to be done, so does he agree that the Government now need to take this work further and move more into the areas of prevention and solutions, such as placing pressure on water companies to enforce Drinking Water Inspectorate guidelines on PFAS limits?

    Hansard source
40. 23 Apr 2026·Parliament·Dr Kieran Mullan

    Courts and Tribunals Bill (Ninth sitting)

    I am grateful to the hon. Member for Wimbledon, who is not in his place, for the advice received in relation to amendment 54, which was drafted with the assistance of the Clerks. The Minister is right that our intention was to unpick the barriers at the permission stage that the Bill introduces. I think her point applies just to the first amendment; the other amendments fit because they are about what happens after a successful appeal and how it might be re-instigated. On that basis, I will not press amendment 54 to a vote. We will table a suitable amendment at a later stage.

    Hansard source