Alex Ballinger MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. This has been driven a lot by the argument that the unregulated industry will somehow capture the market. If we are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, that should include such restrictions on the unregulated gambling market, which as we can see is already advertising in football and online in lots of spaces. Those are things that we are calling for, too. That 9% of the market, which is in our report, will hopefully not grow. We should not pretend that the unregulated market is the only one causing problems. There are issues in the regulated market as well. We have heard about the bonuses, the promotions, the free bets and other issues from people with lived experience, who have faced them in the regulated market too, which is the majority of gambling harm. Across the House, I think there is a wish to go further in protecting children and young people, even though we may have disagreements about how we do so. There are some good recommendations in our report, I hope, for sensible steps to protect children and young people from gambling advertising, and particularly from gambling harms that might come to them in future. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered gambling advertising.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member’s concerns are about the unregulated market. However, the proposals in the APPG report are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, including unregulated gambling advertising. He talks about the growth in unregulated gambling advertising, which is of course a big problem. But surely if those restrictions were implemented, it would give a better chance to bookkeepers that already have shops on the high street and a well-known reputation?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is completely right: gambling regulation is devolved in Northern Ireland, and the problem there is similar to the one we have in the rest of the country; in fact, the scale of gambling harm is even higher than it is in Great Britain. Members of the APPG have been talking to colleagues in Stormont in a similar all-party group, and they face similar challenges in calling for greater regulation. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments, and I am glad he has put them on the record. Gambling advertising is all over spaces that children spend time in, and unfortunately our regulations have completely failed to keep pace. We rely far too much on self-regulation and voluntary codes that deliver only partial measures, even as evidence mounts that children continue to be widely exposed. The evidence presented in our report is unequivocal: these measures have not worked. The so-called whistle-to-whistle ban is a case in point. It was introduced with the intention of protecting children from exposure during live sports, yet research shows that thousands of gambling messages still appear during matches through pitch-side advertising, sponsorship and branding that falls entirely outside the scope of the ban. It is similar online, where regulators have struggled to respond to the rise of content marketing and influencer promotion. Those forms of advertising are often not recognised as advertising at all by younger audiences, who are less equipped to identify and critically assess what is being advertised to them. The UK is also falling behind other jurisdictions. Countries such as Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium have recognised the risks to young people and have introduced meaningful restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and promotions. By contrast, the UK is delaying action, with a demand for ever more evidence. However, as our report makes clear, that sets an impossible standard. We do not apply that standard to other areas of public health, especially where children are concerned. We did not wait until the evidence became overwhelming before restricting tobacco or junk food advertising to children. Instead, we acted based on credible evidence of harm and a duty to protect the public, especially children and young people.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mrs Harris. I thank all Members who have joined in this lively debate: the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. We have covered a lot of issues and it has been one of the few debates in which we have had an exchange of views rather than of party political positions, so I appreciate that. I will respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I have not seen that correspondence, but she seems certain that I have received it, so I will go back and check.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I will check, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West responded on what the all-party group may have said. I should say very briefly that there seems to have been a big debate about the unregulated market and the regulated market. I think that is important. There were questions about the size of the unregulated market, and some of that is in our report, which I have just looked at: it is approximately 9% of the online space, with 700 operators, according to Yield Sec. As everyone has said, that is largely driven by the unregulated market going after people who have been banned by GamStop.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I will not accept that. Having met lots of people with lived experience of gambling and having seen the evidence in our report, I know there is a clear link between gambling advertising and halting the recovery of people with gambling addictions. An argument often used by the industry is that more evidence is needed, but I will come later in my speech to why that is not a problem—it was not a barrier, for example, when we introduced restrictions on tobacco advertising several years ago. For children and young people, the situation is even more concerning, because gambling advertising normalises gambling long before they are legally able to gamble. Our report highlights data from the Gambling Commission’s “Young People and Gambling” report, which found that 79% of children had seen gambling adverts or—64% of them on television, and 74% online. That is four out of five children in the country exposed to gambling advertising, which is more than the proportion of children who read for pleasure.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way at this point, because I am just wrapping up—

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  The APPG recognise that horseracing and greyhound racing are much more dependent on gambling advertising than other industries; that is why we made that separation.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  They have not written to me. We need to properly safeguard the next generation from gambling advertising that aims to normalise an activity that has been proven to be extremely harmful, and something that the Government have the power to act on today.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered gambling advertising. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, particularly as you have taken such an interest in gambling harm over many years. I am grateful to be able to open this debate on gambling advertising and its impact across the United Kingdom, and to be joined by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is co-sponsoring the debate and who, like me, is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform. The interest in the debate reflects the growing concern in Parliament and beyond about the scale, reach and consequences of gambling advertising in the UK and about its growing impact on children and young people. This debate comes at an important moment. This week, the APPG and Peers for Gambling Reform released their report on gambling advertising, which brings together academic evidence, lived experience and policy analysis to make the case that our current system is not working. Gambling advertising is everywhere: on our television screens, in our football stadiums, on local radio, on social media, where it is promoted by influencers, and on video games played by children. It is also increasingly sophisticated, targeted and personalised. Our APPG report shows that the industry now spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and marketing, in a deliberate and sustained effort to drive engagement, normalise gambling and grow the market, including by creating future generations of gamblers. We must be honest about what that means: greater exposure leads to greater participation, and greater participation leads to more gambling harm. We have heard repeatedly—through research, from clinicians and, most importantly, from those with lived experience—that gambling advertising acts as a trigger. For those trying to stop gambling, it undermines their recovery.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member talks about Formula 1, as well as other sports, but does he remember the rules that changed the tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1 and the strong resistance of that industry to those changes because of the arguments he is making right now? Does he also recognise that Formula 1 has become more successful after those changes?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman let me respond?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I am terribly sorry to hear my hon. Friend’s story about her constituent. It does sound like another failure of the self-exclusion system. We have heard similar stories in other places; I met one person with lived experience in Portsmouth, who signed up to self-exclusion but was able to gamble away his life savings in several shops that were not enforcing the rules properly. The principle of credible evidence being shown—as it was with the tobacco industry and the junk food industry—should also be applied to our restrictions on gambling advertising. That is why our report calls for a significant intervention and a step change in how gambling advertising is regulated in this country, with protections for children and young people at its core. As shown in Northern Ireland, that is an approach that the UK public strongly support. According to polling, 65% of the public want stricter regulation of the gambling industry, and 68% say that under-18s should not see gambling advertising at all. Let me highlight some of the key recommendations from our report. We recommend an end to gambling advertising before the 9 pm watershed, as part of a broader effort to reduce children’s exposure across TV and radio. We recommend an end to gambling sponsorship in sports, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing. Research by the University of Bristol in 2025 found that football fans were exposed to more than 27,000 gambling messages during the opening weekend of that year’s premier league—nearly triple the number in 2023. We recommend an end to content marketing and influencer-led promotion, where gambling is embedded in entertainment formats, making it particularly difficult for children and young people to recognise when they are being advertised to. Finally, we call for stronger enforcement, particularly of unlicensed operators, alongside greater transparency across digital advertising, including the introduction of “know your customer” requirements. The current system has allowed commercial interests to outweigh sensible protections for children and young people, and we have a duty to change that. We have a duty to ensure that children are not routinely exposed to advertising for an activity that carries well-evidenced risks. We have a duty to support those experiencing harm, rather than allowing a system that can actively undermine recovery. And we have a duty to ensure that regulation keeps pace with the reality of the modern advertising landscape. This is not about being anti-gambling; it is about being proportionate, responsible and evidence-led. It is about recognising that when an industry invests billions in marketing, there are consequences, and those consequences are felt most clearly by children and young people. This issue can be resolved now. The evidence is already there. The public concern is enormous. As the APPG report sets out, the Government have many of the powers they require to act; the question now is whether we are prepared to use them. I hope the Minister—she is not the Minister for gambling, so I appreciate her coming here today—will reflect carefully on our findings and share them with the Minister for gambling. I also hope Ministers will reflect on the case the report makes for a more precautionary public health-led approach that places the protection of children and young people at its heart. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in her response what assessment the Government have made of the cumulative impact of gambling advertising exposure, particularly on children and young people; whether further action is being considered to reduce that exposure across sport, broadcast and online environments; and how the Government intend that regulation to keep pace with emerging forms of advertising, including content marketing and influencer promotion. This is an opportunity to take a more coherent and forward-looking approach that reflects both the evidence and the expectations of the public.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I have come from the Foreign Affairs Committee sitting this morning, where we had the opportunity to speak to Sir Olly Robbins as our witness. I want to use my speech to pull out some of the pertinent points that we heard that I think are relevant. Before I start, I absolutely agree with Members across the House who say that Lord Mandelson was a completely inappropriate and terrible choice for our ambassador, and that there has clearly been a failure in the process that ended up in his appointment and in the vetting. However, it is important that we look at what Sir Olly said in the witness statement today, because some of that contradicts what has been said in the House. The first important thing that Sir Olly said is that no Minister—not the Prime Minister, not the Foreign Secretary, nor any other Minister—or any official in No. 10 was given sight of the fact that UKSV had declined Mandelson’s security vetting. They had no sight at all of any details of that vetting. He said that, justified that and defended that. No officials or Ministers should have sight of that vetting, because it is extremely personal and sensitive information. I went through that process myself when I worked at the Foreign Office, and we do not want to create any conditions that make people afraid to share sensitive information in the vetting process, thinking that at some point in the future it might be leaked, whether to politicians, to others in the line management chain or, as we have seen, to the press, because that undermines the integrity of the process as a whole. That reinforces what the Prime Minister said yesterday. Secondly, Sir Olly disputed the characterisation that UKSV had failed Peter Mandelson’s vetting: that it was in some way a binary choice inside the Foreign Office. It is important that we explain—or that I try to justify—what Sir Olly was saying, because the FCDO has a slightly different process from that of other parts of Government. It is an overseas Department—a bit like the Ministry of Defence, for example—so people with seriously long careers and all sorts of different interests come into those roles. I am not suggesting that Peter Mandelson should have passed vetting, not at all, but it is not unusual for the FCDO rather than UKSV to make a decision on a borderline case. According to Sir Olly’s evidence, that is a normal process. It is important that we hold to that in future.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I will take one more intervention, and then I will finish.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I feel very sympathetic to Olly Robbins. Olly Robbins—

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I can speak only to what the witness told us in the inquiry this morning. Many Members made the same case that the right hon. Gentleman is making now: that it was a red box case, as we have seen in the evidence submitted. However, Sir Olly was clear that this was a borderline case, and it is usual for the Foreign Office to conduct such cases. The right hon. Gentleman can make up his own mind about whether to believe Sir Olly or other people.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  I had a different interpretation. Sir Olly also said—we can look back at the transcript—that, yes, there was pressure from No. 10 to get the appointment done quickly. It could be interpreted that the Government wanted to get the appointment done before President Trump’s inauguration—there was an important timeline by which to do it—because there was a risk that any new ambassadorial appointments after that might be interfered with. Again, these are the words of Sir Olly; I am not bringing this up from nowhere.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Let me finish. The other important point is that it was not just the UK Security Vetting system that put a borderline process through, which the FCDO then approved; it was also the intelligence agencies. It is equally concerning that Peter Mandelson was given STRAP clearance. I asked Sir Olly directly whether any concerns were raised by intelligence agencies on the process of obtaining STRAP clearance, which is a higher level of security that gives someone access to the country’s most classified secrets. No one from the intelligence agencies raised any concerns during that STRAP process. There are serious concerns about that.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  Sir Olly Robbins will have an opportunity to account for himself, but he gave a very good account of himself at the Committee this morning, and it is not for me to make that judgment. I can think of several good reasons why the FCDO and the MOD might need to use that discretion in the future. I am also really concerned that details about Peter Mandelson’s vetting were leaked to the press in September. Even considering Peter Mandelson’s misconduct, the integrity of that process is really important, and Sir Olly also raised concerns about that issue. I hope that the reviews announced by the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister the other day will look at the leaks to the press, because it is unacceptable that such vital personal information about the vetting process has been released in that way. Most importantly, Sir Olly’s evidence rubbishes some of the accusations that Members made in the House and, indeed, in the media yesterday that questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty about the situation, because he categorically ruled out any suggestion that the Prime Minister knew anything about it, for good reason. The Members who made those accusations and were rightly thrown out of the House should correct the record and apologise.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  That is not my experience of No. 10. I am pleased to see that there will be a review of the vetting system, because this process has uncovered serious problems within it. I have a number of takeaways from this morning’s evidence. I agree that Peter Mandelson was a terrible pick for ambassador, even before the things that came out about him later, and it was the wrong decision to pick him. However, there have clearly been failures in developed vetting, in the process at the FCDO and in the STRAP vetting process. I am pleased that the Government have announced two reviews—one to be led by Sir Adrian Fulford and a separate Cabinet Office review—to consider those vetting processes and ensure that, in relation to Peter Mandelson’s vetting and to the UK vetting system more generally, such mistakes do not happen again. I am slightly concerned that the Government have suspended the ability of overseas Departments to operate discretion in granting developed vetting. That is a sensible response in the short term, but I hope that as the reviews are carried out, the Minister will consider the reasons why those Departments have that discretion.

• 21 Apr 2026 · Peter Mandelson: Government Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  We have heard real concerns about the process, and I am glad that the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister has announced reviews into that process, because we really need to make sure we get it right in the future.

• 15 Apr 2026 · Strategic Defence Review: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  I remember defence “investment” under the last Government; I was serving when our pay was cut, our defence housing was ruined, and equipment projects were cancelled and underfunded. In fact, it was under the Conservative Government that our Navy warships were cut by 25%, our amphibious ships were mothballed and our Army fell to its smallest size for 200 years. Will the Minister tell us about the projects that we are undertaking to increase pay and improve housing, and the effect that they are having on recruitment and retention of our armed forces, so that we can rebuild their numbers, after they were hollowed out under the last Government?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Yvonne has lived in a house in Halesowen that she has owned for 20 years. She purchased it under a leasehold arrangement that allowed her property management company, Principle Estate Management, to quadruple her service charge from £400 to £1,550 without conducting any maintenance. Clearly, Yvonne feels that she is being ripped off, and other residents of the same housing estate are now having difficulty selling their homes. Will the Minister outline what action is being taken to tackle property management firms such as Principle Estate Management, so that people like Yvonne are not continually being ripped off?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Leasehold Reform · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps his Department is taking to reform the leasehold sector.