Charlie Dewhirst MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  If something is already illegal, we do not regulate it. Does the hon. Member agree?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I could not agree with the hon. Member more. As a big football fan, this has been shocking for me. Growing up back in the ’90s, when Leeds United FC was last successful, what I would see on the front of a football shirt was a well-known brand, possibly British and possibly not. Looking at football shirts now, I often have no idea what the company is until I find out that it is, of course, an unregulated, foreign gambling site that is paying big money to the industry—I will share some figures on that in a minute. The Premier League has taken the right approach in banning those advertising deals from next season. As I say, there is much we can do to work with the gambling sector in this country, but we also need to make sure that unregulated and illegal gambling firms do not have the ability to advertise to and target residents of this nation, because they are not regulated as they would be under UK law. We must also recognise the importance of preventing aggressive advertising towards vulnerable people and particularly children, as the hon. Member said in his opening remarks. The balanced and evidence-led reforms made by the previous Government helped to strengthen protections, but there may be more to do. We can supplement the already-robust rules to ensure that we do more, but it is important that we do our very best to prevent children from being exposed in the way they might be at the moment. The hon. Member made an excellent point about the ways in which companies can dodge regulations, particularly those relating to football, where there has been a problem. The Premier League at least has recognised that and taken voluntary action to end it.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member has made a number of points on that subject. I will make some progress as I am sure that you, Mrs Harris, are keen for me to wrap up this contribution as soon as I can.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  Like colleagues from across the House, I have constituents—veterans and former public servants—who have been treated appallingly by Capita, and who have been unable to access the money that they paid in. The Minister previously promised a standardised mitigation letter that those individuals could take to lenders, so that they did not necessarily have to lend at a commercial rate. I appreciate that there is £7.2 million in interest-free loans as well. Has the Minister delivered on his promise of a standardised mitigation letter, and will he go further, if required, on the £7.2 million in interest-free loans?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Client Board: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  What assessment has the hon. Gentleman made of the so-called waterside option, which would see a floating pontoon with temporary Chambers built on the Thames? That would allow Parliament to access the rest of the estate during the refurbishment of this Palace. Why has that not been included in the options, and why instead are we being left to choose between two lengthier and more costly options?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Client Board: Progress · Hansard source

  More

  11. What recent progress the Client Board has made on its work.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Leader of the House will share my delight at the news of two new dental contracts, worth £6 million, in Bridlington, which will double NHS dental provision in the town. However, the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. I am extremely frustrated by the news that the local NHS trust has announced the proposed closure of the care unit at Bridlington hospital this summer. Will he join me in thanking the 1,200 residents who have already signed my petition against the closure, and can we have a debate in Government time on the provision of health services in coastal communities?

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may be aware that the RAF’s investment in the P-8 submarine hunting programme was made in 2015, at a time when Russian activity in the north Atlantic was much less of a threat to the UK. I welcome the £100 million announced just now, but that is less than one third of the cost of one of those aircraft, so can I ask him what assessment he has made of the P-8 submarine hunting capability in the light of the increased Russian activity? Will he assure the House that he will go further if the RAF needs him to?

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister is probably sick of hearing me bang on about the local picture up in the East Riding of Yorkshire and the fact that ours is the lowest-funded local authority for SEND. We have roughly £1,000 per pupil per year, while Camden is at the other end of the league table: the funding in the Prime Minister’s constituency amounts to £3,800 per pupil. That discrepancy, that inequality, is simply insane. It is an historic problem caused by a funding formula that does not work for larger rural authorities, and it is an issue on which Members on both sides of the House have campaigned for many years. This is one of those “almost too difficult to do” problems that Ministers, both on our side and on the Labour side, have perhaps shied away from. I ask the Minister tonight to grasp this unique opportunity, given that the Government are now consulting. I am pleased that I shall be meeting her next week, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) and for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and I hope that we can find a way forward. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for giving us a chance to debate these issues again today. In the limited time available to me, I will draw attention to a few of the specific problems that the system is throwing up. One problem involves EHCP drafting—if, of course, it is possible to obtain an EHCP in a timely manner in the first place. We often see only a vague recognition of need, which means that delivery on that need and the action plan is unenforceable from a legal perspective. The routine breaches of timelines are outrageous: people are waiting four years for an autism diagnosis. As a parent of a child with SEND, I was extremely lucky, in that my son’s nursery recognised his developmental issues when he was two and was very supportive during the process on which we then embarked, but I then became aware of how adversarial that process can become when one begins to engage in the issue of local authority provision. I found out at 3.30 pm on a Friday, via an email, that my son would not be able to take up the school placement that was, perhaps, most suitable for him at that point. The email did say that I could appeal against the decision, but it gave no reasons for why it had been made, and of course at 3.30 pm on a Friday everyone had finished work for the weekend, so replying was not an option. We can address, and should be addressing, such simple problems in the system to ensure that the journey for parents is easier and less challenging, because the more we can get the children into the right settings, the better it will be for them. Fewer will lose time in education and it will be possible to avoid the long-term problems that lead to further issues in adulthood, so that we do not find a child heading into a journey of never-ending care.

• 13 Apr 2026 · SEND Provision and Reform · Hansard source

  More

  One of the problems for the children involved is that their journey is uncertain, and the system becomes inflexible. The reviews are not carried out in a timely fashion, which means that a child gets stuck in a placement that may not be right, which exacerbates the problem for the future. We end up with much bigger, more costly issues—not just costly in terms of local authority or central Government spending, but costly for parents and children. As a parent, I think that one of the biggest challenges is not knowing where that journey is going to end—not knowing what my son’s outlook is likely to be in two years, five years or 10 years. If we felt confident that the system would be there to provide support and the necessary safeguard in respect of that schooling provision—perhaps provision into adulthood, if required—perhaps we could start to break down some of the barriers. I appreciate that much of this comes with costs, and that local authorities need more provision in certain areas. I plead with the Government once again to ensure that the inequality in the funding gap is addressed, but I hope we now have an opportunity to find a better way forward for SEND provision.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Support for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  Anyone who has been to the pumps in the last couple of weeks will have felt the pain of price rises. I do not blame the Secretary of State for that—obviously, international events have taken over—but can she guarantee the House that there will be no further rise in fuel duty for the remainder of this calendar year?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Support for Motorists · Hansard source

  More

  10. What recent steps her Department has taken to support motorists.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This House passed the Humble Address so that there is full transparency on Lord Mandelson’s appointment as ambassador to the United States. That includes the due diligence undertaken by the Cabinet Office’s propriety and ethics team. Yet, in an answer to a written question, Cabinet Office Ministers have now admitted that the people advising on what is to be redacted or deemed in scope are the very same propriety and ethics team that undertook the due diligence. Is that not a massive conflict of interest? What advice can you provide to Ministers on mitigating those conflicts of interest in responding to the House, given that the advice on such matters would normally be provided by the very same propriety and ethics team?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  The latest wind auction has signed us up to sky-high prices for the next 20 years, but Ministers are claiming that their internal analysis proves that this will bring down bills. Will the Secretary of State publish those calculations in full so that we can see exactly how prices will be lowered?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  18. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

• 19 Mar 2026 · EU-UK Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Various farming organisations have expressed their concern about the potential negative impact of dynamic alignment with the EU. CropLife’s report suggested that immediate alignment could cost British farming £800 million in year one, and could see wheat production reduced by more than 15%. What is the Secretary of State doing to work with Cabinet Office colleagues to ensure that they understand the potential negative impacts of an SPS deal, so that we do not sell out our farmers, as they sold out the fishing industry?

• 19 Mar 2026 · EU-UK Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  6. What steps she is taking to support UK interests in sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor has spent the last 18 months pricing young people out of jobs, and now the Secretary of State has been asked to ride to the rescue by paying companies to get the same young people back into work. The Government are effectively robbing Peter to pay Paul. Why does he think that youth unemployment in my constituency is up by 15% since the general election?

• 17 Mar 2026 · Ministerial Salaries (Amendment) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for his powerful remarks. I hope he did not spend too many hours trawling through 16 years of emails, but it is yet another example of his hard work and diligence in this place. I sympathise with his points, but I hope he is comforted by the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) that a future Conservative Government will reduce the number of ministerial posts and reduce the size of Government. As I am sure all Members would agree, it is only right that those who choose to serve the public as Ministers of the Crown should be able to receive a salary if they wish. Although the Government of the day must always be drawn from and ultimately accountable to the elected House of Commons, previous Governments of all stripes have benefited from the knowledge and wisdom provided by noble Lords who have served as Ministers or held one of the great offices of state. I am sure many Members will have had the privilege of working alongside them and know personally of their dedication and public service. All those who serve as Ministers of the Crown, whether they be Members of this House or the other place, give up their time and energy and take on an extra burden of responsibilities in doing so, both relating to their departmental work and in representing the Government in the Chamber. It is only right, therefore, that Ministers should receive equal payment regardless of the House in which they sit. It should also be noted that the impetus for ensuring that all those who serve as Ministers of the Crown can receive a salary came from the other place, which debated this issue at length during the passage of the House of Lords (Hereditary Peers) Bill. Although it remains a great disappointment that the Government chose to proceed with that misguided piece of legislation, at least some comfort can be taken from the fact that this debate emerged from that Bill. In particular, I pay tribute to my noble Friend Lord True, who so eloquently made the case for ensuring all Lords Ministers can receive a salary in the other place, and who laid amendments to the hereditary peers Bill to that end. While it remains disappointing that the Government did not support the Opposition’s amendments when they had the opportunity to do so, those Lords who have been calling for this change can take comfort in knowing that their efforts were not in vain. It is also further proof of the quality of debate in the other place, and the importance of its constitutional role in strengthening our laws through scrutiny, that we should be debating this Bill because of their efforts. To conclude, peers with the experience and expertise to serve as Ministers should not be prevented from doing so due to a lack of private means. I therefore join my hon. Friends in not opposing this Bill.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. There is a real challenge here, and I agree with the point that my hon. Friend made earlier. Leaving one political party in the House of Commons and joining a distinct grouping is one thing, but independence is a challenge, as I saw on local level when I was a councillor: some councillors were in the independent group, but there were also independent independents. The independent group had, in many ways, a political agenda, and started to work around that. If we were to bring in legislation, defining true independence could become quite challenging. Members may start to work together around certain political issues, and form a political direction, which would actually make them no different from any other small party in the House of Commons. I am sympathetic to the point, and the challenges around situations that may lead an individual from being party aligned to going independent are varied, but although I agree with the principle, we are concerned with the practicality. On issues such as this, the Conservative party has always been a broad church, so I am sure my hon. Friend and I can agree to disagree today. I do not think that there is any question of his being called into our Whips Office straight after the debate; it would certainly be very unfair if he were. That the voters choose an individual to be their sole representative is one of the greatest strengths of our constitution, ensuring a direct link between Members and their constituents. I take issue with the views of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), on PR, which would break the link between local people and an individual. It would almost make this entire debate irrelevant. How would we have a by-election if someone defected? Would the entire country vote in the by-election, to make sure that it is truly proportionally representative? That would not work. I have always been a supporter of the first-past-the-post system, which I believe is the best way to get representation of the people in this country. We put this matter to the test in a referendum not that long ago, and people made their views very clear.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, and to take part in this debate on automatic by-elections following Member defections. I thank everybody across the country who has signed the petition. I have brought with me a list of every MP who has ever defected. Given the lack of a time constraint, we could go through it, but I would prefer to concentrate on the arguments. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on introducing this important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) made an excellent contribution with some very powerful arguments indeed, made all the more persuasive by the fact that he is a much-loved local Member of Parliament. He has as much personal support as party support, and has defied political gravity in recent times. I absolutely sympathise with and understand a lot of the arguments he makes. I will outline an alternative viewpoint that relates not necessarily to principle, but to practicality and the challenges that may arise if a change of law were brought in to deal with the ongoing issue of Members choosing to change from one party to another. I fully sympathise with the frustration that many voters feel when their Member of Parliament chooses to defect to another party. At a time when our country faces many pressing challenges, it is easy to understand why many people feel as though their representatives, if they defect, are choosing party politics over real-life concerns. I would not deny the reality that many voters choose their candidate in an election with party labels in mind. We should not be arrogant enough to assume that everyone voted for us as individuals, regardless of our party alignment. Despite my hon. Friend’s popularity, it is absolutely party alignments, labels and manifestoes that persuade people at general elections. We can do our best to be great servants to those we seek to represent, but much of the time that decision is made on a wider, more national position. Like most Members, I am proud to work alongside like-minded individuals who share my core beliefs about how we can change our country for the better. Political parties have been an established part of our system for more than three centuries, and they have an irreplicable role in ensuring that the business of government and opposition can work effectively. John Grobham Howe is said to be the first MP to have defected when, in 1698, he switched allegiance from the Whigs to the Tories, so the discussion today is certainly not about a new phenomenon. It is ultimately only Members themselves who can know their motivations for choosing to leave their existing party. I know that many Members would consider it entirely dishonourable to do so without seeking a mandate from their constituents, and I fully understand why many think that allowing a by-election to take place after defecting is very much the right thing to do. However, making that an automatic requirement could have unintended consequences that would only undermine Members’ standing as elected representatives of the people. We who serve in this House do so as representatives of our constituents above all else, regardless of which party we represent. We are elected to do what we think is in the best interests of our constituents, above all other considerations. If a Member chooses to defect, that should be because they have judged, rightly or wrongly, that doing so is in the best interests of their constituents. Their constituents are, of course, free to disagree with that judgment, and may well choose to elect a representative of a different party at a later election. However, if we wish to uphold the principles that have made our political system one of the most enduring in the world, Members must be deemed fit to serve as representatives on the basis of their record of serving their constituents’ interests, and not simply on the basis of their party label.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  Things have changed over time, and I dread to think how many by-elections we might have had in recent years had we needed one every time someone was appointed to the Cabinet. I suspect that would have cost the public purse something quite significant. In the period of which the hon. Member speaks, there was a slower churn of those in the Cabinet, and there was not quite the political turmoil that we have seen in recent years, which would make such a situation challenging. It is a fair point, though, because the change of circumstance in that situation is far less than the change of circumstance of moving from one party to another. As I have said, it is not the principle of the issue that concerns me, but the practicality. If Parliament did introduce legislation, it would have to be absolutely spot on and watertight, to ensure that it did not degrade the link between individual Members of Parliament and their constituencies, and that the party system did not become more empowered through any such change. That is my principal concern. Our constitution and political system have drawn their strength from the respect we have for tried and tested convention, and we must always be wary of the danger of rushed constitutional change and unintended consequences. We need only to look at the recent past to see how previous attempts to enforce rigidity within our system have failed. Most notably, the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which was seen as an important tool during the coalition Government, ultimately was viewed to have failed and was rightly repealed during the last Parliament. The independence of Parliament and of an individually elected representative to do what they believe is in the best interests of their constituents is one of the longest-standing conventions in our political system. While I sympathise with the frustrations of the petitioners and understand their desire to see the proposed change enacted, I believe we would be unwise to surrender that independence.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Member Defections: Automatic By-elections · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely accept that there are many different voting systems that one could employ. Those with a mix between a party list and a constituency list create a two-tier system. What if one of the individuals on the party list were to defect? How would that be resolved? It would create a system even more challenging than the one we already have, which has a direct link between local people and their representative in the House of Commons. One of my concerns is that making the continuation of that representation conditional on membership of a political party might start to weaken that link, which is a strength of the first-past-the-post system, but there is also the question of how it would be dealt with under the varied systems that we have across the range of PR options. Making representation conditional in that way would reduce Members to delegates of their party rather than individuals chosen to represent all their constituents, regardless of who they voted for—a point that is hugely important to us all. As we have discussed, the threat of a by-election could be used to silence Members who feel compelled by their conscience to go against their party. As I just underlined, that is where the challenge about how to legally define an independent comes in. I am very sympathetic to the point that those who go independent should not face a by-election, but those who move from one established party to another should. The danger is that introducing mandatory by-elections would encourage Members to favour loyalty to the party over serving the interests of their constituents, particularly if they believed that those two things were in conflict. Of course, defection is only one means by which a Member can change their party allegiance. While the petition speaks only of defection to another party, there are other methods: resignation, the withdrawal of the Whip, parties’ restructuring and so on are all means by which a Member may choose no longer to represent the party for which they were originally elected. I am sure that no Member believes that every Liberal Democrat should have been forced to stand in a by-election when the Liberals and the Social Democrats merged. This is not the first time that the House has considered the issue of Members changing political allegiance. Previous Governments and Parliaments have wrestled with how to reconcile the independence of Members with the expectations of modern party politics, and in each instance they concluded that the independence of Parliament and its Members should not be constrained through major constitutional change.

• 5 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In the light of the arrest of three individuals yesterday for Chinese espionage, can the Minister confirm that security vetting for all special advisers is up to date?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I represent a seaside town, Bridlington, to which five million visitors come every year. It has a fantastic, successful seasonal economy that creates a large number of jobs for young people in the town every summer. Is there not a danger that the significant increases in the minimum wage for 16 to 18-year-olds and 18 to 20-year-olds will disincentivise local employers from giving young people opportunities to get on that first rung on the jobs ladder?