Charlie Maynard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for that. I believe we have covered everything. I appreciate everybody’s being here. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I fully agree and will cover that shortly. The Lancet commission concluded that “gambling poses a threat to public health, the control of which requires a substantial expansion and tightening of gambling industry regulation”. So what should we do? First, we should limit the impact of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship, especially the extent to which children and young people are exposed to it. The industry spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and would not be putting that money in without a high degree of certainty that it will be more than paid back in profits. Some 80% of that is spent online, which is why children so often come across gambling and gambling companies. Research undertaken by the Gambling Commission found that 34% of British bettors admitted to being influenced by advertising, and 16% stated that ads caused them to increase their gambling. Research published this year found that 96% of people aged 11 to 24 had seen gambling marketing messages in the month before the study, and were more likely to bet as a result. On Twitter—or X—alone, there are more than a million gambling ads in the UK each year. Football matches are saturated by gambling ads; there were thousands of gambling messages during the opening weekend of the English premier league alone, across various channels. Many of our neighbours have taken action. In 2018, Italy banned all online advertising of gambling products. Spain added strong restrictions in 2020. Germany did the same in 2021, as did the Netherlands and Belgium in 2023. Finland and Sweden are set to implement restrictions in 2027. By contrast, here in the UK, the 2023 White Paper on reforming gambling for the digital age acknowledged the harm caused by marketing but opted to continue with a mostly self-regulatory approach. I think such an approach means a huge amount of harm will continue, so I urge the Minister to look again at that, given the damage the sector does and the action already taken by others to mitigate it in their countries. There is strong public support for greater restrictions, too, with polling showing that 51% of people think all gambling advertising, promotion and sponsorship should be banned, and 78% think that nobody under the age of 18 should be exposed to it. Secondly, underpinning all this, we need a statutory independent gambling ombudsman with real power, exactly as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) stated. That was recommended in the 2023 gambling White Paper and was intended to be established and operational within 12 months, and yet no progress has been made. I also understand that the Government have asked the gambling industry, of all people, to come up with ideas on how the ombudsman should be run—a case of poacher turned gamekeeper if ever there was one. If that is the case, are the Government really serious about setting up an ombudsman with effective powers that it actually uses? Will the Minister please clarify what steps are being taken to achieve that? Thirdly, another area where our regulation has a disconnect is licensing frameworks. Pubs are licensed by local authorities. Licensing for vape shops, requiring retailers to obtain a personal licence to sell the products and a premises licence for their storage and sale, is currently under consideration in the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. Given that, why do local authorities not have the powers they need to prevent new gambling premises from opening? We should review and implement the relevant commitments in the 2023 gambling White Paper, which seeks to strengthen local authority discretion and better reflect community harm. I would welcome an update from the Minister on plans to review and progress the recommendations in the White Paper. Finally, I welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase gaming duty in last week’s Budget—that was an important step. I now encourage the Government to consider directing some of the revenue raised from that towards taking steps better to regulate the industry and reduce the personal and social harms it contributes to in the long term.

• 2 Dec 2025 · Gambling: Regulatory Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered reform of gambling regulation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. We are here to talk about gambling regulation and to discuss the scale of the problem. There is clear evidence that current regulation of the gambling industry is not adequate to protect people from harm, including children and young people. Figures published by the Gambling Commission this October showed that 1.4 million people in Britain have a gambling problem. That number is not spread equally: young men aged 25 to 34 are most affected, with 5.5% experiencing at least moderate-risk gambling, and rates are much higher in more deprived communities, with men in the most deprived areas twice as likely as those in more well-off areas to be moderate-risk gamblers. Evidence suggests that while many people gamble a bit, the vast majority of profits derived by gambling firms come from a small number of gamblers. The House of Lords Gambling Industry Committee found that 60% of the industry’s profits come from just 5% of customers, who are either problem gamblers or at risk. Recent Gambling Commission figures also show that the harms caused by gambling are increasingly being experienced by children, with the proportion of young people being exposed to significant harms more than doubling between 2023 and 2024. Moreover, the harms caused by gambling are not isolated to the individuals who take part; when it reaches a harmful level, it can have devastating impacts for families and right across communities, in every constituency. Gambling is linked to addiction, debt and other serious harms, and can negatively impact mental and physical health, relationships, finances, employment and education, but it is comparatively less regulated than other harmful industries and not taxed to directly reflect the harms it causes. In my home patch of Witney, Oxfordshire county council identified gambling addiction as a key risk factor in its recently updated suicide prevention strategy. Research by Gambling with Lives, a charity established in 2018 by families bereaved by gambling suicides, shows that, shockingly, there are hundreds of gambling-related suicides each year, an average of around one a day. The impact on the public purse is also significant. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research found that a person experiencing problem gambling leads to an additional £3,700 spend per year in higher welfare payments, healthcare and criminal justice costs, and the cost of homelessness. A research report from the University of Oxford by Dr Naomi Muggleton showed that as many as one in four gamblers are harmed. The industry continues to develop rapidly, and regulation must keep pace and remain fit for purpose. The Lancet public health commission on gambling found in 2024: “Digitalisation has transformed the production and operation of commercial gambling… The commercial gambling industry has also developed strong partnerships in media and social media. Sponsoring and partnering with professional sports organisations provides gambling operators with marketing opportunities with huge new audiences.”

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  This is a Budget driven far more by political calculation than by the economic realities that the country faces. The Chancellor has an enormous majority—on paper, at least—and the country desperately needs change, but we now have a second Budget in which the Government have failed to demonstrate that they have any big ideas to get the economy moving. However, before I go into that, I want to focus on some positives. I welcome some of the announcements that the Chancellor made last week, which will help households that have been struggling with the cost of living. Lifting the two-child benefit cap will be worth up to £5,000 a year to each of the more than 500 families in my constituency who have been impacted by the cap. Too many children and families have been trapped in poverty because of the decision to impose it and the Government’s previous stubborn decision to keep it. I just wish that this had been done a year ago, and I give my commiserations to the brave Labour Members who lost the Whip after standing up for a policy that their party now finally accepts. I also welcome the Government’s action to cut energy bills by removing the renewables levy, which is something that we Liberal Democrats had been calling on the Chancellor to do. It will make a difference to families struggling with sky-high fuel bills. However, I wish that the Government had gone further, rather than removing just 75% of the levy and only for three years. We were proposing to fund the renewables obligation instead from a windfall tax on the excess profits in the banking sector that have resulted from quantitative tightening—something that would have happened now, unlike the deferred taxation that the Chancellor is proposing, which may or may not happen. Both those changes will make struggling families’ lives a little easier, and are very much welcomed. Similarly, doubling remote gaming duty—something we have also been calling for—is clearly a sensible move. It is one way to raise much-needed revenue without increasing the burden on hard-working families, but it is comparatively small, raising only £1 billion a year. The sad truth is that these are all small wins in the context of the huge challenges we face.

• 1 Dec 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, I welcome it. The OBR has marked down economic growth for each of the next four years, which is bad news. We have a ballooning debt, which now sits at £2.9 trillion. Our debt costs have tripled in the last five years—yes, that is the Conservatives’ fault—and our Government debt is now more expensive than Italy’s. Yes, this all happened on the Conservatives’ watch, but we now have a situation in which 11% of Government spending goes on covering the interest payments, not on paying down the debt itself, and the Chancellor has given no indication that she is serious about addressing that. Across the five years of the forecast, the Chancellor proposes to deliver a reduction in our net borrowing of just 0.04% of GDP, and I question her tactics. What is the sense in taxing salary sacrifice schemes when we know the strain that the state pension and social care systems are under and when we need people to save more, not less? Does common sense not tell us that discouraging people from saving for retirement now will only lead to a greater burden on the public purse in the long run? Then there is the desperate state of our special educational needs and disabilities provision. The SEND national deficit overspend is forecast to reach £17.8 billion by March 2028. The Government have said they will cover costs directly from that point on, but they have given no answer as to how this huge bill will be settled up. In Oxfordshire alone, the SEND annual overspend is expected to reach £153 million by March 2026. Why are we waiting two and a half years to do something about that? As per policy decision 37, the Government determine that they will go further on efficiencies and savings in public services, but not just yet. There are zero governmental cost savings in each of the next three years and then, miraculously, we expect £4 billion in savings in 2029-30—the other side of a general election. How can the country take the Government seriously when they take this approach? That last instance highlights the problem with the fiscal framework the Government have set themselves. The rule that the current Budget must be in surplus in 2029-30, and the aim of ensuring that debt is falling as a share of the economy by ’29-30, are all well and good, but entirely excluding the intermediate years from the calculation serves our country extremely badly. This Government are gaming the system, in the same way the Conservatives did before them, by adjusting everything in year five to perfectly line up, with more spending early on and tax rises deferred, possibly into the never-never. Let us look at international examples of how national Budgets are set to understand why the UK is so ineffective at controlling its debt. The Government could take inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. Thirty years since introducing changes, and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has reduced its national debt from nearly 80% to 32%—and yes, Sweden had covid too. Meanwhile, our national debt stands at around 95%. A key component of the solution is that we need to substantially strengthen the scrutiny powers of this Chamber when it comes to the Government’s financial management. This four-day debate clearly does not provide an effective scrutiny function, and there is no meaningful ability for Parliament to amend the Budget once it is announced. Our country is the poorer for this approach. Secondly, of course, we need to seek a deal with Europe that captures the economic benefits of the European market, which is five times bigger than our own, while maintaining control of our borders. This should start with negotiating a new customs union with the EU. Last month, the US’s National Bureau of Economic Research published a paper that found that Brexit had cut UK GDP by between 6% and 8%, with the economy now £170 billion smaller than it would otherwise have been. The House of Commons Library found that we are losing £90 billion in tax revenues every year as a result of Brexit—an enormous number. That is equivalent to two thirds of the UK’s entire annual Budget deficit of £138 billion; to nearly 80% of our entire annual debt expense of £114 billion; or to our defence, security, prisons and courts budgets combined. The Government now finally acknowledge that Brexit has left our country poorer, weaker and more divided, but they are still unwilling to do almost anything material about it. I was elected by my Witney constituents in 2024 to do all that I can to make their lives better and our country better. This Budget is a key lever through which to do so, and I am deeply dismayed at the lost opportunity that it represents.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Business and Trade Committee · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his help and work on this issue. I want to ask his opinion on the efficacy of our arms export control regime. We had two sessions in which we were looking into the F-35 in Gaza, and essentially it seems like the UK has outsourced its arms export controls to the Americans for F-35 replacement parts. Also, we continue to sell a lot of weapons to the United Arab Emirates, and it has been widely reported in the international press that the UAE is arming the Rapid Support Forces, which is creating enormous numbers of atrocities in Sudan. Does the right hon. Member think that our arms export control criteria are up to scratch?

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) for securing this excellent debate. I want to seek the Minister’s help with the case of my Witney constituent, Bill Maddocks. Bill was an on-call firefighter at Witney for 22 years and contracted covid at work, while seconded on a whole-time contract to assist the ambulance service during the pandemic. This became long covid and, as a result, he was retired from the fire service due to ill health. During this process, he was assured by senior managers that a pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter would be his, and he was independently medically assessed as having a tier 1 level and 100% disability, entitling him to a compensation pension equivalent to a whole-time firefighter wage. There has been a long-standing dispute about his disablement and the apportionment. Even though it was independently assessed and agreed by Oxfordshire fire and rescue service as legally binding, the amount awarded was equivalent only to on-call pay rather than the full-time wage. As a result, the Pensions Ombudsman became involved, as well as the Fire Brigades Union. There has continued to be a Byzantine maze and the Pensions Ombudsman has walked away saying that the case lies outside its brief. Four years on, Bill remains incredibly debilitated and suffering deeply, supported wonderfully by his wife, Nikki. I would like your help in finding a way through this situation monetarily, but the man also deserves an award, exactly as we have named here today.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa · Hansard source

  More

  New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build. The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend— [ Interruption. ] People might be joking about it, but our reputation as a country matters. That is why people invest in our country, and that is why traditionally our debt prices have been low. When we self-sabotage, we pay for it not just for a few weeks or months but for years, and we are paying for it now.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I think we should have all the economic benefits of Europe while controlling our borders and controlling movement— [ Interruption. ] Well, look at Norway, Switzerland and Turkey. There are lots of options out there. Let’s go and negotiate something that makes sense for us. My final point is that we need an office for value for money—an effective regulator with proper scrutiny and proper teeth that really looks into our Budget. I ask the Government to take inspiration from the Swedish model of tax scrutiny. I understand that after introducing these changes 30 years ago, and aided by strong economic growth, Sweden has reduced its national debt from nearly 80% of debt to GDP to 32%. Meanwhile, our public debt is around 95%, which means that billions that we could be spending on our public services are instead going towards servicing our debt. A key component is significantly strengthening the scrutiny powers of this Chamber when it comes to the Government’s financial management. The Chancellor’s practice of keeping the Budget secret until the day, at which point everyone else has to scramble to assess the detail and has no time to provide a proper, meaningful critique, is far from the best way to scrutinise the Government’s economic policy. This is not how many of our international peers go about their economic policy. Proper, detailed scrutiny of the Budget, as opposed to the wave-through regime we currently have, with no proper transparency before approval, needs to be addressed—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, can I just respond to my colleague chuntering in the background? He keeps saying “the OBR”. We are Parliament. We have a responsibility to scrutinise the Budget, and I believe that we, as a Parliament, should be doing that properly, line by line and taking out what is wasted— [ Interruption. ] I would do it tomorrow if we had the chance, yes. I will finish in a moment, then I will be off—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. We want to back— [ Interruption. ] It was unquestionably a disaster for our ratings—I will happily give the right hon. Gentleman that—and I do not want the Government to break their promises. That is absolutely right and correct.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  There is a real irony in the fact that the Conservative party has tabled a motion calling for the control of public expenditure and for trust to be returned just three years after a notorious mini-Budget that saw the biggest set of unfunded spending commitments in recent memory and that continues to damage the markets’ confidence in UK fiscal credibility. We still pay the so-called moron premium, driving up interest expenses on Government borrowing, which are now running at £131 billion a year. That is money out of the pockets of everyone across this country and we are still living with the real-world impact of that, because debt in the UK has gone from £0.5 trillion in 2005 to £2.9 trillion today. That is up six times in 20 years—and who has been running the country for the majority of those years?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Let us talk about trade—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I have already said this, and will say it again: I absolutely—and I speak on behalf of my colleagues—expect the Chancellor to stand by her promises.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Let us talk about trade, Madam Deputy Speaker. I find it extraordinary if we look at the future. I think it was Stephen Bush in the Financial Times who talked about the permanent lobotomy that the Tory party needs to have when talking about Brexit. If we are talking about getting money into the Exchequer, let us get our economy moving again and get growth back into the economy. Let us open up a customs union with Europe and get our economy growing. Let us look to the future.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  indicated dissent .

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Gentleman will find that the moron premium relates to Liz Truss. People are feeling pressures and that has a huge impact on everybody individually. Pay cheques go less far, tax bills are higher and small luxuries such as having a slice of cake or a pint, or taking the family to the pub, are increasingly out of reach for many people. That hurts, and it is all on the back of stagnant economic growth. Those facts are all the enduring legacy of the disastrous decisions that the Conservative party made. [Hon. Members: “The coalition!”] It is fun to keep saying “coalition” but, sorry, this is more recent than that. We want to back—

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  If hon. or right hon. Members would like to intervene, will they please do so?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  They are interested in what costs them money, and their mortgages are more expensive because of the decisions the Conservatives took three years ago— [ Interruption. ] Well, read the Financial Times . Moving on, I suggest that the digital services tax is another way we should be looking at to raise revenues. We would increase it from 2% to 10%, which would raise roughly £4 billion a year and get some of the biggest and wealthiest corporations in the world to finally contribute their fair share of tax here in the UK. We would also increase gambling taxes, because gambling really beggars some of the most vulnerable in society. Of course, the biggest one of all is that we should rejoin the customs union with the EU. Nobody voted to leave the customs union, but we are now in a market that is more than seven times smaller than the one we used to be in. As somebody who founded and ran a business for 24 years, I know that that hurts. It has done huge damage to small, medium-sized and big businesses and we are living with that loss. The quickest thing we could do is to negotiate a new, bespoke customs union with the EU. This would unleash the potential of British business. With every month and year that goes by, it becomes clearer just how economically damaging the previous Government’s Brexit deal has been. The OBR has forecast that it will harm economic growth, reducing long-term GDP by 4%. However, according to Frontier Economics, a much closer trading relationship with Europe—not even a customs union—could boost UK GDP by 2.2%. These are enormous numbers, so when we are looking around for solutions, there is one right in front of us. It stands to reason that a new customs union would probably raise more than £25 billion a year for the Exchequer. There it is. Grab it, please. With the autumn Budget just two weeks away, the Liberal Democrats’ message to the Chancellor is clear. Instead of asking hard-working households and struggling small businesses to pay even more tax, she must take growth seriously and repair our broken trading relationship with Europe.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Just because we have always done things a certain way does not mean that there is not room for fresh thinking, a more collaborative approach and greater ambition. Realistically, if we are going to repair the economic damage of the last few years, we need fresh thinking and new ideas.

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Member acknowledge that debt has risen from £0.5 trillion to £2.9 trillion from 2005 to 2026, forecast to March? That is nearly six times as much, and the great majority of that happened under the Conservatives’ watch. Yes, we can talk about covid, but covid is a very small portion of that—about £0.7 trillion—so what about the rest of it? Is anyone going to take any responsibility for that?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I have already said that the Government should keep their promises, so there we are. May I continue, please? We want to back hard-pressed households and small businesses and push for practical steps that will help ease the burden on families and get our high streets thriving again. We have called on the Government to respond to the crisis in our hospitality sector through an emergency VAT cut. That would boost footfall on our high streets, thus protecting jobs in a sector that employs people from all walks of life: young, old, those returning to work, those vulnerable part-time workers and everyone in between. We also propose bringing down household energy costs as winter is coming by removing the biggest levy baked into people’s electricity bills and, in effect, putting more than £90 a year into the pockets of the average family. Indeed, that will be closer to £250 for some of the least well-off, who rely more on electricity for their heating. This is about supporting local businesses at the heart of our communities, which we all represent, and making a real difference to people’s lives by making it cheaper for them to heat their homes. For too long, our high streets and the small business owners on them have been crippled by the policies of successive Governments. All that needs to be paid for and needs to be done in a way that is pro-growth and pro-business and which shields households from even greater bills each month. That is not an easy circle to square—I will not pretend that it is. We, as Liberal Democrats, seek to bring deliverable and progressive ideas to the table. If the Chancellor chose such ideas, she could deliver them in her Budget, which is just days away, and the impact would be felt by households across the country with almost immediate effect. First, we call for a time-limited tax on big commercial banks levied on the massive windfall profits that they receive due to unintended consequences of our financial system. Because of high interest rates and the way the quantitative tightening programme works, the Treasury hands over billions of pounds to the big banks every year via the Bank of England, effectively subsidising banking profits at the expense of the taxpayer. Figures from the OBR confirm that, as things stand, we are on course to hand the big banks £50 billion over the course of this Parliament. Banks never expected to receive that windfall, they never relied on it and never took any risk to reap it. They have only received the payments because inflation and interest rates shot up. That needs to be corrected. It is fair and reasonable to return a portion of that unexpected windfall to the taxpayer and it will do nothing to undermine the health of our financial sector to claim it back.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I am just going to make a plea. HMRC is losing nearly £1 billion a year, which is incredibly bad news, and there are massive frictions and admin costs on business. Why would we not just go back to the easement? We can stand looking at this massive problem, or we can face facts and deal with it—and actually get money for the Exchequer.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  I agree 100%. That is a great illustration of just how painful and unnecessary it is. This is not benefiting anyone, not even His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The Budget is very soon and, bluntly—I do not want to stick the knife too much into my Conservative colleagues—I think the previous Government’s tax reforms were, overall, quite sensible in levying more tax on higher amounts of alcohol, but that is obviously mad when it comes to wine. I am an equal-opportunities knife sticker, so why did Labour follow a mad Tory policy? It is a bit like, why are they following a mad hard Brexit? Pull out, blame the Tories and then change the policy back to something sensible. They could raise more tax and put UK growers and UK retailers back on their feet.