Feryal Clark MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he update the House on the proposed legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Peter Mandelson, who has fallen so far below what is expected of those serving in the House of Lords?

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this incredibly important debate on the removal of the so-called “aim to permit” rule, and on giving local authorities stronger powers to protect their communities from gambling harm. The harms of gambling are evident and were well set out by my hon. Friend. Gambling addiction means missed birthdays, unpaid bills, broken relationships, families torn apart and lives quietly falling to piece behind closed doors, while communities deal with the consequences. At the heart of this debate lies a simple but fundamental question: who should decide what happens on our high streets—local communities and their elected representatives, or gambling companies pursuing huge commercial gain? Right now, the answer is not local communities. Under the Gambling Act, councils are legally required to err on the side of approval when considering applications for betting shops and 24-hour slot machine venues, even when there is clear local opposition, an area is already saturated or harm is obvious. That is not localism, it is not prevention and it is certainly not protection. If councils do not follow that instruction to err on the side of approval, they face legal challenge, costly appeals and the threat of court costs—that money should be spent on local services, not on defending the indefensible. Residents of my Enfield North constituency have watched their high streets change not because of community demand, but because the law makes it almost impossible for councils to say no to new gambling premises. There are now 30 gambling premises across my constituency. Such venues are designed to drain more deprived communities, and the law still forces councils to approve them. That is indefensible, and the Government must act to end it now. Even if an area already has multiple betting shops or adult gaming centres, and even if constituents object and harm is well documented, councils are still legally pushed towards approval. The “aim to permit” rule is an outdated rule that stacks the deck in favour of gambling companies, as it tells councils to say yes to new gambling premises even when they have serious concerns. The result is predictable. In Enfield North, as in many London boroughs, gambling venues cluster in our most deprived areas, not our most affluent ones. Reports tell us that a third of adult gaming centres are in the poorest 10% of neighbourhoods, but Enfield residents do not need a report to tell them that; they see it every day on their high streets. They are often located close to bus hubs, shopping parades and areas of high footfall from people already under financial pressure. Many operate long hours, and many more are operating around the clock 24/7, relentlessly feeding addiction. My constituents tell me the same thing again and again. They say, “We object, but it makes no difference—the council says its hands are tied. We object, we organise, we lose.” They are right and the situation is wrong. Councillors across Enfield North want to protect their communities, but the law does not give them the tools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, change is needed not to ban gambling, close existing premises or stop people from placing a bet, but to restore balance and local control. We need to remove the automatic legal bias in favour of gambling operators and allow councils such as Enfield to make decisions based on evidence, community impact and local need, rather than a law that loads the dice against local communities. The money leaves the community, but the harm does not; it shows up as debt, it shows up as mental ill health and it shows up as pressure on our NHS—and tragically, as we have heard, in lives lost. The Government have acknowledged the problem, which is of course incredibly welcome, but with the “aim to permit” rule remaining in place, councils are being told to say yes by default. We must trust local democracy and empower councils such as Enfield to act before harm escalates and put people and communities before profit. Our high streets should serve the people who live around them, not exploit them. The law is broken, the balance is wrong, and the time for change is now.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I will first give a very brief background to why the Government are laying this statutory instrument. As the Online Safety Act sets out, Ofcom may make regulations setting out how the qualifying worldwide revenue of a provider of a regulated service is to be determined, and the corresponding qualifying periods. The Act requires that Ofcom sends a draft to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology; the Secretary of State’s role is limited to laying the draft before Parliament. As such, the Secretary of State laid these regulations before Parliament on 26 June. The draft regulations are a critical component of establishing the fee regime whereby providers of regulated services pay a fee to Ofcom to fund the costs of online safety regulation. They are also an integral part of informing a penalties regime that will act as a suitable deterrent to non-compliance. The qualifying period for calculating the QWR is defined as the calendar year two years prior to the fee-charging year. For example, for the 2026-27 charging year, the qualifying period will be 1 January to 31 December 2024. Under the Act, non-compliant providers may be subject to penalties of up to £18 million or 10% of their QWR, whichever is higher. The Government are committed to a fee regime that ensures that the burden of paying for online safety regulation falls not on the taxpayer, but on the providers in scope of the Act—a principle that was discussed in great detail and that received cross-party support during the passage of the legislation through Parliament. In a policy statement that was published on 26 June and was informed by a public consultation, Ofcom recommended to the Secretary of State a qualifying revenue threshold of £250 million, saying that this “strikes the right balance between proportionality and workability, spreads the fee burden across a range of providers and serves the objective of limiting the impact on SMEs.” The Secretary of State will consider that advice carefully and set the final threshold in a separate SI later this year. The Secretary of State will also consider any exemptions to the fee paying, as recommended by Ofcom. Ofcom will then set out its final policy decision and a statement of charging principles, and publish final guidance to providers. It intends to begin invoicing providers for fees in 2026-27. The Act gives Ofcom, as the independent regulator, the responsibility for drafting these regulations. The Government are committed to establishing a fee regime to ensure that the cost of online safety regulation is borne by the companies that receive revenue from the regulated online services. These regulations are fundamental to allowing Ofcom to do that. If approved today, they will come into force later this year. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The regulations, which are necessary for the super-complaints regime to take effect, were laid before Parliament on 9 June. They will enable the super-complaints regime by establishing the eligibility criteria that entities must meet to submit a super-complaint, and by setting out procedural matters relating to the assessment of super-complaints. Super-complaints are an integral part of the complaint handling, reporting and redress mechanisms in the Online Safety Act 2023. They enable eligible entities with expertise in online safety matters, such as civil society groups, to raise systemic issues with Ofcom, which is the Act’s independent regulator. Section 169 of the Act establishes the scope of issues that super-complaints may address, including where the features and/or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm, adversely affecting freedom of expression, or otherwise adversely impacting users, members of the public, or particular groups. We expect super-complaints typically to deal with cross-platform systemic issues, but a complaint may cover a single service if the complaint is particularly important, or it impacts a large number of users or members of the public. This statutory instrument sets out several eligibility criteria that an entity must meet to submit a complaint to Ofcom. For example, entities must represent the interests of users of regulated services, members of the public, or a particular group of users or members of the public. They must remain independent from regulated services in terms of funding, but representation from the services in entities’ governance is allowed, provided that appropriate mechanisms are in place to maintain independence. They must contribute as experts to public discussions of online safety matters, and be capable of being relied on to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. These criteria aim to ensure that a wide range of entities are eligible while safeguarding the integrity of the process and reducing the risk of vexatious complaints. In addition to the eligibility criteria, the SI sets out the process and timeline for the assessment of super-complaints. First, Ofcom must determine whether an entity is eligible within 30 days; it must then inform the entity whether it is eligible and explain why. The time for assessing eligibility decreases to 15 days for entities that have been found to be eligible within the past five years. In those circumstances, entities must submit information to show that they are still experts that contribute significantly to the public discussion of online safety. The draft regulations also state that eligible entities must present current, objective and relevant evidence to support their view that one of the grounds in section 169 of the Act is met. When assessing the admissibility of the complaint, as well as its substance, Ofcom must typically respond within 90 days of the eligibility determination. That means that, as standard, the entire super-complaint process will conclude within 120 days, or 105 days where there is retained eligibility status. Ofcom may stop the clock in certain circumstances, such as if additional information is required and the complaint cannot be progressed without it, but it may stop the clock only for the amount of time that it takes to receive the requested information. Where Ofcom has determined that an entity is eligible, it must consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence presented to it. In addition, Ofcom can request further input from the complainant or third parties, as required. At the end of the process, it must publish a response including its determination on the matter, which may include what further action, if any, is anticipated. In developing these regulations, the Government have consulted Ofcom and conducted a public consultation. We have listened closely to the views of the stakeholders and, where possible, made changes to the policy, which was consulted on under the previous Government. The changes are set out in further detail in the Government’s policy response, which was published in June. Alongside the consultation, the Government held roundtables with civil society organisations, and their views on the policy have been taken into consideration. The changes include lowering the bar for eligibility to enable new expert organisations to make complaints, and removing the requirement to notify Ofcom ahead of submitting a complaint. The online world is complicated and dynamic, with new harms emerging every day. These regulations have been drafted to ensure that the Act remains agile in addressing emerging technologies and market operators and consequent harms. They mark an important step towards a fully realised online safety regime.