Joe Powell MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the fantastic parliamentary staff in Westminster and in constituencies across the UK who keep MPs’ offices running? They are employed by 650 separate offices, rather than by Parliament itself. That leaves them without consistent terms and, in some cases, proper support. The GMB, the largest union in Parliament—for the record, it is my union—is working to fix that through its “One Parliament, One Employer” campaign. Will he join me in encouraging Members to back its proposal?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Sudan · Hansard source

  More

  The single most effective action to protect El Obeid civilians and avoid a repeat of El Fasher would be for the UAE to withdraw its clearly evidenced backing for the RSF and demand that civilians are protected. What more can the Minister do to persuade the UAE? If that fails, what can we do on the gold trade and illicit finance, in addition to sanctions, to ensure that anyone involved in arming the conflict does not materially benefit?

• 11 Jun 2026 · Grenfell Tower Fire: Ninth Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is right. We have seen, in recent history, that with events of national significance—from Southport to the recent disturbances on our streets—the criminal justice system has moved really quickly because of the importance of showing that justice is seen to be done. I hope that once the CPS has made its decisions, we will do everything we can to ensure that the court capacity is in place to deliver the trials as soon as possible. I hope the Minister can reassure us that the investigation will continue to be fully funded and that that planning is already taking place with the judiciary and the Ministry of Justice so that the cases are prioritised. If those trials take place, which I obviously hope they will, they will be some of the most complex ever held in the UK. I therefore hope that consideration is also given to a special court or a Nightingale-style court. I know that is being looked at. Corporate manslaughter convictions are incredibly rare, so it is essential that those responsible face the full force of the law. I also believe that it is completely wrong for any company cited in the public inquiry still to be receiving public contracts. In December I uncovered dozens of contracts with implicated companies, including two current NHS contracts with Rydon, the main contractor for the refurbishment, which was cited in the public inquiry. I urge all public bodies to do a full audit of their contracts, including subcontractors and supply chains, and publish exactly what they find. It is good news that this Government have introduced new powers to exclude companies on grounds such as professional misconduct. Now is the time for procurement offices to start using them. We have already had a public inquiry that has laid out in stark terms why the fire happened and where responsibility lies, and I am glad that this Government have accepted the recommendations in full and that important progress is being made. It is important not to forget that. The last report shows that 20 of 61 recommendations are complete and 40 are in progress. [ Official Report , 15 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 4WC.] (Correction) I am glad that those include progress towards a single construction regulator, the expansion of product regulation, the introduction of residential personal emergency evacuation plans, the idea of a college of fire and rescue, and proposed changes to the statutory fire safety guidance in approved document B. I am also pleased that, under Lord Roe in the other place, the performance of the Building Safety Regulator is improving, including signing off remediation works more quickly. I welcome the remediation Bill in the King’s Speech, on which I look forward to engaging in this parliamentary Session, so that we can address the outstanding unremediated buildings and the knock-on effects, such as crippling insurance bills for leaseholders. I acknowledge all that progress, but there is one missing piece of the jigsaw: oversight and accountability. The online tracker for Grenfell recommendations is no doubt helpful, but Grenfell would not have happened at all if we had properly learned the lessons from the Lakanal House fire in 2009 and listened to the coroner’s recommendations. Instead, they sat on a shelf, and an opportunity to save lives was missed. We need a proper system of tracking and following up, not just on major inquiries that get a lot of attention here, but on all the inquests and investigations that lead to recommendations for change. That is why I continue to support the idea of a national oversight mechanism as a legacy for Grenfell. On 25 February, the Secretary of State said in this House, in answer to my question: “Work is continuing across Government, including in my Department, on setting up a national oversight mechanism”. —[ Official Report , 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 363.] I hope that the Minister can provide us with an update on that work and tell us when we can expect a decision to be made. Such a mechanism would sit alongside the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which I hope to see back here soon, as landmark reforms that put power in the hands of citizens: a real duty of candour for the state, a level playing field for legal aid, and clear deterrence for misconduct in public office. If we design those well, they will lead to fewer and shorter inquiries, more rapid lesson learning by the state and a culture shift towards openness, which can contribute to the rebuilding of trust in politics and in government in this country. The culture shift that we need extends to the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. I am deeply disappointed that the first decision of the Conservative leadership in the new council term last month was to remove an opposition chair of the housing scrutiny committee. Since Grenfell, that position has been promised to an opposition councillor. It is still unclear to me why or how that decision was taken, because avoiding scrutiny, especially for this council, which is so culpable for the fire, is an extremely bad look. I call on the leadership to think again and to reverse that decision. Residents in RBKC know that the council needs scrutiny. The independent Regulator of Social Housing reported last year that the housing department was seriously failing, giving it a C3 rating. The council has the third worst complaints record in the country. It likes to say that it gets the basics right. Well, meeting the decent homes standard, so that everyone can have the minimum of a safe and healthy home, is surely a basic human right that any council should be delivering. The Lancaster West estate surrounding Grenfell is a good example. After the fire, the promise was a model 21st-century housing estate, and that promise is still unfulfilled. I am glad that the Government have stepped in with an additional £8 million to ensure that there are no further delays to the current work, and that that will come alongside additional scrutiny on how that money is spent. I hope that the Minister can provide more details on how residents can be involved, including leaseholders and others, so that new oversight can be shaped by them and that they have confidence in the arrangement. I am also pleased that support was extended to NHS services through the period of the deconstruction of the tower, given the acute risk of mental health issues, and to five local primary schools to provide trauma-informed education around the community. My final point is a simple one: with the passage of time, we cannot allow a return to business as usual before the fire. Already, we hear rumbles from parts of the construction industry and even, shamefully, some political parties, saying that Grenfell is somehow responsible for the slowdown in house building or that fire safety is a trade-off worth considering. There will always be policy choices for local and national Government to make, but putting life at risk should not be a trade-off we accept. I hope we can work together with empathy and respect—something I suspect Jo Cox would have wanted—and ensure that the legacy of Grenfell is that everyone in this country, regardless of class, race, geography or age, lives in a safe and healthy home.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate the cross-party spirit in which this debate has been held, but it would be helpful if the Green party leader would pay his own council tax as a demonstration of leading by example.

• 9 Jun 2026 · Summit on Illicit Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) on securing this debate and on restricting himself to only two mentions of mansions in Kensington in his introduction. This should be one of the progressive causes of our time. Others have covered the harms: from the links to the drugs trade and other serious organised crime, to the housing crisis and to conflict in Ukraine, Sudan and other parts of the world. I am delighted that the Government have recognised the problem and have taken action to date, including their commitment to host this summit on illicit finance. I disagree with the hon. Member for North Norfolk; I think it was the right decision to delay the summit. Primarily, that is because it gives us time to produce a package of progress that we can show to the world, build alliances around key themes and link this summit to the UK Government’s other international leadership positions, including the G20 presidency in 2027, the presidency of the financial action taskforce from 2026 to 2028, and the chair of the Open Government Partnership. Those are all forums where we can take illicit finance and corruption initiatives and multilateralise them through other international organisations. There is a big opportunity here. Before being elected, I spent a decade working on illicit finance and corruption. I supported the last summit on anti-corruption that we led as a country in 2016, which was hosted by Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton. That summit helped to put beneficial ownership transparency on the map as a tool to remove secrecy from the anonymous companies that, on many occasions, facilitate money laundering. There is an unheralded British success here: 104 jurisdictions now have a live register, although I accept that there are varying degrees of openness. There is, of course, the glaring exception of most of the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies. The lessons of the summit can be applied to December’s summit. First, as others have mentioned, there is the need for political leadership, from the Prime Minister down, to bring international counterparts to the UK and to link the summit to other international forums in which we are involved. Secondly, there should be strong cross-Government co-ordination, with regular ministerial meetings. Thirdly, there should be clear and specific policy commitments that other countries can join, rather than vague initiatives that will fizzle out immediately. Fourthly, we must be open to working with civil society, which can support the bringing of countries to the table and add ideas, enthusiasm and accountability to the summit. Fifthly, we must prepare our own package of reforms so that we open the summit with a strong policy offer. We have an outsize responsibility in this area because we are the epicentre of global finance. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) has covered the stats, and I know that the Minister cares deeply about this issue. I have three brief policy proposals on which we can make progress before the summit. The first proposal is about property, which the Government are right to make a summit priority. The goal should be a global alliance for full transparency in property ownership, so that dirty money cannot be stashed in London or in other property markets around this country and the world. In my constituency of Kensington and Bayswater, 40% of the foreign-owned property is still held in anonymous trusts. That means that approximately 4,000 properties in my constituency have hidden ownership, despite the introduction of a register of overseas-owned properties after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. There is a major loophole that is incentivising more opaque ownership structures, which have only been thrown open through leaks and investigations such as the Panama and Paradise papers investigations. Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer, found that the ultimate owners of 45,000 properties in this country—properties collectively worth £190 billion—are still hidden from view. It is time to report back on the consultation opened two years ago on trust-owned property and to take bold action. Of course, beyond property there is a need to continue Britain’s leadership on beneficial ownership, the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) has outlined. That is absolutely the right place to start with our leadership in the global jigsaw. Gibraltar has done this work with no economic harm whatever and we need to extend it. Finally, on professional enablers, I am really glad that the Financial Services and Markets Bill was in the King’s Speech. That will extend the Financial Conduct Authority’s supervision to accountants, lawyers and other financial bodies, and introduce proper anti-money laundering supervision to them. There must be no more anonymously owned properties, which allow dirty money to be stashed with impunity; no more tax haven secrecy, which facilitates billions in criminal and corrupt cash; and no more hiding places for professional enablers, who turn a blind eye to dirty money. Those ideas should be the basis for a summit that can show our leadership on the global stage.

• 21 Apr 2026 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I, too, have been frustrated by my Conservative-run council for not taking a more proactive approach to resisting applications. I am sure that the Minister will come back to my hon. Friend on “aim to permit” as a next step, but for today, I think the gambling impact assessments will be a useful tool. To admit defeat and to accept the continued and inevitable decline of our high streets, whether through dodgy shops not paying their tax, the involvement with serious organised crime that we know exists or the adult gaming centres that I have mentioned, is defeatism. The Bill starts to reject that defeatism. I know that lots of my constituents in Kensington and Bayswater are passionate about this issue.

• 19 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I do not know whether the Leader of the House’s preferred order is a single, a double, or even a treble, but I hope that he agrees with me that our pie and mash shops are an important part of this country’s heritage. Unfortunately, Cockney’s on Portobello Road has been threatened with a doubling of its rent, which would put the shop out of business. Over 3,500 of my constituents have signed my letter to the owner, asking for a reasonable negotiation. Will he join me in paying tribute to our pie and mash shops, and outline what support might be available from the Government to protect these important community institutions and enable them to survive on our high streets?

• 2 Mar 2026 · Representation of the People Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Secretary of State aware of companies such as Mercantile & Maritime UK Ltd, which made a donation of £500,000 to the Conservative party before the 2019 election despite being owned by a Monaco-based Canadian individual who has subsequently been accused of continuing to trade Russian oil during the war? Will this Bill outlaw such donations?

• 10 Feb 2026 · Inner-London Local Authorities: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  As the Minister knows, where we have pockets of high deprivation in London, one concern is protecting those communities. When the settlement was announced, it was very clear that the Government’s expectation was that things like council tax support should not be the first thing that councils looked to. Does the Minister agree that the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea cutting £441,000 of council tax support to our lowest income families as its first decision is not the right way to go about building a sustainable budget for the future?

• 9 Feb 2026 · Russian Influence on UK Politics and Democracy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend for providing another rich example of the level of infiltration and influence that malign actors have had, including capturing Government contracts and not delivering on their intention. I am sure that Front-Bench Members will have heard her plea for clarity. Roman Abramovich was sanctioned in March 2022 and had his assets frozen. I am pleased that the Government have extended those sanctions, with 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russian sanctions regime. In May 2022, Abramovich sold Chelsea football club under an explicit agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need for Ukraine. It is shameful that, after four years, that money has still not been released. I welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence in December to release the money within 90 days and a commitment to legal action if necessary. This is not only a case of profound national and international importance, but a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they should. The Minister has worked closely on that issue and I am keen to hear what plans are in place for 17 March. What legal action can be taken if the money has not been released? Obviously, I hope that all options are kept on the table. Abramovich’s influence in public life in Britain extends beyond the Chelsea FC money. He is accused by the BBC of avoiding up to £1 billion of tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in a British overseas territory, the British Virgin Islands. He deployed some of the best lawyers in the land to attack the journalist Catherine Belton’s book, “Putin’s People”. Specifically, he did so to try to distance his relationship with Vladimir Putin, an egregious example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation —a practice that I hope will be outlawed in this Parliament. Abramovich is, of course, fighting a legal case in Jersey—a British Crown dependency—where his legal team includes the Conservative shadow Attorney General, Lord Wolfson. Having raised that issue many times in the House in recent weeks, I find the inconsistencies and double standards in the defence of Lord Wolfson astonishing. On the one hand, Conservative shadow Ministers have attacked the Prime Minister and the Attorney General for their former clients, including at Prime Minister’s questions last week. Yet when people have raised the Lord Wolfson case, including at the Solicitor General’s questions last week, Conservative shadow Ministers claimed disgrace. There is a critical difference: those clients represented by the Prime Minister and the Attorney General were not taken on when they were serving in this Parliament. I agree that everyone, even a sanctioned Russian oligarch, is entitled to legal representation, but it is surely a massive conflict of interest for a sitting peer—the top legal adviser to the Conservative party—to think that it is compatible to do both of those jobs at the same time. Sir Bill Browder himself, the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions, which are named after his lawyer who was killed by Putin’s henchmen, asked how the shadow Attorney General can “moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’.” Sir Bill is absolutely correct. The Conservative position is that Lord Wolfson has recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), and shadow Ministers on Russia and Ukraine, but on the day that the Conservative spokesperson made those comments to the lobby—not in the House, but to the lobby—Lord Wolfson published a letter that made no mention of such recusal. Is that not strange? Could we hypothesise that on that day, things were just being made up as they went along? A man of Lord Wolfson’s experience surely knows that a formal recusal must be more detailed than a Conservative spokesperson’s lobby briefing. I ask again, as I have done in the House: does the recusal include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the action taken with allies recently? Does it include sanctions policy? Does it include sanctions enforcement? Does it include tax policy? Does it include NATO policy? Does it include policies on money in politics? The point is that the shadow Attorney General is representing someone with extremely close ties to Vladimir Putin at a time when Russia is attacking our country through hybrid warfare. I do not think that an unspecified recusal of which we have no detail is anywhere near sufficient to satisfy this House. I urge Lord Wolfson to reflect and make a choice, given that it appears that the Leader of the Opposition has proven too weak to do so. He can either continue to be shadow Attorney General or continue his representation of Abramovich. Doing both is simply indefensible.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A week ago, a 175-year-old Thames Water main pipe burst, leading to a devastating flood in Holland Park, which has forced dozens of my constituents into temporary accommodation and caused massive damage. Those same residents were flooded in 2021 and now face months out of their homes, so Thames Water again has major questions to answer. Can the Leader of the House assure me that the Government will give due consideration to strengthening the governance, oversight and accountability of Thames Water, so that this does not keep happening to my constituents?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Human Rights Abuses: Magnitsky Sanctions · Hansard source

  More

  I join colleagues in congratulating the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) on securing the debate. As he rightly said, an effective sanctions regime is an increasingly important foreign policy and defence tool. Having worked on international anti-corruption and open government efforts for over a decade before I came to this place, I know that they can make a real impact. I agree with him that such a regime includes the threat of sanctions, as well as their execution. Like others, I am pleased that the Government have introduced over 900 new sanctions against individuals, entities and ships under the Russia sanctions regime, and over 60 designations under human rights and anti-corruption specifically. I know how seriously the Minister takes this tool, and I sincerely thank him and his officials for their complex work. I believe that the UK’s ambition on sanctions is at the edge of global leadership. That means that we must continually look for ways to make the system more effective, and I will suggest a couple of areas in which we might do so. One obvious area, in which I know the Government are working hard, is the transparency of asset ownership across jurisdictions. If we want sanctions to work, we need to know where the assets are, and transparency is an important prerequisite for effective targeting. To give one example, approximately 40% of the foreign-owned properties in Kensington and Chelsea are controlled by trusts. Through sanctions, our borough has one of the highest numbers of frozen properties. Trusts are not automatically included in the foreign-owned property register, and although information can now be made available on request, the lack of open data makes it harder to track real ownership. I know that the Government are considering that matter. Similarly, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) mentioned, the long-standing effort to bring in transparent beneficial ownership registers to the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies would enable better tracking of assets under the control of sanctioned individuals. I support the Government review of asset and beneficial ownership in the UK, which is being carried out by anti-corruption champion Baroness Hodge, as part of the anti-corruption strategy, to identify vulnerabilities in that area. I hope that her recommendations can support our sanctions regime to be more effective. International data sharing on this issue is important. The illicit finance summit is coming up in May. Will the Minister outline whether sanctions policy, and international co-operation around it, will be on the agenda? On scope, we may benefit from looking more closely at how the two Magnitsky-style regimes interact, particularly in terms of corruption related to abuse of function, trading in influence and illicit enrichment, which bridge human rights and corruption. I hope that the Minister will keep under close review the potential effectiveness of sanctions relating to Georgia. I have met representatives of Georgian civil society, which has been calling for the UK to expand our sanctions further, including to Mr Ivanishvili and his top officials. For sanctions to be effective, they have to bite, and enforcement is critical. I welcome the Government’s approach of working multilaterally with allies to maximise effectiveness. However, it is also important that we look closer to home. Roman Abramovich is a former resident of Kensington and Chelsea, and still owns frozen property in my constituency. As the House will no doubt be aware, he was sanctioned in March 2022, and his UK assets were frozen. In May 2022, he sold Chelsea football club under an agreement that the sale proceeds would be used for humanitarian need in Ukraine. It is shameful that, almost four years later, that money has still not been released. I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s leadership in issuing a licence last month to release the money within 90 days, and in making a commitment to taking legal action if necessary. This is a case of profound national and international importance—and a test of whether our sanctions have the bite that they need. Although I welcome the cross-party spirit with which the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green approached the debate, I find it astonishing that such a serious conflict of interest has now emerged at the top of the Conservative party. Sir Bill Browder—the man who spearheaded the global campaign for Magnitsky sanctions—has asked how it is possible that the shadow Attorney General can “moonlight as the attorney for a Russian oligarch who is trying to wiggle out of a £2.5 billion deal to aid victims of the war in Ukraine that he made with the UK Government? Back in the day that was called a ‘conflict of interest’”. I agree with Sir Bill, and I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has sympathy with that point, too. The detail matters here. Yesterday, Lord Wolfson published a letter saying that the Prime Minister got his facts wrong, and that he was not advising Mr Abramovich on UK sanctions or the proceeds of Chelsea FC. First, the Prime Minister did not in fact say that Lord Wolfson is advising Roman Abramovich on UK sanctions and the proceeds of sale of Chelsea FC. The Prime Minister did say, however, that Lord Wolfson is advising Mr Abramovich. That is true, as both Lord Wolfson and the Opposition spokesperson have now confirmed. The record should, in my view, be corrected. Secondly, Lord Wolfson’s letter omitted the most crucial piece of new information released by the Opposition spokesperson yesterday, which is that the shadow Attorney General has now recused himself from advising the Leader of the Opposition and shadow Ministers on Ukraine and Russia. Quite apart from whether someone can be an effective shadow Attorney General when they are unable to provide legal advice on the most important issues facing this country—Ukraine’s security guarantees to name but one—this recusal raises serious questions. Does it include efforts to tackle the Russian shadow fleet, including the military action yesterday? Does it include sanctions policy and enforcement? Does it include tax policy? The BBC reports that Abramovich could owe the UK up to £1 billion in tax after a botched attempt to avoid tax on hedge fund investments via shell companies in the British Virgin Islands. Thirdly, it is naive in the extreme to think it possible to separate the various legal cases that Mr Abramovich is engaged in and which affect UK national interests. According to The Times , Abramovich’s own representatives say that £1.4 billion of the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea cannot be released to a charitable foundation until legal proceedings brought by the Jersey Government are concluded. I would welcome clarification from the shadow Minister and the Minister on whether they consider that the ongoing litigation, and Mr Abramovich’s position on its connection to the transfer of the Chelsea FC proceeds, conflicts with the ability to transfer that money speedily? Fourthly, there has been a concerted effort to conflate the vital principle of the right to legal representation and the prevention of conflicts of interest. I absolutely support the right to legal counsel of people I may find disreputable or worse, including sanctioned individuals—that is the basis of a strong legal system—but it is a choice to serve as shadow Attorney General, and it is a choice to represent a sanctioned Russian oligarch in the Jersey case. My view is that those two roles are incompatible. By recusing himself from giving the Conservative party legal advice on Ukraine and Russia, Lord Wolfson has himself confirmed that, in his view, it is not possible give that advice while being paid to represent Roman Abramovich, and that, given the choice, being paid to represent Roman Abramovich is more important to him than fulfilling his duties as shadow Attorney General. He could have made the opposite choice, but he did not. I want our sanctions regime to be as effective as possible. I know that the Government are committed to continuing to learn and adapt as that regime evolves. I hope—I really mean this—that the Leader of the Opposition will clear up the mess that has been created and restore the cross-party consensus that is in our national interest.

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

  More

  I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing the debate and on her campaign. Our high streets have struggled in recent years and, as others have said, that is harming our communities. My constituents tell me that one of the most pernicious trends has been the rise of adult gaming centres and other gambling establishments. In the past year alone, there have been applications for four new or expanded adult gaming centres in my constituency, and some of the applicants have come back with further applications. Each application has been met with widespread opposition from a large and diverse range of local people, bringing together community campaigners with resident associations, charities, businesses, local schools and the great national charities that have already been referenced this afternoon. We know that the trend is towards an increase in gaming centres—between 2022 and 2024, the number has risen by 7% nationally—and that the most vulnerable people in society are at the greatest risk from the harms that they generate. Across Kensington and Bayswater, I have been campaigning with residents to halt the tide, but it is relentless and like playing whack-a-mole. In Earl’s Court, we successfully fought off an application by Silvertime to convert a former high street bank into a 24/7 gambling premises, but having withdrawn the application, the company will probably come back again. Also in Earl’s Court, we managed to persuade the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea to deny another operator, Admiral, an extended 24/7 licence. I had hoped that that would set a precedent that these planning and licensing applications would no longer be nodded through, but sadly we suffered a major defeat just before Christmas, with RBKC approving a new casino in Notting Hill, again taking over a high street banking premises, despite over 1,500 residents signing my petition to reject and a visit by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East. The residents and I are not giving up, and we will continue to use every procedural step we can to fight this unwanted development and persuade RBKC to say no, or at least to scale it back, but our tools our limited. I thank my hon. Friend for her campaign and for showing me at first hand the risks of the slot machine industry. That example is symbolic of what has happened to our high streets in the past decade or two. There has been a decline in the services and businesses that our communities depend on, and they have been replaced by 24/7 gambling premises and dodgy shops pushing vapes, low-grade souvenirs and knock-off products. They are often not paying their fair share or employing people legally, so legitimate businesses cannot operate on a level playing field. We need solutions. I am glad that the Government have committed to reform. I strongly welcome the proposals put forward as part of the Pride in Place programme to give local authorities more powers to assess the cumulative impact of these premises. I am glad that the Government have recognised that high streets cannot thrive with rows of adult gaming centres offering slot machines 24/7, and that data-driven decisions on gambling licences should help to restrict new premises opening. It is vital that the measures give real weight to community voices, like those of my constituents who have had enough, and that those measures come before the House soon, so that we can get discussions up and running. I also welcome the measures on dodgy shops on our high streets. I welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to increasing enforcement, giving trading standards a boost and tackling fake company directors, along with dealing with lots of other elements of high street tax dodging and tax evasion that are linked to the decline that people see. Beyond those hugely welcome measures, I hope that we will see a continued ambition to go further, including by looking at whether the Gambling Act 2005 is still fit for purpose, and whether its provisions are helping local communities or hindering them from coming together for the benefit of their high streets, exactly in the spirit of the Pride in Place programme. Our high streets can be so much better. There is no one simple solution, but a part of any solution must be to halt the gambling takeover.

• 4 Dec 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T3. The Prime Minister was clear this week that the wild promises of Brexit have hurt our economy, eroded trust in politics and that there is no credible economic future for Britain without a closer relationship with the European Union. I completely agree. Can the Minister set out when he expects a youth experience scheme to be agreed and confirm that we will seek to rejoin Erasmus on terms that ensure that young people from all backgrounds can access opportunities across the European Union?

• 25 Nov 2025 · G20 and Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for all his efforts on ramping up the economic pressure on Putin, including through oil and gas and the shadow fleet. On the $300 billion-plus of Russian sovereign banking assets in the west, we know there are a few holdouts in the European Union that do not want to mobilise a loan backed by those assets as a downpayment on reparations. Could he update us on what progress has been made to get that over the line and get that money moving?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) on securing this debate and on his election to the chair of the excellent all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption and responsible tax. I thank other Members here and the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Andrew Mitchell) for championing this issue. We last met in this Chamber to debate this issue seven months ago to the day, so it is helpful to have another debate to check on progress and demonstrate to the overseas territories the strength of cross-party feeling about it. Such debates do have an impact. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West and I were featured in a cartoon in a BVI newspaper not long ago for bringing this issue up so frequently in the House—I take that as a badge of honour. The Government’s commitment to make London the anti-corruption capital of the world, as opposed to a dirty money capital, is extremely welcome. I know the Minister is personally committed to that agenda, and I look forward to the anti-corruption strategy in the next few weeks.

• 5 Nov 2025 · Financial Transparency: Overseas Territories · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure we all agree that we would not support that action. I want to make a serious point about where progress has been made. Some of us recently met the leader of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo. Gibraltar now has an open register, and he told us that it has had no impact on investment there. In fact, it has attracted a different type of investor: those making sustainable, long-term investments into a reliable market where financial secrecy is not undermining the strength of the financial services. I note that in the Public Gallery there is a representative of St Helena, which has made great progress—as others have said, we are also meeting representatives of the Cayman Islands and Bermuda. Although it is not perfect, there has been political commitment from those leaders to make progress and work together. But the harms are still severe: serious organised crime, drugs on our streets, the high streets issue that many hon. Members have spoken about, sanctions evasion, tax dodging, environmental crime, destruction of tropical forests and property. I invite Members to join me on our “Kensington Against Dirty Money” walking tour, which Baroness Hodge and I conduct in my constituency. The No. 1 source of foreign ownership of property—my constituency has 6,000 such properties—is the BVI. The question is: why? It is not a victimless crime, and we need to understand why it is happening. Let me very briefly talk about next steps. I really welcome Baroness Hodge’s trip to the BVI. She is a fearless champion for this issue. It would be good to understand the BVI’s red lines for a legitimate interests test. I think it should be broad, reliable and repeated access for those journalists who have helped to uncover so many issues in the past, while maintaining the Government’s long-term goal of publicly accessible beneficial ownership registers as the gold standard. The summit on illicit finance next year is a huge opportunity; it was great that the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that on the world stage at the UN General Assembly this year. The summit will be 10 years on from the 2016 anti-corruption summit, where public registers of beneficial ownership for UK companies were first introduced. Could the summit be the moment when we finally move forward on this issue, too?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source

  More

  My residents care deeply about our high streets. From Earl’s Court Road to Queensway, and from Notting Hill Gate to Portobello Road, those high streets have a lot of potential but were put through the wringer by the previous Conservative Government. We had empty units, unconstrained rows of slot machine casinos, and the rise of vape shops, candy shops, Harry Potter shops and barbers squeezing out legitimate businesses. Banks closed, with no coherent Government response, and neighbourhood police budgets were slashed. We have seen the rise of shoplifting, attacks on retail staff and, of course, wages flatlining for a decade. People have less money in their pockets to spend on the high streets, thanks to the mini-Budget. As revealed by London Centric, we have even had snail farms cropping up across the country to take advantage of tax loopholes. That is a symbol of the Tory economy: sluggish, brittle and hard-to-swallow molluscs taking up retail space and pushing out legitimate businesses. Change is needed, and it is coming not just from the Government but from communities. I pay tribute to the residents and councillors in Earl’s Court who joined forces with me to block a 24/7 licence for an adult gaming centre. That is a precedent that I hope will apply to other casinos and slot machine proposals, and I welcome the Government introducing new powers to say no to new betting shops, vape shops and others that degrade our high streets. The planning system can prevent those outfits from opening in the first place, and I am encouraged to hear that Treasury colleagues are looking at how to step up enforcement. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Machinize hit hundreds of barber shops and other cash-intensive businesses suspected of illicit activity. I was astonished that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), dismissed the arguments on tax evasion, given the harms that it causes to legitimate businesses. At one end of the spectrum, we have businesses linked to serious and organised crime, hiding the proceeds of the drugs trade and washing that money through our high streets. At the other end, we have VAT evasion, business rate evasion and dodgy trading practices. I commend Westminster city council for cracking down on the candy shops on Oxford Street and across our city—a pioneering council supporting our high streets where its predecessor failed. I want to make the House aware of a particularly nefarious practice that has caught on. A shady organisation will pop up, with directors who have no idea what they are in control of. The organisation then fleeces the taxpayer and sells the public a dodgy product. Before it can be held accountable, the leadership changes and the organisation reappears under a new brand. This is not just the Conservative party’s strategy, but the practice of phoenixing. I welcome Treasury Ministers’ previous commitment to go further on this practice by boosting HMRC to include community harm in its evaluation of whether to take on cases, and encouraging the Insolvency Service to do more to get back taxpayers’ money. Adding those practices on enforcement and planning to the suite of other things that this Government are doing to support our high streets is the way that we will work with our communities to revitalise them and to bring their high streets back to life.

• 27 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. Earlier this month I visited the Spear programme in north Kensington, which is doing fantastic work in supporting young people back into employment through programmes that the DWP data lab has found to have a significant impact. Could the Secretary of State outline how evidence produced by units such as the data lab will help guide the trailblazer funding to get young people back into work?

• 22 Jul 2025 · Health Inequalities · Hansard source

  More

  In Kensington and Bayswater, there is now a staggering 19-year gap in life expectancy between men living in Notting Dale and those living in Holland Park—which are just hundreds of metres apart—and that gap has grown in recent years. The Minister knows that this is a whole-of-society issue to do with housing, employment and education, but can he outline what steps the Department are taking to help inner-city areas with very high levels of health inequality, such as that experienced by my constituents in Kensington?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his defence of teachers. I am sure that he welcomes the pay rise for teachers of 5% last year and 4.4% this year, funded by the Budget.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because it is important to talk about debt. I was disappointed that the shadow Chancellor failed to acknowledge that the inheritance in 2024 was total national debt of close to 100% of GDP, which was up from 60% in 2010. The annual debt payments that the Government are having to make—as others have said, they are close to £100 billion, thanks to the Government’s economic inheritance—are 8.3% of total public spending. Imagine what we could do if we spent that money on the NHS, our schools, or fixing the housing crisis. This goes much deeper than debt. The truth is that we inherited a sick economy, affecting living standards, wages and public services, and there was no plan for growth. The Conservatives left Britain with rising debt and flatlining growth, yet they oppose the very measures that the Government have taken to fix their mess.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the shadow Chancellor on securing a debate on this motion. When this Government came into office, they found Britain’s public finances vandalised, the economy wrecked, debts soaring, sky-high mortgages, a cost of living crisis that has touched every household in this country, and a mismanaged pandemic, rife with dodgy contracts and corruption. The Conservatives today pretend that they have discovered fiscal responsibility, but we all remember that they increased taxes 25 times in the last Parliament, and gifted us the reckless Liz Truss mini-Budget, which sent mortgages spiralling and tanked the markets. No Government in living memory have had a worse economic inheritance than this one. The Conservatives have no credible economic plan for dealing with the debt, no credible plan for growth, and no credibility whatsoever with the British public. What they did to the public finances and the national debt even before the pandemic is unforgivable.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I am glad that business confidence is at a nine-year high—that is from an independent assessment. The decisions that the hon. Gentleman refers to are already making a difference. Does he oppose the 4 million extra NHS appointments that this Government have managed to secure so far; the three trade deals with the US, India and the EU—deals that the Conservative party failed to get over the line—the four interest rate cuts; the efforts to close the tax gap; the fact that wages have grown more in our first 10 months in office than under the last 10 years of the Conservative Government; the rise in the national minimum wage to support low-paid workers; and the expansion of free school meals to half a million children, which also lifts 100,000 out of poverty? The motion before us offers no ideas and no credible plan. If the Conservative party were serious about economic growth and tax, it would do some reflecting on its record, apologise to the British people and get behind the Labour plan to get Britain’s economy booming again.

• 15 Jul 2025 · Taxes · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. Of course, the Conservatives tanked the economy, and when there is such a dramatic decline in growth, increasing it from a very low level to a slightly higher one is relatively straightforward. The economic growth figures for the first quarter of this year, as we know, are the highest in the G7. The Government are trying to fix the mess, including through measures worth over £20 billion a year—measures aimed at repairing our public finances by addressing the black hole and investing in public services that were wrecked by austerity, poor management and wishful thinking. The Conservatives have a nerve to pretend that they would do things differently now. My constituents tell me the same. Indeed, a local resident, George, has been vociferous about the lack of a credible economic plan from the Conservative party, and will not stop sharing his views on the airwaves. Yes, even the former Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the Conservatives have no answers to the fiscal challenges that the country faces. There is plenty that George Osborne and I disagree on, but he is absolutely right on that. At every turn, the Conservative party is backing the blockers and preventing a plan for economic growth, whether it is the Leader of the Opposition blocking new energy infrastructure in her own backyard or the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), signing letters to delay vital transport infrastructure. It is no wonder that our economy has been held back for so long. The other parties, too, have nothing to offer. Reform wants Liz Truss’s reckless economics all over again—the same failed experiment of unfunded tax cuts that crashed our economy and left our constituents paying the price. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats promise all the benefits of tough decisions with no way to pay for them. It is pure fantasy economics. I am glad that the Government have committed to not repeating those mistakes. It will fall on the Labour party to fix this mess, rebuild our economy and deliver the secure growth that Britain needs. Nowhere is the cost of failure clearer than in the broken housing system. London boroughs now spend £4 million every single day on temporary accommodation —a massive waste of taxpayers’ money. The Conservatives also locked us into paying billions for over-inflated asylum hotel contracts. That is another egregious waste of taxpayer money that we inherited from them. That is the direct result of not planning for investment or for the long term; it is the price of short-termism and a failure to plan for the future. Let us look at housing—one part of our plan. We have ambitious planning reforms to deliver the greatest impact on growth at no fiscal cost. We have the biggest investment in social and genuinely affordable homes in a generation. We have leasehold reform, protection for renters and a new decent homes standard, which are all opposed by the Conservative party. This Government are making tough choices to raise revenue. The Conservatives talk about businesses; I meet businesses all the time, and I understand the pressures that they are under. They tell me that it is vital that NHS waiting lists fall, so that their employees can access the treatment that they need; that we have modern infrastructure in Britain, including transport and energy; that their staff can afford housing options; and that we agree an EU youth mobility scheme to support our hospitality industry.