Louie French MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  14. What estimate she has made of the potential impact of increases in employer’s national insurance contributions on the number of teachers employed in schools.

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  I have been contacted by schools in my Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency that are outraged that Labour’s tax rises are forcing them to cut resources and staff while the Government demand that teachers do more. One teacher told me that, as a proud trade unionist, she had always voted Labour, but feels completely betrayed. She says: “Labour have made the situation in schools 10x worse letting students and teachers down”. She is right, is she not? Labour has betrayed teachers, students and schools.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  21. What steps she is taking through the criminal justice system to help tackle hyper-prolific offending.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Hyper-prolific Offending · Hansard source

  More

  Tool theft has a devastating impact on tradespeople and their families across the country. That is why I am pleased to support the shadow Justice Secretary, Sidcup police, On The Tools, Checkatrade and others in tool-marking initiatives and raids at boot sales where stolen goods are normally sold, but there is more to do across the criminal justice system to tackle this issue. Will the Government support Conservative amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill and ensure that these prolific offenders face tougher sentences and tradespeople get the justice they finally deserve?

• 3 Apr 2025 · Rugby League · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am happy to declare it. We lost a lot of games back then. The return of the ashes is welcome news for rugby league, but while the next generation will be inspired by the series, the Labour Government have dropped the ball. Encouraging grassroots participation is key to the future of all sports and community clubs across the country, but Labour has cut the £57 million opening school facilities fund, £21 million of investment in multi-sports grassroots facilities, and ended the £25 million Lionesses futures fund that invested in facilities to support women and girls’ sport. Arguably, the biggest owngoal for grassroots sport is the removal of planning protections for sports pitches across England. Why is it only the Conservatives who will protect grassroots clubs and the sports pitches that Labour wants to concrete over?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the hon. Member’s comments about funding not keeping up with demographic changes. That is a cross-party criticism—not one aimed just at the Labour Government—because the problem is historical. Other price and funding challenges coming through include contract inflation, and the impact of the jobs tax on all local councils. The impact on Bexley council is expected to be around £5 million next year, but the Government are only providing £1.6 million of funding. Does the hon. Member agree that Ministers must address that issue, as well as the issue of fair funding, to ensure that councils can be financially sustainable?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for giving way and for securing today’s important debate. I agree a lot with what he is saying about homelessness and the challenges it creates for London authorities, whether in inner London or outer London, but it prompts the question of why his Government have cut the housing targets for Labour councils in central London.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Electricity Grid Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  The London power tunnels project has been a positive story locally in Bexley, as National Grid has worked with the community to minimise disruption with a plan to restore the site. However, the Labour Government’s planning reforms have led developers to propose two extensive industrial battery storage facilities on a nature conservation area and farmland locally in Bexley that do not meet fire safety guidance. While we need infrastructure, does the Minister agree that weakening green belt protections against residents’ wishes and damaging nature in the process to meet Labour’s unrealistic grid targets will result in bad developments in inappropriate places?

• 18 Mar 2025 · Electricity Grid Decarbonisation · Hansard source

  More

  2. What recent estimate his Department has made of the cost of decarbonising the electricity grid by 2030.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I would have some sympathy for that argument if the threshold for the percentage of workers voting for a strike was being maintained, but we are now clearly leaving the door open for a minority of militant trade union members to go on strike and cause mass disruption. I will be honest and say that I have never been a member of a trade union, but my experience of trade union bosses is that they live a life that I could never dream of as a working-class man, to be quite frank. As a working-class person from a working-class background, I learnt at a very young age that trade unions and the Labour party stopped representing working-class people many years ago, and this Government are proving it yet again.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As we have seen already—this is what I was talking about—the fairytale says that if we improve industrial relations and give trade unions all the money they want, suddenly there will not be any strikes. But what has happened in practice since the Labour Government came in? Trade unions have been given all the money, and they are still threatening to go on strike. This Bill really does read like a militant trade union wish list. Strike mandates have doubled from six to 12 months, allowing trade unions to impose rolling strikes for a whole year without balloting their members. Turnout requirements have been abolished so that a minority can call strikes, and the Government have removed the requirement for 50% of members to vote and 40% to support industrial action. The Bill reduces the notice for strikes by four days and gives employers less information, making strikes even more damaging to businesses and disruptive to people’s lives. It also allows unreasonable paid facility time for trade unions, making the taxpayer and companies pay out even more for trade union representatives at the same time that the Labour Government are raising everyone’s taxes and cutting public services.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As any sensible people would know, changes to business regulations need to strike a careful balance to not deter both business investment and job creation, but I am afraid that this Bill gets the balance wrong. Labour’s weakening of a variety of trade union laws, particularly on the threshold for industrial action, is a recipe for disaster for both the public and businesses, particularly SMEs. As a London MP, I have heard this fairytale from those on the Labour Benches before, because London has too often been paralysed by strikes under Mayor Sadiq Khan. Infamously, the London Mayor promised our city “zero days of strikes” in 2016, but he has comprehensively broken that promise. In Sadiq Khan’s first two terms, there were more than 135 strikes, which is almost four times more than the number of strikes under his predecessor —a record that Mayor Khan labelled a “disgrace”. If 35 strikes are a disgrace, the 135 under Mayor Khan represent a catastrophic failure. My fear is that this Bill and the Labour Government’s amendments will make strikes even more common in London.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My experience as an MP is great frustration, particularly in outer London, about train companies constantly going on strike, with a very small minority of train drivers going on strike. What we saw from this Government was a load of money going straight to those same unions, without the productivity changes that we would like to see, and no adaptation in the system. My personal opinion on some of these proposals is that it is increasingly likely that automation and a loss of jobs will be direct consequences of the rigid trade union laws being forced on to more businesses. I suspect that the only thing that will rise in this Parliament is unemployment. These strikes are costly, disruptive and damaging to Britain. They ought to be a last resort, but this Government’s proposals will take us back to the 1970s—before I was born—when strikes were a political tool for division, damage and disruption. This is yet more evidence that Labour is not on the side of working people or of serious economic growth, as its own impact assessment—even partial—tells us. Londoners will not thank this Government if this results in yet more disruptive and longer rolling strikes that grind our city down even further than Mayor Khan has. Working people will not thank this Government for empowering their trade unions to bring our country to a standstill, especially as we pick up the Bill as they fill their pockets.

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) has just made a point suggesting that working people are not impacted by the behaviours of trade unions, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is the working people of this country who are hammered the most when Labour Members’ paymasters, the trade unions, go on strike?

• 12 Mar 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Lady for her rather odd intervention. It has nothing to do with this Bill, but if more people had a chance to vote on issues such as who should be the Prime Minister today, I suspect that they would come to a completely different answer from the one they came to last July, because this Labour Government have broken every single promise that they made at the election. I cannot wait for the public to have the opportunity to vote out this shocking Labour Government, so I am all for people having more chance to do so. As I and other Conservative Members have said already, this Bill was written by the trade unions and for the trade unions. Why are the Government granting this wish list to the trade unions? The simple answer is that the Labour party will benefit from these proposals. As I was taught as a young man, “Follow the money.” [ Interruption. ] Yes, I did not follow it by coming into this place. Over the past five years, the Labour party has received more than £31 million in political donations from the unions. This Bill will remove the requirement for trade union members to opt in to those contributions; instead, they will have to opt out, which means more will unknowingly contribute to political causes that they do not support. The Government’s amendment will mean that trade unions no longer need to renew their political resolutions every 10 years, and ultimately this will make it even easier for trade unions to divert cash to political causes, including the Labour party. In short, this Bill means more strikes more often and more money for the Labour party, and strikes will be grinding business to a halt, shutting down public services and closing public transport systems again.

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. The commercial elements of the game and its growth are vital. In conversations with the RFU—I suspect I will have many more—that is one area that we must try to continue growing. I have also met Six Nations, which represents all the different unions in this space, and looked at some of its media options, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think they are worth tracking in the weeks and months ahead. Financial stability at the grassroots is just as important as financial success at the top of the game. Let us be in no doubt: many clubs that were only just recovering from the pandemic are now facing significant headwinds from Labour’s Budget, whether because of high utility bills or staffing costs. I urge the Government again not to lose sight of what it means for communities across the country when clubs are put at risk of closure. The way the RFU operates allows it to invest in the game’s grassroots, including by funding school rugby managers, who are tasked with making contact with local clubs to ensure that there is a relationship between the schools that they look after and the local rugby club. That is an important way to ensure there is a pathway from that first game of rugby in a PE lesson that can lead any child to a future at the elite level if their talent allows. The development of our next generation of rugby players is arguably the most important function of the rugby pyramid and those who govern it. Talent must be nurtured from the earliest age, and pathways to community or professional rugby should be clear, fair and accessible to all. We need to empower our coaches, clubs and schools to provide the best environment for young talent to flourish. The RFU is making good progress on achieving that already, but I know that it can and wants to go further. Data from Sport England’s active lives survey shows that participation in the men’s game is up to 183,000 players from 157,000 in 2021-22. Age grade rugby is also growing, with over 178,000 players registered by the end of last season and over 171,000 so far this season. With the challenge of players’ time commitments, however, it is a wise move for the RFU to be looking closely at having more Friday night fixtures, for example. I look forward to tracking the progress of T1 rugby, which is currently being rolled out in schools, and the growth of the women’s game following this year’s world cup. From my conversations with stakeholders, the RFU is restoring some faith and good will within the rugby community, and it must continue to do so and listen to the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate. If it can get that right, and create a governance structure that is more transparent, accountable and inclusive, the future of rugby in England will be brighter than ever. The RFU must do that collaboratively, however, in conjunction with all the sport’s stakeholders. Rugby is a sport of passion, and we cannot afford to lose that. I will push the Minister on some areas of the sport and the Government’s policies on it. The financial insecurity of many clubs, and the collapse of others in recent years, to the detriment of local communities and fans, raises an important question for the Government: why are they planning to regulate football, and making a lot of noise about it, but not rugby? To be clear, I am not advocating that they should. My personal view is that rugby has enough challenges to deal with and that, as with most things in life, more Government intervention is not the answer, but there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to sport that I hope the Minister will address. Linked to that, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help to ensure the financial sustainability of rugby clubs, and to encourage and develop the governance and the accountability for the taxpayers’ money that is being used, as has been raised already? In the light of recent reports, how will the Government manage the expiry of covid loans, which helped to keep clubs afloat during the pandemic? If more clubs go bust, taxpayers’ money will be lost forever. Will the Department take a more pragmatic approach to those loans, perhaps with extended payment dates and flexibility? What impact assessment has the Minister made of the combined impact of raising national insurance and employment costs on the game at an elite and community level? Will the Government ensure that rugby continues to be part of the school curriculum? What assessment has she made of the effect on participation in rugby of Labour’s school tax, given the prevalence of links with rugby union among public schools? Finally, does the Minister share my concerns that playing fields will be lost due to the Government’s planning changes, as announced this week?

• 11 Mar 2025 · English Rugby Union: Governance · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate. Both rugby union and rugby league are games with proud traditions in this country. They bring together communities, inspire young athletes and represent the best of our national sporting spirit. I had the personal pleasure of playing both codes of rugby as a teenager and getting my coaching badges, and today I am proud to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup, which has two flourishing rugby clubs, Sidcup and the Dartfordians. Each club represents what rugby is really about: community, friendship and playing sport in the spirit of healthy competition, open to all, regardless of background, with thriving teams across all age groups. I look forward to wearing my half-and-half scarf next month, when the battle of Bexley takes place between the two senior first teams of my local clubs. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Mizen Foundation to promote schools rugby in my community. Yet as we all know, the national game is at a crossroads, with major headwinds, including competition from other sports, club finances, as we have heard, and player welfare. Performances and results on the pitch have thankfully improved, with the men’s team having a strong Six Nations—sorry, fans of Wales and Scotland—and the Red Roses continuing to inspire girls and women across the country ahead of this year’s world cup, but the governance of English rugby union has been brought into the spotlight in recent months. I want to be clear from the outset—I am sure Members across the House will agree—that this is not a criticism of the players or fans, or of hard-working individuals in clubs and the wider rugby community. It is about how we improve the governance structure of English rugby to ensure the long-term sustainability of the game, from the grassroots to the elite level. With the Six Nations under way, it is a good time to look at reforming the governance of the Rugby Football Union to ensure accountability, transparency and a long-term strategic vision for the sport. Critics have argued that the governance structure of English rugby union has failed to keep pace with the evolving nature of the international game and, as a result, the game is beginning to suffer. Sir Bill Beaumont and the RFU board have come in for a fair amount of criticism in recent months, but I am pleased that they have been out meeting clubs across the country and engaging on a range of concerns ahead of their special general meeting on 27 March. As a result of roadshow feedback, the RFU is planning to take action in the following areas: governance reforms, financial sustainability, continued growth of the community game, reducing administrative burdens, simplifying and modernising competition structures, investing in community club infrastructure and improving communications. It is ultimately up to union members to vote on proposals, but I believe that those are the right areas of focus and hope that the game will tackle these important issues in the months and years ahead. First and foremost, we must ensure that the RFU is accessible and accountable and operates transparently. The days of a top-down approach to the governance of rugby are over. Rugby is a community game and its leadership structure must reflect that. We need a range of voices at the decision-making table, including people from the grassroots who understand the challenges faced by our local clubs and understand the game itself. I am sure that Members in this place and members of local clubs are pleased to hear that the RFU has promised more control over our community game. I appreciate that that is an olive branch from the RFU in the wake of a chorus of criticism from the game, but it should be welcomed none the less, alongside the £120 million of investment in community rugby promised over the next four years. The RFU is beginning with a review of how the community game is run, which it expects will encourage “a shift to a regional structure where more decisions can be made locally, with greater flexibility achieved in competition management and devolved funding to help local decisions to be made to drive participation growth, aid player retention and support club sustainability.” I think Members here and fans across the country will welcome that. We must also continue to ensure that financial decisions are made with the long-term health of the game in mind. We must not continue to see short-sighted financial choices that damage the sport’s infrastructure and leave our clubs struggling. There have been many media reports about the RFU’s record-breaking loss last year, and it has been mentioned during the debate, but what has not been reported on is the four-year financial cycle in which the RFU operates, which follows the fixture list. During half of the cycle, the RFU makes a profit; in one year it breaks even; and one year results in a loss. It announced a record-breaking loss last year, but the loss was actually less than it had planned. Having looked into the details and met the RFU, it is clear to me that there is a financial plan in place, but it is not always sufficiently headline-grabbing to be made clear to the public.

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) for securing this important debate. As we all know, football is more than just a game. It is a passion that unites millions across the country, from all backgrounds and communities. It is woven into the fabric of many communities, from grassroots clubs such as Foots Cray Lions and Welling United in my constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup, to the premier league giants and those seeking to rival them. Football and rugby were key to my own development as a teenager and although I do not get to play as often as I would like any more, sport taught me key life skills such as communication, teamwork and leadership, and taught me the positivity that comes from healthy competition. When I talk about football, it is personal to me. I want our beautiful game enjoyed for generations to come in the spirit of healthy competition. Football is nothing without its fans and the people who make football work throughout the year. Although there are many debates to be had about the independent regulator in the months ahead, when the governance Bill finally returns to the Commons it is imperative that Members across the House do not lose sight of what a success story the evolution of English football is, in both the men’s and the women’s games. The premier league, for example, is the most watched competition in the world, attracting the best players and managers, and generating significant economic and cultural benefits to the United Kingdom. The EFL is also thriving, with attendances in the championship, league one and league two surpassing many European peers. But with the immense popularity and influence of this great British success story comes a responsibility for both the clubs and the governing bodies to ensure that the game remains viable, fair and open for future generations. In recent years, some clubs have suffered financial distress or, in the case of one of my local clubs, Charlton Athletic, they have been owned by someone who clearly did not have the club’s interests at heart. Although we must be realistic about the global economics of football and the fierce competition from rival leagues, including the Saudi league, we cannot ignore the consequences on fans, communities and the wider football pyramid when clubs are run badly. I have great sympathy for Reading football club and the fans in the Public Gallery, because I see many similarities with the challenges that Charlton has faced in recent years. That is why the previous Government introduced a more measured, balanced and proportionate Football Governance Bill, which sought to ensure that English football was more financially sustainable for the future and more accountable to fans. It also sought to stop the breakaway European super league. However, football clubs must live within their means. Clear and responsible financial frameworks are already in place within the premier league and the EFL, and are supposed to be overseen by the FA and the leagues. However, the FA is often overlooked in debates in this House—it has hardly been mentioned today—and in the other place, as many seem to forget that there are already many football regulations in place and that the FA and the leagues are the regulators. That is even before we consider the role of the likes of UEFA and FIFA, and we understand that UEFA has raised concerns with the Government about interference in our national sport.

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  Given the last intervention and the ongoing auditions for Parliamentary Private Secretary roles among Labour Members, I must push the Minister: at what point will introducing a regulator and the measures that she is discussing lower ticket prices for football fans?

• 6 Mar 2025 · English Football: Financial Sustainability and Governance · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to answer that question. The Bill is still changing in the other place. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware, but amendments from the Conservative party have been accepted by the Government; I will come on to one of those amendments on growth of the game. I appreciate the enthusiasm of new Government Members as they try to please their Whips and the Government, but amendments are still being made to this Bill in the other place. I understand their eagerness, but we have not seen the final Bill. There are challenges in football, but we must not lose sight of the importance of the independence of the sport. We must prevent Government interference, which will assuredly diminish the unique nature of the game and its ability to adapt to changing circumstances. A careful balance must be struck: regulation must not address just short-term issues; it should serve the sport’s long-term interests and it should not deter vital investment. We should also acknowledge the progress in football governance over recent years. The Football Association, the Premier League and other key stakeholders have worked tirelessly to address issues such as financial fair play and racism and to improve safety standards at grounds. If we as legislators impose a blanket, top-down regulatory framework, we risk stifling the innovation and flexibility that has helped football to evolve. It was this innovation that allowed the premier league to come into existence in 1992, and that has provided world-class football in United Kingdom for more than three decades. It begs the question: would the premier league now be banned by this new Bill coming from the Labour party? We cannot risk a return to the football of the 1980s, when English clubs were banned from Europe. Members may not be familiar with a letter from 2 September 2024 from the UEFA general secretary to the new Secretary of State raising concerns about the Bill. When we have requested sight of these concerns, the Government have denied us access. What are the Government hiding from football fans? Are there risks that our clubs, and even our national teams, may not be able to compete? Please can we have sight of this letter from UEFA raising these concerns? We have written to request it, and we have requested it in the other place. Members of Parliament must have complete transparency on what they are being asked to vote on and the risks of the Bill. But it is not all own goals from the Labour party. It is welcome that this Government have now accepted some of the Conservative amendments in the other place. The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) asked a question about that, and I have an example for him: the Government’s regulator must now avoid any adverse effects on the financial growth of English football; we will closely monitor how it does that as the Bill develops. Equally, we have to be mindful of unintended consequences on clubs, fans and ticket prices. The Bill will increase the regulatory burden on all clubs. One football chief executive has already said: “We’ve two choices with those costs. We either stop doing some of the things we’re already doing, whether that’s academy, women’s, girls’ football or whatever, or we pass those costs on to fans.” Members must acknowledge that football is a delicate international ecosystem that is at huge risk if the Government get this wrong. As we look around at the various challenges facing football today, from financial stability to governance issues and from player welfare to fan engagement, one thing becomes clear: football is at a crossroads. The time has come for us to empower the sport’s governing bodies to use their expertise to lead the way and chart a course that puts the game and fans first. As the official Opposition, we will continue to closely scrutinise what the Government’s expanded new Bill does, and try to limit the number of own goals they score.

• 27 Feb 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  At the end of last year, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock) stated the importance of greyhound racing to the nation’s culture and economy, but last week Labour in Wales announced its intention to ban greyhound racing as soon as practicably possible. Will the Secretary of State tell us who she agrees with, her Sport Minister or the Deputy First Minister, and will she make clear whether she is planning to ban greyhound racing across the UK?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Draft Community Radio Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. Community radio serves a vital purpose in society, and especially for local communities, by providing services for the good of members of the public or particular communities. They have a specific role and community radio stations’ focus as not-for-profit is to provide social gain, not serve commercial interests. We have some concerns, however, that the draft order, although well intentioned, risks restricting competition and weakening the very principles of community radio. For example, the extension of licences for community radio stations could come at the expense of new entrants. For new entrants, the order is a barrier to entry and cements the status of current operators. When the media landscape is evolving, with urban and rural communities wanting culturally relevant radio, does the Minister agree that the order potentially limits growth in the sector? Not only does it restrict new entrants, but it fails to offer any review process on the service that community radio stations currently provide. Has the Minister therefore considered the benefits of a relicensing process, as well as a review of existing licences, to ensure that community radio stations are fulfilling their purpose to deliver social value and serve their communities? If the Minister does not intend to conduct a relicensing process or to review existing licences, what action will she take to ensure that community radio stations are delivering social benefits and providing community-focused broadcasting? I am aware of issues relating to coverage, with many community radio stations reporting DAB coverage issues. This means that stations are being prevented from serving their communities and fulfilling their purpose as community radio stations. What assessment have the Minister or her officials made of coverage as a result of phasing out analogue radio in favour of small-scale DAB? I will end how I started: by highlighting the good work that community radio stations do. I hope that the Minister can see that for this sector to grow and thrive, competition should not be restricted, and effective checks should be in place to ensure that community radio stations are fulfilling their purpose to benefit society.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister will be well aware that the reason that we voted against the levy was not the principle of it—as she just acknowledged, it was designed by the previous Government—but how it has been changed by the new Government and the risks that I outlined in both my questions today.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for securing a debate on this important and sensitive issue. As we have heard, betting and gaming are key economic contributors. Last year Ernst & Young reported that the industry supported more than 100,000 jobs, generated over £4 billion in tax revenue and contributed close to £7 billion to the wider economy. Across all forms of gambling, more than 22.5 million adults in Britain enjoy a flutter every single month and generate almost £11 billion in gross gambling yield every year. The vast majority of this is done safely, supported by measures enacted by regulated operators and enforced by the Gambling Commission. However, there are a number of people who have suffered harm because of gambling, whether that is financial harm or, in tragic cases, suicide, which we have heard about today. My heart goes out to all the families impacted. We must continue to take this seriously and provide the best support we can. For example, the current voluntary system funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers. We are fortunate in the United Kingdom that rates of problem gambling are relatively low compared with European countries. Greece has a problem gambling rate of 2.7%. France has a rate of 2.9%, and the Czech Republic has a rate of 4.5%. The United Kingdom’s problem gambling rate almost halved from 2016 to 2023 and now sits at 0.4%, according to the gold-standard NHS health survey. We would all like to see the rate become 0%, which is why the sector already contributes and why we must get the balance right in this area of legislation. Over the last four years, the sector has contributed more than £170 million to the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harm, with more than £50 million volunteered in the last year alone. That money funds a vital network of charities to support problem gamblers, which cares for approximately 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain. However, that work is now being put into doubt by the Government. The Gambling Levy Regulations 2025, which the Minister and I debated, among other colleagues, in a delegated legislation Committee last week, risk the much-needed funding stopping in the short term, as the transition to a new statutory levy takes place. The new regulations will lead to a double levy this year, with the voluntary levy still in place and the statutory levy taxing gross gambling yield backdated to April last year. Not only that, but this first levy period is being charged at 133% of the rate for subsequent years. Even those with the purest intentions, including those providing the current prevention and treatment programmes, are aware of the enormous damage that could do. There are clear risks of a gap in funding from the ending of the voluntary levy in April to the first collection of the statutory levy in October. As businesses, the sector will have to take decisions to survive Labour’s tax rises, which could include minimising voluntary payments to the current minimum of just £1 for this year. I raised that issue in our debate last week, but the Minister did not give me or the sector an answer, and I wonder whether she will answer this vital question today. How will prevention and treatment programmes be funded when the voluntary funding is minimised but the statutory levy is yet to be collected or distributed? The sector was broadly supportive of the statutory levy proposed under the previous Government, but the way in which it has been introduced, with higher rates than those the Department previously discussed with the sector, means that both gambling businesses and treatment charities are deeply concerned about the outcomes and unintended consequences. Will the Minister tell us today how many people she thinks will lose out on vital treatment in that time? I know she is not the Minister for Gambling, but she is accountable for gambling to us in the Commons. As I set out last week, there are many there are many concerns across the sector about the lack of engagement coming forward. Over the several months in which I have asked questions, I have yet to receive any response from either the Minister or the Minister for Gambling in the other place. Why are the Government leaving the betting and gaming sector in the dark? Will the Minister finally give us the answers that we have been waiting so patiently for? What about GambleAware, which has stated that it needs the confirmation of its funding for the period to April 2026, when the new system will be fully in place? I am sure that it has also told the Department about this, but it is becoming increasingly urgent as it is uncertain about how it commissions services going forward, including commissioning via the crucial national gambling support network, which helps fund many of those charities that I have already highlighted across the sector. GambleAware needs clarity. Not only are the Government consciously leaving the prevention and treatment of gambling harm in a state of uncertainty, but the higher rates of the levy now to be charged will also have further implications. The higher costs on companies will lead to business closures and job losses, particularly among smaller firms, as well as a reduction in tax revenue for His Majesty’s Treasury, and they will have a knock-on effect of up to £60 million in business rates that are currently flowing to local authorities. That, in turn, will have a dual impact. First, it will likely increase participation rates in the black market, where no regulations or safeguards apply, and no levy revenue will be generated. As Members will know, black markets are created when gambling customers cannot access products or, more pertinently, find those products highly restricted in their domestically regulated market. No amount of anti-black market measures will prevent a black market from forming if customers cannot gamble enjoyably with limited frictions. Here in the United Kingdom, we have historically enjoyed a relatively low level of black market participation, but there is clear evidence that this is a growing risk and there are clear reasons why, including price frictions in bonuses and free bets, as well as other financial limits, such as affordability checks, not being enforced properly. We are reaching a tipping point of the Government’s own making—a point at which those most at risk from gambling harm will be unable to wean themselves off gambling in a responsible and monitored way. Instead, they will turn to illicit bookies and international websites to meet their needs. A report by Regulus Partners confirms this, stating: “On the current pattern of increasing consumer friction in the domestically regulated market… international experience shows Britain’s illegal gambling leakage could more than double.” If that happens, the most at risk will be furthest from the help that they desperately need. It will also continue to damage British horseracing, as mentioned by other Members. There is a middle ground in allowing players to engage with betting and gaming safely, with plenty of warnings and signposting to the help they can receive. If we push the cost of safe and legal betting to such a height that participants choose to exit the market in favour of cheaper prices and better odds in the unregulated market, it would undermine efforts to make gambling safer and would force more players and more money into unregulated providers who do not need to comply with regulations around safer play. I asked the Minister several questions last week, and I will ask them again to see whether she has had time to confer with her colleagues. First, who in Government will be setting the strategic direction, and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in her Department, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury? Secondly, how will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy, and how will the Government ensure all views are heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities currently being funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not be given a carte blanche, which I know will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account? I want to place on the record my thanks to the many amazing charities, such as Gordon Moody, Deal Me Out and others, representative of which are in the Gallery. They continue to do fantastic work to help people turn their lives around, and they are at the forefront of helping those who suffer the harmful effects of gambling. They should be the ones we keep in our minds throughout these discussions, as we try to strike an appropriate balance that ensures safe gambling across the country. Will the Minister reassure those watching from the Gallery and from afar that she will make sure that her ministerial colleagues meet them, listen to them and put in practice their expertise in this field? They know what they are talking about. Do the Government?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Draft Gambling Act 2005 (Operating Licence Conditions) (Amendment) Regulations 2024 Draft Gambling Levy Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is still a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Twigg. Unfortunately, that pleasure does not extend to the regulations that we are now discussing. The Labour Government have spectacularly managed to take a set of draft regulations that were largely settled and agreed on, after significant engagement by the previous Department for Culture, Media and Sport ministerial team prior to the election, and got them to the position we are in today, where there are major concerns across the sector about their impact and unintended consequences. Before I highlight some of those concerns to the House today, and in the spirit of trying to be constructive in opposition, I urge the Government and the Minister, who I have a lot of time and respect for—I know she is covering today—to address a clear structural problem with how they are approaching this important policy area. As has been highlighted in some of the responses already, having the Minister for Gambling in the other place working part-time on major gambling reforms is clearly not working. While most Governments will face criticism at times for not listening, it is remarkable that in almost every conversation that the shadow DCMS team has with people across the sector, we are being told consistently that the Government are not even engaging, let alone listening. That major concern keeps coming up and is a constant theme. The Government have successfully, and remarkably, managed to unite the anti-gambling and pro-gambling sides of the sector, and everyone in between, in their concerns about the lack of engagement. Separate to the regulations we are discussing today, I ask the Minister to take that away and feed it back, perhaps through the Whips, because it is quite a feat. Sadly, that failure to engage properly is why I believe there are a number of issues with the redrafted regulations in front of us today. First, in the broader economic context, Members might have seen the recent “Sunday Times Tax List 2025”, which highlighted what many of us already knew: the gambling industry already pays a lot of tax. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that in the year 2024-25, betting and gaming duties alone will raise £3.6 billion. That represents roughly 0.3% of all receipts, and is equivalent to £124 per household and 0.1% of national income. The Betting and Gaming Council estimates that its members contribute £6.8 billion to the economy each year, as well as supporting more than 109,000 jobs across the country. Although I understand that some might wish to bash the bookies, we must have a sensible debate about the collective impact of Labour’s tax rises on the sector, the thousands of jobs across the country now being put at risk and the potential unintended consequences for charities, sports such as British horseracing and the growth of the black market, as I have referenced already. Betting revenues from horseracing are evidently falling because of flawed affordability checks, and the economic backdrop today is fundamentally bleaker because of Labour’s Budget, which adds to the broader sector concerns as the Government seek to squeeze even more money out of firms. We all must be clear that the levies being discussed will further push up costs for businesses and, when taken with Labour’s tax rises as a whole, will severely restrict or even remove the viability of smaller gambling operators and important community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses across the country. That brings me to my next point: the scope of the amended draft regulations, which has been expanded from the previous proposals. There are deep sector concerns about who this Labour Government are targeting by expanding the scope of the regulations. For example, regulation 2 brings into scope trackside betting at greyhound and horseracing racecourses, while regulation 3 sets the minimum levy payment threshold, which had previously been agreed at £500,000 a year. However, the Government have gone much further, reducing the minimum threshold to only £10 for small operators, after which point they would need to start paying the mandatory levy and doing the administration that goes alongside that. Unsurprisingly, the move has caused great alarm among independent and smaller firms, which are being brought into the scope of liability for levy payments for the first time. Independent bingo hall operators have also been brought into scope. Under regulation 4, these businesses will be charged at 0.2%, which I understand is double what had been proposed previously. If I am interpreting the proposed regulations correctly, they will see small independent bookmakers at courses around the country charged double the rate of pooled betting operators, such as the Tote. Can the Minister confirm whether my understanding is correct on that point? The Government’s new proposals have also lumped independent high street bookmakers with a land-based retail rate of 0.5%, which is also up from the previous proposal of 0.4%. That means that small independent betting shops will pay an additional £1,000 a shop and an additional £500,000 in total. The Betting and Gaming Council has said that it is a real “hammer blow” to the 500 small independent bookmakers in the UK, which employ more than 2,500 people, undoubtedly leading to closures and job losses. As if it is not bad enough that important community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses are facing a Labour battering, community lotteries are also expressing concerns about the risk of being charged the levy twice, because of how it has been drafted. That would negatively affect distributions to good causes. I understand that the Department considered charging the levy at 0% for society lottery operators but concluded that that would amount to an exemption and would carry significant legal risks. Has a new impact assessment been carried out to analyse in greater detail the risks and concerns that are being expressed? Even if some Members are comfortable with bashing the bookies, they surely cannot be comfortable with the unintended consequences and risks resulting from less funding for good causes and a loss of jobs and community assets. My final concern is about the potential impact on the charities and organisations that are already doing fantastic work to support those suffering with gambling addiction. As Members should already know, through the existing voluntary scheme, although it is far from perfect, hundreds of millions of pounds of contributions from gambling firms have been invested to help to fund a network of specialist charities and organisations that support those who need help. I understand that that network currently cares for roughly 85% of all problem gamblers receiving treatment in Britain, but there are major concerns and great uncertainty about how and to what extent that care can continue as the Government seek to change the system from voluntary to statutory. First, on short-term funding, our understanding is that the regulations will lead to some firms paying a double levy this year. Ministers have been clear that they expect the industry to pay voluntary contributions this financial year, and that if these regulations come into effect, the industry will also be required to make payments on profits backdated to 1 April last year. The Minister must know that, faced with being charged twice in the same calendar year, many firms in the industry will look to minimise their voluntary payments for this financial year. Moreover, according to regulation 4(6), the levy due this October for the first period is 33% higher than usual, so the Government not only are asking firms to pay twice in a year, but have added up front, in the fine print, an extra third on to the statutory levy. That clearly risks removing millions of pounds in vital funding from the treatment network before October when the first statutory levy payment is due. In the Minister’s response, can she tell us what risk assessment her Department has carried out on that potential drop in voluntary contributions and funding in the short term, and how many people she thinks will lose out on treatment in that time? The new statutory levy also raises many questions and great uncertainty about how the money will be spent and the process behind the decision making, which has again been fuelled by a lack of engagement by the Government. The Minister might want to get a pen out—I can see she has one now. Who in Government will be setting the strategic direction and who is ultimately accountable for any issues arising with the levy? Is it Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and Social Care or the Treasury? Can the Minister please confirm what target percentage will be spent on prevention, treatment and support services, and what percentage the Government expect to be spent on research? How will the Government ensure that research is not duplicated at the cost of treatment and prevention? How will services be commissioned and value for money ensured? If commissioning will primarily be led by the NHS, what support will be provided to charities to ensure that any future tendering processes do not risk their expertise being lost? Who decides who sits on any advisory boards for the levy and will the Government ensure that all views are being heard rather than just those of vested interests? Will the Government ensure that charities funded by the voluntary levy are not frozen out by the more anti-gambling parts of the sector? Are the Government looking to expand residential treatment, currently provided by excellent charities such as Gordon Moody? The Minister’s Department has announced that the Gambling Commission will not have carte blanche for its approach, which will be a relief to many in the sector, but what does that mean in practice? How will the Government hold the commission to account? Those are all serious concerns. I could go on, which highlights the scale of uncertainty hanging over the sector and, sadly, the lack of engagement and clarity from the new Labour Government to date. They are a loose horse with bad form and no jockey to give them strategic direction. On many of these issues, the Government are now asking us to take a leap into the dark with them—comparable with jumping Becher’s Brook blindfolded knowing it is odds on that there will be a very painful landing. I am afraid that without some meaningful answers today, without evidence that a thorough and up-to-date impact assessment has been carried out on all these issues, and without changes to the draft regulations, we cannot support these policies. We know that they will do further damage to jobs and the industry, put community assets such as bingo halls and racecourses at risk of closure, and risk harming the very people and charities that the statutory levy is supposed to support.