Louie French MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. I am sure that we all share the thoughts about Jo Cox and her family who are here today.I know that the Deputy Prime Minister has always struggled with police visibility—even when they are stood behind him—but does he agree with Sir Mark Rowley that London will be even less safe because of this Government’s police cuts and the decision made last week by Sadiq Khan to block a key contract, which will lead to 500 fewer frontline police officers and make us all less safe?

• 16 Jun 2026 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  What assurances can the Government give my constituents across Bexley that the £88 million of investment that is under way in our community to secure our fresh drinking water supply for the next 50 years is not derailed by this Government announcement, which means further uncertainty for Thames Water and its customers?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Child Sexual Offender Data · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Does she agree that although the public perception seems to be that these crimes are a northern towns issue, there are also young girls who have historically been abused in London? It is disgraceful that people in authority in London are still in denial that these crimes are happening here, in our capital city.

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

  More

  The point that my hon. Friend is making is a very accurate description of what is happening in my local area of Bexley, where developers are trying to argue that greenfield sites are now ripe for development because of the Government’s planning changes. Does he share my concern that the Government are continuing to try to barge those changes through this House, and that both Reform and Labour support the Government’s position on the grey belt, which will have a detrimental effect on our local community and our natural environment?

• 27 Apr 2026 · Lord Mandelson Humble Address: Government Response Update · Hansard source

  More

  When he was asked on 20 April why there is no record of his and Peter Mandelson’s meeting with Palantir in Washington, the Prime Minister said: “That was a routine meeting in the course of a visit I was on in the US.” —[ Official Report , 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 62.] Does the Minister agree that that was a routine meeting, and if so, where is the record of it, as required by the ministerial code?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for making that distinction; I understood it as being something to do with whether children watched racing. The point I was trying to make was that times have changed. When I worked in a shop—some 20-odd years ago, when I was a student—a strict rule was brought in to stop children being allowed inside the premises. There was a lot of discussion then about whether it was safer for a child to be just inside the door of a bookmaker’s or to be standing outside. That is probably not as big an issue today as it was then, but I remember that discussion being had circa 20 years ago. Times have changed, and how bookmakers operate has also changed. The debate around gambling and gambling harms boils down to a simple but important question: how do we reduce harm from gambling without driving people into more dangerous spaces? Advertising, the subject of today’s debate, forms an important part of that discussion. Gambling, when properly regulated, is a legitimate leisure activity enjoyed by more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom every month. That averages out at more than 30,000 people in every constituency across the country. The overwhelming majority of those people gamble without harm. The role of Government is to balance regulation for people who enjoy a flutter safely, while ensuring that those who need help can receive it as a matter of urgency. Government should not act as a heavy, puritanical hand prohibiting all avenues of fun. That is why the distinction between the regulated and unregulated market is so important. Advertising by UK-licensed operators is not a free-for-all, as some would have us believe; it is controlled and is subject to oversight by the anti-gambling commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been strengthened significantly in recent years. That has resulted in some good progress: for example, I understand that the whistle-to-whistle ban has reduced children’s exposure to betting adverts during live sport by 97%. The Premier League will soon ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors, and online campaigns are age-gated, with operators prohibited from using personalities with strong appeal to children. However, those regulations do not apply to those who act beyond the law in the black market. The Government have been clear that there is little evidence of a causal link between exposure to advertising and problem gambling. Crucially, the evidence does not show that advertising drives participation. Advertising influences which brand people choose, not whether they gamble at all. That matters, because restricting the regulated sector too heavily will not remove demand; the Government will simply be redirecting it to the unregulated market, where harm becomes the norm. Independent analysis from WARC suggests that UK gambling advertising spend will reach around £1.9 billion this year, with half—between £800 million and £900 million, and increasing—already coming from unregulated operators. We are approaching a tipping point. Close to half of all gambling advertising seen by UK consumers comes from operators that are not licensed in this country and can act beyond the law. It is the direction of travel that concerns me most: WARC’s research shows that while licensed operator spend has fallen, illegal and unregulated spend is growing sharply. That is a sign of a market shifting quickly and decisively, and we must be honest about what sits behind that shift. The Government have increased regulation on the legal sector, but done very little so far to stop the illegal black market. While licensed operators are seeing their ability to advertise reduced, illegal operators are expanding aggressively, particularly online, and particularly aimed at children and younger people. Those unregulated operators do not follow the rules. They do not verify age; they do not offer safeguards such as deposit limits or self-exclusion; they do not contribute to treatment or research; they do not pay tax. Those companies actively market themselves as being outside the system, with “Not on GamStop”—a favoured slogan that is deliberately used to appeal to the most vulnerable. This is not a marginal issue. Up to 1.5 million people in Britain are estimated to be using these sites already, staking as much as £10 billion a year. Today’s advertising frontline is not so much television as social media, streaming platforms and influencers. Around 62% of children report regularly seeing gambling-related content online on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitch and Instagram—I use some of those platforms myself, though I am not sure what Twitch is. What they see is not the regulated sector: they are seeing influencers who are paid to promote black market gambling sites—sites that would never be allowed to advertise through regulated channels and that offer inducements and access without safeguards. Among those young people who follow gambling content, nearly one in three report seeing an influencer advertising the products. The reality is that we have built a system that tightly regulates those who comply with the law, while those who do not are free to exploit the faster-growing parts of the media landscape. We must be honest about the risk of getting this wrong. By clamping down further on regulated advertising without tackling illegal activity, we will not clean up this space. We will simply cede the territory to the illegal operators. We will make it harder for consumers to distinguish between safe and unsafe operators, pushing more people towards platforms that offer no protections at all. The Government’s priority must be enforcement in the spaces where harm is now most concentrated. I will conclude by asking the Minister a series of specific questions that I hope she can answer or follow up in writing. First, will the Government bring forward proposals to place a clear duty on social media platforms to identify and remove illegal gambling advertising, particularly influencer-led promotion of unlicensed sites? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking against unlicensed operators targeting UK consumers online? Thirdly, can the Minister set out a timeline for action on unlicensed gambling sponsorship in sport, and will the Government go further to prevent UK clubs from entering into partnerships with operators that are not licensed in this country?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate. I wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Perhaps the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts is off celebrating St George’s day in his own Scottish way somewhere—I was looking forward to delivering that joke to him, so I am disappointed he is not here. Although I welcome the Minister covering this very important debate, I know there will be some confusion among the public about why no one from DCMS with direct responsibility for this policy area was available to respond. Hopefully, the Minister will still be able to answer some of the key questions on behalf of the Government before their complete collapse. We all know that the Government are yet again distracted by their latest scandal in Downing Street, and that Labour MPs are preparing the runners and riders for their leadership contest; but we meet today to discuss gambling regulation at a very important juncture in terms of how we move forward with the regulated gambling industry in the UK. As we predicted would happen before Labour’s latest tax-hiking Budget, jobs are being lost and high street shops are closing, as we have already heard. Sponsorship for British sport is also being cut, and an illegal, dangerous black market continues to grow each week. Quite clearly, Labour did not properly vet the information they were being provided. This is also a crucial time for the Gambling Commission. Major changes are happening at the top of the organisation and, as I understand it, it is deliberating on whether to move forward with controversial affordability checks despite major concerns from a range of stakeholders about their accuracy and, again, the unintended consequences of fuelling the illegal and dangerous black market. Today’s debate is therefore timely, and I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber. As always, there are a range of views. On the left, we have some who are more prohibitionist and view all forms of gambling through the prism of harm. On the right—thankfully not represented in the Chamber today—there are those who believe that party leaders should be allowed to promote their own crypto and pyramid schemes with no accountability. Then we have the rest of us, more in the middle ground, who are trying to find a sensible and pragmatic approach to regulation that provides protections and support for those suffering from addiction while recognising the regulated gambling sector’s contribution to jobs, the economy, British culture and sport. As I have said in previous debates, I have no problem bashing the bookies; it is a British pastime between punter and bookmaker, and I am unashamedly pro-consumer. But as we are seeing now, the Government have inadvertently stacked the deck in favour of the illegal black market. In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of what gambling looked like when I was growing up in south-east London: those dark and dingy betting shops with beads covering the shop doors, and the wall of smoke that would occasionally escape, allowing some fresh air into the building. While some of those small pens might have stayed in some shops, times have changed. The regulated industry has modernised, and technology has transformed how many people gamble across the country.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I do not believe I can answer my right hon. Friend’s question, but it might be something that other Members want to correct via a point of order to ensure that, as we have this important discussion, we have all the facts in front of us. That is vital. There is a range of views, but we are here as policymakers and we need to ensure that we make informed decisions. My fourth question is, what steps are being taken to improve consumer awareness, so that individuals can more easily distinguish between regulated and unregulated operators, as well as the dangers of the latter over the former? Finally, will the Minister commit to ensuring that any future restrictions on regulated advertising are assessed against the risk of displacement into the black market? If the Government are serious about reducing harm, we must focus on where harm is growing fastest. If they fail to act, the Government risk undermining the very protections that successive Governments have worked hard to build. While there are risks that this House should not be willing to take, there must be balance. Let us not start legislating and regulating just because some Labour Members have the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  That is an interesting point about how bookmakers operate. My grandfather was really keen on horseracing when I was growing up; I remember often standing in the corner of the betting shop while he had a gamble or watching horseracing on the TV. The hon. Member’s APPG has made an interesting distinction about the carve-out of the advertising ban that it has committed to; if I understand it correctly, the APPG believes that younger people or children do not watch horseracing, compared with football—is that the argument for why there is a carve-out?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I appreciate that the hon. Lady is covering for another Minister. However, I made the point in a previous debate that the Government seem to be saying that they are keen to reduce the harm to children from gambling and that they particularly recognise the issue of social media, which I raised in my speech today. Why do they not just back the Conservative party’s proposed ban on social media for under-16s?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  On financial risk assessments, also known as affordability checks, will the Minister pass on a query relating to the gambling White Paper? My understanding from the previous Gambling Minister and from the then shadow Gambling Minister, who is now the Sports Minister, was that the checks could go ahead only if they were truly frictionless, hence the pilot. Can the Government confirm whether the Gambling Commission has the authority to proceed if that is not the will of Parliament?

• 23 Apr 2026 · Gambling Advertising · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Mrs Harris.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  My question to the Prime Minister is straightforward: did Morgan McSweeney or any of the Prime Minister’s advisers—past or present—know about this issue before last Thursday?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Euro 2028 · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State criticises the previous Conservative Government, but national sports bodies are fully aware that this Labour Government have cut sports funding, and increased regulation and taxes on clubs, and are putting at risk sports pitches across the country. Alongside these major own goals, the ongoing Whitehall ruck over how PE is funded risks reducing participation rates even further. This Labour Government have already cut millions from the likes of the opening schools facilities fund, and are overseeing huge uncertainty for the schools games organisers network. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with other Departments to ensure that children can continue playing sport, both at school and in their community?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Euro 2028 · Hansard source

  More

  I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The successful bid to host the Euros in 2028 made under the previous Conservative Government has enormous potential to economically and culturally benefit the UK, giving fans lifelong memories as football comes home. But to deliver a truly lasting legacy, the Government must commit to protect pitches, properly fund grassroots sports and stop taxing clubs into oblivion. I ask the Minister again: will the Government finally U-turn on their proposed watering down of Sport England’s crucial role in protecting grassroots pitches?

• 25 Mar 2026 · Voluntary Groups and Community Centres · Hansard source

  More

  As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms McVey. For transparency reasons, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and note that I am the honorary president of a local Royal British Legion branch and patron of the Bexley Neighbourhood Watch Association. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) for securing this debate. I am also grateful for the contributions from all Members this morning. They have been varied, but as a former councillor myself, I recognise many of them. Across the United Kingdom, our communities are supported by an estimated 166,000 voluntary organisations. The majority are small organisations that are close to the ground, but which often have the biggest impact on people’s lives. Throughout my time as the shadow Minister, I have had the immense pleasure of meeting a variety of these groups; I am sure I will meet many more after this debate. As a Member proudly representing my home community of Old Bexley and Sidcup, I have the immense privilege of working with many fantastic groups which include the Brownies, Guides, Scouts, faith-based groups, amateur sports clubs, u3a Sidcup, the Friends of Danson Park, Friends of Foots Cray Meadows, Discover Welling, and many more that I will get into trouble for not mentioning. Bexley is also home to a number of fantastic community centres that continue to serve our communities throughout the year, from the various clubs and youth zone at Blackfen community library to the wide variety of clubs that use our church halls, or even the amateur wrestling group at Falconwood community centre. Bexley’s community hubs have everything on offer and are supported by over £1 million of investment by Bexley’s Conservative council. Returning to the national picture, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations represents more than 17,000 charities, social enterprises, community groups and organisations. I understand that 92% of its members are charities with an income of less than £1 million; most have an income of less than £30,000. In response to the Chancellor’s first Budget in 2024, it said that the changes the Government had brought in would: “intensify the ‘triple squeeze’ charities face from increasing costs, reduced funding, and higher demand.” In fact, the NCVO wrote to the Chancellor to urge her to reimburse charities for those costs, as she committed to do for public sector organisations. That has not happened, and the 2025 spending review provided no respite from the increased pressures caused by this Chancellor. When Labour Members and Ministers say that they support civil society—and I have no doubt that many of them do have that passion in their community—the voluntary sector is right to ask why, as we have heard from Labour Members, it is being hit with higher employment costs at the very moment when it is trying to recruit staff, keep buildings open and meet rising demand, when it already provides more than £14 billion of public services on behalf of both central and local government. In a very stark contrast to this Government, the previous Conservative Government knew very well that communities need practical support—not just warm words read out by Ministers in this place. That is why, in the face of the coronavirus pandemic, we Conservatives pledged £750 million to make sure that voluntary, community and social enterprises could continue their vital work of supporting the country. In my community of Bexley, I saw this work in action first hand, with an army of community champion volunteers coming forward to support the elderly and those most in need across the community. Bexley was also one of the first areas in the country to launch a dedicated pot of funding, which supported pubs, amateur sports clubs and other groups that contribute so much to our way of life. The last Conservative Government went further, beyond the coronavirus outbreak, and in 2021 we established a £150 million community ownership fund to help communities to take ownership of assets at risk of closure and, with voluntary and community organisations, bid for match funding for the purchase and renovation of local community assets. That is exactly the kind of support that helps save a pub, village hall or clubhouse, or a variety of other community buildings, before they are lost forever. This Government closed that fund. The youth investment fund was established in 2022 and received more than £300 million of capital and revenue grants from the previous Conservative Government. However, for all the warm words from this Government, The Guardian reported last year that they have spent less on youth work than the Conservatives did. In 2023, the previous Conservative Government announced a community organisations cost of living fund, with a further £76 million for charities and community organisations carrying out vital work to help vulnerable groups. You guessed it, Ms McVey: this Government closed that fund as well. While we were in office, the Conservative party backed our voluntary groups, whereas this Government keep piling on the pressure and leaving many across the country at breaking point. That is by no means an exhaustive list of the support we provided, but almost £1.3 billion in funding and support over just the last four years from the previous Conservative Government is now at risk, thanks to the decisions taken by this Government. We have all heard from our local groups that since the election life is tougher than it used to be, and that they are facing a triple squeeze thanks to this Government’s actions. Costs increased—thanks to the Chancellor. Funding reduced—thanks to the Chancellor. Facing even higher demand—thanks to the Chancellor. Our voluntary sector across the nation, and the local organisations that all Members meet, deserve better than this Government and Chancellor. If this Government and the Minister are serious about supporting voluntary organisations, why is her Chancellor increasing their taxes? Why is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero stopping cheap energy that could help to alleviate the cost pressures they are facing to keep the lights on? Who in this Government is actually on the side of voluntary organisations? In closing, I look forward to hearing the Minister, who I have a lot of respect for, explaining what her Department is doing to champion these vital groups within Government. What conversations have Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport had with the Treasury regarding the additional costs that charities and voluntary groups are facing across the country? Surely, even the most tribal Labour MPs must see that their Government have made life harder for voluntary organisations and community groups across the country.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Part of this debate is about sustainability and net zero. Colleagues have already made a number of interventions on that, and I understand the shadow Secretary of State’s position. Does he agree that while we are focusing on the hike in fuel duty, the Government are also increasing the charges on electric vehicle drivers? Both sets of drivers are being hammered by this Government, who have not thought through the consequences of their policy.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is making a passionate speech about the increase in rail fares for his constituents in Billericay, but he will be aware that drivers in Billericay, like those on the south side in Bexley, have also faced increases in the Dartford bridge charge, which this Labour Government hiked by 40% last September. Sadiq Khan has introduced the Blackwall tunnel charge for those trying to travel from east to south and in the other direction, and the ultra low emission zone has been expanded for those who need to travel into London—again, against the wishes of people in outer London. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem is not just the Government’s increased taxes on drivers, but the increased taxes from the Mayor of London on everyone on the outskirts of London who needs to travel in and out?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  rose —

• 10 Mar 2026 · Houses in Multiple Occupation · Hansard source

  More

  The rise in houses in multiple occupation within the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency is having a profound impact on the local community, leading to antisocial behaviour, parking pressures and pressure on local amenities and services. Over 2,300 local residents have shown their support for preventing more family homes from being converted to HMOs through this petition and a corresponding online petition. The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce new legislation to prevent the loss of family homes through conversion to houses in multiple occupation; and to ask the Mayor of London to ensure the next London plan realises the vital role of family homes in Bexley and provides protection for them against being divided into HMOs.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Old Bexley and Sidcup , Declares that the rise in houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) within the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency is having a detrimental impact on the local community, leading to anti-social behaviour, parking pressures and pressure on local amenities and services; notes that this uncontrolled growth in HMOs is leading to a loss of family homes, preventing families from getting on to the property ladder and preventing couples from starting a family; further declares that the powers available to the local council are not sufficient to prevent the loss of family homes and over-proliferation of HMOs; and further notes that a corresponding online petition on this issue has received a separate 2,347 signatures. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce new legislation to prevent the loss of family homes through conversion to houses in multiple occupation; and to ask the Mayor of London to ensure the next London plan realises the vital role of family homes in Bexley and provides protection for them against being divided into HMOs. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003167]

• 26 Feb 2026 · Point of Order: Rectification Procedure · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to apologise to the House for failing to declare an interest when tabling three written parliamentary questions to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, two written parliamentary questions to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and one written parliamentary question to the Treasury. When I tabled the questions, I inadvertently failed to declare relevant interests: the receipt of hospitality from the Jockey Club and from Ascot Racecourse, and a charity donation from the Betting & Gaming Council. This was in breach of the rules, and I apologise to the House for this inadvertent error.

• 26 Feb 2026 · Grassroots Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, and I am sure we all echo her comments. She will be aware of the widespread concerns regarding the Government’s plans to water down the powers of Sport England and the much-needed protection for grassroots pitches. Before Christmas, leading sports figures led by former Lioness Jill Scott and Fields in Trust wrote an open letter highlighting their concerns for people’s health and wellbeing and for sport more generally if the Government allow pitches across the country to be concreted over. What action is the Secretary of State’s Department taking to try to force the Government to U-turn on this bad policy decision?

• 26 Feb 2026 · Grassroots Sport · Hansard source

  More

  I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On behalf of those on this side of the House, I congratulate everyone at Team GB for an incredible winter Olympics performance. Like many across the House, I was glued to the excellent coverage during recess, and was pleased to see online that the Sport Minister was in Milan supporting the team. We all know that the true value of Team GB’s success is their ability to inspire the next generation of athletes, so what steps is the Secretary of State taking to secure the legacy of these games in both the elite and grassroots facilities required for sports to succeed?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Gambling Harms: Children and Young People · Hansard source

  More

  It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. For full transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for securing this important debate. The protection of children and young people should unite every Member of this House. We all recognise that under-18s should not be gambling, and it is right that the law is strict on that point. Young people are still developing, as others have argued; they are more exposed to online influence and less equipped to assess long-term risks and consequences. That is why it is somewhat difficult to square claims that even limited exposure to gambling advertising is intolerable with the arguments made by some on the Government Benches for 16-year-olds to have the vote—but I will move on, because that is not the purpose of today’s debate. If we are to make real progress in protecting children, we must be clear about where harm and exposure actually arise, particularly in the online world, as we have heard, and ensure that our response is based on the best possible evidence. Crucially, as we have heard, harm to children does not come only from direct participation. Many children experience gambling harm indirectly—from parents or loved ones who themselves struggle with addiction. That can mean financial instability, stress at home, relationship breakdowns and wider impacts on a child’s wellbeing, education and mental health. Those knock-on effects are real and deserve serious attention from Government. That is why prevention, early intervention and family support matter so much. To that end, I would appreciate the Minister telling me or trying to work out why I have yet to receive a response to the letter that I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) and my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) sent to the Secretary of State on 6 November regarding the impending cliff edge on funding that fantastic charities such as Gordon Moody, Betknowmore UK, Deal Me Out, Ygam and GamCare are all facing. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has raised the issue, and the Minister will be aware that I raised it with him personally before Christmas, because we do need to ensure that Government understand the unnecessary worry that has been caused to charities that have real expertise in this space. I understand that there may be interim grants to cover the next financial year, but that information is only just starting to come to light. I ask the Minister to tell us why the Government have left these essential charities in the dark over the future of the services that they provide, and whether the Government will finally—hopefully—get their act together and engage with the sector, so that a real, working solution can be put in place for the long term and we do not have this ongoing situation in which gambling harm seems to fall between the DCMS and the Department of Health and Social Care. That is a real issue and concern. As a shadow Minister, I have visited a number of these charities to see the work that is happening on the ground. They do incredible work and have incredible expertise in helping people across the country, so we must ensure that gambling harm does not fall between the cracks any more. Much of the debate has focused so far on advertising. There is no question but that children should not be targeted, and within the regulated sector they are not permitted to be. But at the same time, as we have heard, we cannot ignore the wider online environment in which children now live. Evidence shows that when young people encounter gambling-related content, it is most often through social media, streaming platforms and online influencers—the places where enforcement is hardest and protections are weakest. This is the area that I have most concern about as a shadow Minister, and I have spoken about it before, particularly in relation to some of the crypto scams that we see online. Someone mentioned doomscrolling, and I sometimes come across this content when doomscrolling. Illegal and unlicensed operators are exploiting this space and exploiting young people. They use influencers and celebrities in ways that licensed operators are explicitly banned from doing, and they operate in overseas jurisdictions, which means that age checks can be bypassed entirely. Once a child enters this space, there are no safeguards at all—no limits, no interventions and no support. We must be honest about unintended consequences. When policy decisions, including sharp tax rises, weaken the legal, regulated market—I have said openly before that I do not mind bashing the bookies, but I am worried about the growth of this—the activity does not stop, but moves to the illegal market. I have made that point before in the House. Evidence from abroad shows such displacement to the black market, where there are no age checks, safeguards or accountability. In my opinion, that environment is far more dangerous for children and adults alike. Of course, we know that gambling harms exist, and every case involving a child is one too many, but they do not exist in isolation. They are closely linked, as we have heard, to mental health, family circumstances, financial stress and patterns of online behaviour. That is why education, parental engagement and digital literacy must sit at the heart of the Government’s response. Children need a clear understanding of risk and probability, a resilience to online marketing and the confidence to question what they see online. Parents need support, information and early help when problems arise. If Government Members want to do what is best for children and completely remove their exposure to unregulated, predatory advertisements from black market sites, I kindly encourage them to back the Conservatives’ plan to raise the age of consent for social media to 16 years old to support children and parents. It is a bold policy that, as we have heard, has cross-party support, and I urge the Government to get on with it. I think it is the bold action that is needed to tackle online harms, including gambling harms. Moreover, the statutory levy provides an opportunity to fund evidence-based education, treatment and prevention, including support for families affected by gambling addiction. That funding must be targeted, evaluated and focused on what works. Would the Minister outline what he is doing to step up work on this issue to ensure that charities have the funding certainty they require to continue their operations across the country? What are the Government doing to ensure that the Gambling Commission has the resources and the right approach to tackle the illegal black market and the targeting of young people on social media, particularly in relation to crypto?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Access to Sports Facilities · Hansard source

  More

  This Labour Government have announced that they intend to remove Sport England—alongside the Gardens Trust and the Theatres Trust—as a statutory consultee in planning decisions, putting playing fields across the country at risk. The Conservatives oppose this move. Can the Minister explain how first scrapping the £57 million opening school facilities fund and now allowing developers to concrete over playing fields will increase access to sports facilities?