Gambling Advertising

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I am terribly sorry to hear my hon. Friend’s story about her constituent. It does sound like another failure of the self-exclusion system. We have heard similar stories in other places; I met one person with lived experience in Portsmouth, who signed up to self-exclusion but was able to gamble away his life savings in several shops that were not enforcing the rules properly.

The principle of credible evidence being shown—as it was with the tobacco industry and the junk food industry—should also be applied to our restrictions on gambling advertising. That is why our report calls for a significant intervention and a step change in how gambling advertising is regulated in this country, with protections for children and young people at its core. As shown in Northern Ireland, that is an approach that the UK public strongly support. According to polling, 65% of the public want stricter regulation of the gambling industry, and 68% say that under-18s should not see gambling advertising at all.

Let me highlight some of the key recommendations from our report. We recommend an end to gambling advertising before the 9 pm watershed, as part of a broader effort to reduce children’s exposure across TV and radio. We recommend an end to gambling sponsorship in sports, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing. Research by the University of Bristol in 2025 found that football fans were exposed to more than 27,000 gambling messages during the opening weekend of that year’s premier league—nearly triple the number in 2023. We recommend an end to content marketing and influencer-led promotion, where gambling is embedded in entertainment formats, making it particularly difficult for children and young people to recognise when they are being advertised to. Finally, we call for stronger enforcement, particularly of unlicensed operators, alongside greater transparency across digital advertising, including the introduction of “know your customer” requirements.

The current system has allowed commercial interests to outweigh sensible protections for children and young people, and we have a duty to change that. We have a duty to ensure that children are not routinely exposed to advertising for an activity that carries well-evidenced risks. We have a duty to support those experiencing harm, rather than allowing a system that can actively undermine recovery. And we have a duty to ensure that regulation keeps pace with the reality of the modern advertising landscape. This is not about being anti-gambling; it is about being proportionate, responsible and evidence-led. It is about recognising that when an industry invests billions in marketing, there are consequences, and those consequences are felt most clearly by children and young people.

This issue can be resolved now. The evidence is already there. The public concern is enormous. As the APPG report sets out, the Government have many of the powers they require to act; the question now is whether we are prepared to use them. I hope the Minister—she is not the Minister for gambling, so I appreciate her coming here today—will reflect carefully on our findings and share them with the Minister for gambling. I also hope Ministers will reflect on the case the report makes for a more precautionary public health-led approach that places the protection of children and young people at its heart.

I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in her response what assessment the Government have made of the cumulative impact of gambling advertising exposure, particularly on children and young people; whether further action is being considered to reduce that exposure across sport, broadcast and online environments; and how the Government intend that regulation to keep pace with emerging forms of advertising, including content marketing and influencer promotion.

This is an opportunity to take a more coherent and forward-looking approach that reflects both the evidence and the expectations of the public.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest, but is it not true that the hon. Gentleman has been written to on numerous occasions by the Gambling Commission for a misuse of their figures? Although I agree with some of the things he says, I am rather concerned that if that is the case, some of the figures he is citing here in Parliament, which will be reported in Hansard, are also not correct.

[Alex Ballinger]

I am afraid that is not correct. The Gambling Commission has not written to me challenging my figures. Members of the gambling industry have written to the all-party group challenging some of the figures in other reports, but our figures are from the Gambling Commission’s own survey on children and young people. The statistics I have pulled out today are directly from that survey, and no one is challenging those statistics.

[Esther McVey]

Three times they have written to you.

[Alex Ballinger]

They have not written to me.

We need to properly safeguard the next generation from gambling advertising that aims to normalise an activity that has been proven to be extremely harmful, and something that the Government have the power to act on today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I would like to make a little bit of progress rather than just go back and forth with a Q&A.

We must recognise that betting and gaming is an entirely legitimate commercial practice for responsible gambling firms, as is advertising and sponsorship, but there are already alarming signs that businesses are facing difficulties in this area. The gambling sector is forecast to increase advertising by only 5% this year, which is a slowdown on last year’s 9% increase. Betting and gaming is declining as a share of advertising expenditure, as other sectors are expanding their advertising more rapidly.

Even more worrying is the growth of harmful and illegal gambling operators, the activities of which are unregulated both in the market in general and in gambling advertising in particular. Just a few years ago, licensed operators accounted for more than 80% of gambling advertising, but new analysis published this week by the global marketing intelligence firm WARC has shown that illegal operators now account for almost half of all gambling advertising. Within two years—by 2028—it is expected that they will account for the majority of advertising spend in the UK, overtaking regulated British-based operators.

[Esther McVey]

I know that my hon. Friend understands this arena very well. My concern is that the unregulated black market for gambling is growing at a rapid rate—as he says, it accounts for over half of advertising. The focus on licensed, regulated gambling operators is surely going to squeeze them out of the market, meaning that the illegal market can boom, as we are seeing across the world.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Absolutely; I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We have seen that trend not just in gambling but in tobacco. Taxation levels have become so high that they have created an enormous black market, which I believe has led to the Treasury losing about £6 billion in revenue. Any sector that is over-taxed or over-regulated will be replaced by a black market.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I used an example of another sector to make a wider point that, if we over-tax or over-regulate anything, it will encourage the creation of a black market. There are various issues with that, whether for those exposed to the black market or for the Treasury, which might have concerns about the impact of a black market on its bottom line. It was a wider point about over-regulation and over-taxation, and there are number of examples of that.

I have already said that we should not allow gambling firms to target children in any way because they are not legally allowed to bet, and there has been progress. The reforms under the last Government were quite robust, and I always welcome ideas about how we can go further on that, but we should not necessarily go too far. Banning gambling advertising in sport, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing, feels excessive to me. There are other ways that we can address this.

[Esther McVey]

We are removing advertising for regulated, licensed gambling. Illegal gambling is now so large globally that, if it were an economy, it would be smaller only than that of America and China—that is how big the gambling black market has got.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The gambling black market is extraordinarily large globally; it is hugely significant. As I mentioned earlier, there are specific challenges elsewhere in the world where gambling is not allowed at all, but we all know that gambling exists in those countries at very significant levels. That is a matter for other nations to try to solve, but it is an example of how banning something does not stop it happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

The hon. Member has made a number of points on that subject. I will make some progress as I am sure that you, Mrs Harris, are keen for me to wrap up this contribution as soon as I can.

[Esther McVey]

Is it not right to say that we cannot regulate the black economy, so what the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) is saying is not possible?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

My right hon. Friend has jogged my memory. There is a serious issue here. A lot of this advertising is online in a space that we cannot necessarily regulate, and search engines will bring up these sites with obvious key words. For example, a problem gambler who has been part of GamStop or similar will have access to non-GamStop sites and that will bring up illegal betting sites. There is no way of regulating these particularly easily. That is why we need to be very conscious about what we do to damage our own regulated market.

We are exposing people to unregulated websites where protections for those who need them do not exist. In fact, illegal operators specifically promote those sites on the internet through the various ways that they can advertise in a less regulated space. They also do other things regarding how bonuses are constructed and how they target people and so on. Regulated betting and gaming operators are already committing 20% of their advertising to safer gambling messaging, in addition to the messaging that sits within all advertising. During Safer Gambling Week, 1.53 million safer gambling tool limits were in place—an increase of 22% on the previous year. I was at a gambling shop on my high street ahead of the grand national a couple of weeks back, and it was interesting to note that they now run a similar system to Pubwatch—so it is not just online. They share information about individuals in the local area who have problems and need to be supported should they wish to try and place a bet in one of those shops.

None of those robust protections and specific licence conditions for operators, nor the strengthening of the UK advertising codes in 2022—which included new protections for children and vulnerable adults—will make any difference if the Government drive people into the black market.

In conclusion, banning something does not necessarily stop it from happening, and the Government’s policies and this report—if it were to be implemented—could in theory move more people into that less regulated illegal space. The hon. Member for Halesowen said that he is not anti-gambling, but my concern is that he is anti-regulated gambling by UK companies, and there is a very real danger that we will push people into the black market.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Cooper]

Let me see if I can answer that, and the hon. Member can tell me if I have not. During our experience with big tobacco, there was a big illegal market—a black market. We brought in various rules and regulations, and we got our environmental health officers and Customs on it. We were absolutely able to look at the black market in tobacco alongside regulating the legal industry. It is perfectly possible to do. In the world of online advertising—the hon. Member referred to the wild west—we have to be very intelligent in how we look at regulation, but it is possible. It needs better brains than mine to figure out how to do it digitally, but it absolutely is possible.

Moving on, evidence shows that one quarter of people who gamble have done so in direct response to advertising. That figure rises to almost four fifths among those at highest risk.

[Esther McVey]

I feel it only fair to raise the same points with the hon. Lady as I did earlier. She has been written to twice by the Gambling Commission for misusing its statistics and has been written to by the Office for Statistics Regulation about the misuse of statistics. As we listen to her numbers now, I wonder, are they right?

[Dr Cooper]

I am a public health consultant, and I am still licensed to practise as a public health consultant. I am trained in epidemiology statistics, and I have passed professional exams on both. We have had email correspondence from the people the right hon. Lady mentions, and we have replied to that evidence, stating why the statistics that we are using are absolutely the best evidence that we have. I am happy to share the correspondence, if that is helpful.

Gambling advertising is not passive, but a core driver of market growth. As we heard, the industry spends up to £1.5 billion to £2 billion annually on advertising, marketing and sponsorship. The cumulative effect is a system that embeds gambling into everyday life, increasing the likelihood and severity of harm. Like tobacco, gambling is not just an issue of individual choice, but a product designed and marketed to drive addiction.

What should we do? First, gambling advertising should be understood as a public health issue, not simply a matter of consumer choice or industry regulation. In fact, the World Health Organisation has called for restrictions on gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship as part of a public health response.

I am grateful that the Minister is taking the time to consider the issues on behalf of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport this afternoon, but I am of the opinion that gambling sits squarely in the world of health, alongside other addictive products, and the responsibility for it should be transferred to the Department of Health and Social Care. Addressing gambling as a public health issue requires moving beyond incremental, industry-led measures towards clear, enforceable statutory regulation. Our approach continues to rely heavily on lacklustre and ineffective self-regulation. Despite existing restrictions, children continue to be widely exposed to gambling advertising across television, sport and social media.

Parliament has previously taken a precautionary approach in areas such as tobacco, alcohol and junk food marketing, where there is credible evidence of harm. Gambling advertising meets the same threshold, given its demonstrated links to increased participation and harm. As we have heard, other countries, including Italy, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands and Australia, have already introduced stronger restrictions based on similar evidence, The UK’s continued reliance on limited and voluntary measures has left it an outlier, rather than a leader in protecting public health.

The Government already have powers under existing legislation, including the Gambling Act 2005, to take further action. The issue is no longer whether change is possible, but whether there is the political will to act decisively. Public concern is already there, with about two thirds of the public worried about the volume of gambling advertising and its impact on children. There is now a strong case for more fundamental reform, including a new Gambling Act that reflects the realities of today’s digital and highly commercialised gambling environment. Ultimately, this is a question of priorities: to protect public health, in particular for children and young people; or to allow the continued expansion of a system that contributes to harm.

In summary, a famous gambling industry tagline is, “When the fun stops, stop.” I think that it is past time for us to acknowledge that gambling addiction is fun for no one, and exposure of our children to harmful, pernicious advertising from big gambling companies has to stop. I say to the Minister, there is no fun here; it is time to stop.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr French]

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?

[Esther McVey]

Can my hon. Friend help me? A little earlier I raised a point about misinformation being used by the Gambling Commission, and the hon. Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that it had not been called out for misusing statistics. However, this is listed on three separate occasions on the Gambling Commission’s public log of requested corrections. Can my hon. Friend explain the clear discrepancy on what we have heard in this debate?

[Mr French]

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.

[The Lord Commissioner of His Majesty’s Treasury (Lilian Greenwood)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I am pleased to respond to this debate, standing in for my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). I begin by congratulating my hon. Friends the Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this debate and setting out their concerns so clearly and thoughtfully. We have had a genuine debate, with an exchange of different viewpoints on this important issue.

I recognise that gambling advertising is a key area of focus for the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform and many other Members of this House, who have met the Gambling Minister to discuss the issue. The Government thank all Members for their ongoing work in this area, as their contributions are vital for informing the development of Government policy. I note that the APPG this week published a report setting out its case for change, and I know that the Gambling Minister will want to consider that work carefully. I also note the passionate call from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West for gambling to be considered from a public health perspective.

This Government are committed to supporting a gambling industry that is modern, responsible and sustainable. However, the industry must also demonstrate that it can operate without exacerbating harm among the most vulnerable. Getting that balance right is crucial. We are focused on further enhancing protections for those at risk of harm, but we also want to enable the sector to bring value through providing jobs, boosting the economy and providing a leisure activity for adults to enjoy.

That is why, since the election, we have been focused on supporting the licensed sector to further enhance protections for the young and vulnerable. This has included raising standards in a number of areas to ensure that gambling advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. However, we also recognise that, as a legitimate industry that makes a significant contribution to the economy, the gambling industry should also be able to advertise the services that it offers. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) set out that case in his contribution.

Let me start by explaining the robust rules in place to regulate gambling advertising. All gambling operators in the UK must comply with advertising codes, which are enforced by the Advertising Standards Authority, independently of Government. These advertising codes apply across all platforms, including broadcast, online and social media. When the ASA deems that the codes have been breached, the Gambling Commission has the power to take enforcement action.

These mandatory advertising codes are further supplemented by the voluntary industry code for socially responsible advertising, which has been strengthened in recent years. This code includes a number of measures such as the whistle-to-whistle ban, which prohibits gambling advertising during the pre-watershed televised broadcast of live sports events. I note the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen has raised about its effectiveness, and I also note the statistics shared by the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French).

In the past two years, the Gambling Commission has introduced a range of new controls to regulate gambling advertising. These new measures further raise standards to better protect vulnerable people from harmful gambling practices. From 1 May 2025, operators have been required to provide customers with options to opt-in to the specific types of marketing they wish to receive. This choice gives customers greater control in order to lessen the risk of harm.

From January this year, the Gambling Commission has also banned operators from bundling different gambling products—such as betting and slots—into single incentives. This is because mixed promotional offers were often confusing and led customers to engage in higher-risk gambling behaviours. This measure boosts fairness and openness to ensure advertising does not encourage excessive or harmful gambling.

I am aware that a number of Members have focused specifically on advertising standards within sports, and we know how important that issue is. Since the election, we have seen a number of developments in the regulation of gambling marketing and advertising within sports. These include gambling sponsorship codes of conduct within all major sports, and the landmark introduction of the Premier League’s ban on front-of-shirt sponsorship from the start of the 2026-27 season. These changes reduce the prominence of gambling advertising within mainstream football matches, acknowledging that the connection between sport and gambling must be managed with care. We will continue to monitor the effectiveness of these measures over time.

The Government are also conscious of the need to be vigilant and responsive to the fast-evolving digital landscape. I want to address directly the concerns raised about social media, which are likely front of mind for many Members, particularly given its potential impact on children and young people. I want to be clear that gambling advertising on social media must adhere to the same standards set for other mediums. This means that advertising rules apply in full to paid social media adverts, to operators’ own social media content, to content marketing and to affiliate marketing carried out on their behalf. However, they do not apply to editorial content, which is not deemed to be selling a product or service.

Advertising codes also require operators to ensure that targeting is used responsibly, using tools available on platforms to exclude under-18s and other vulnerable groups from exposure wherever possible. Where operators fall short of these standards, the ASA can take action or refer to the Gambling Commission for possible enforcement action. We continue to work across Government, with platforms and with industry to measure the effectiveness of these rules.

Last year, the ASA significantly strengthened its rules specifically to address the rise of influencer marketing. That includes a change to prohibit any influencers or personalities with social media followings totalling more than 100,000 under-18s across different platforms from advertising gambling. The further strengthening of these rules ensures that children’s exposure to gambling is limited, and that gambling is not marketed to them by aspirational figures as a risk-free pastime or lifestyle choice. This sets higher standards to prevent gambling-related harm.

Nevertheless, I recognise that many Members would like the ASA to go further in its regulation of the sector. I know that the Gambling Minister is meeting the ASA shortly, and I am sure she will raise some of the issues we have discussed today. I am also sure that she will be paying attention to this debate.

We are also very conscious of the need to address the illegal market, and specifically the advertising of illegal gambling in an ever-changing digital landscape, which a number of Members have mentioned. Advertising is one of the primary advantages that licensed operators have to distinguish themselves from operators in the unlicensed sector, particularly when the risks associated with the illegal market are growing. Hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds and the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), made that argument this afternoon.

Although estimates suggest that, historically, the illegal market in the UK has been relatively small, the issue of illegal gambling is of course a concern for this Government. That is why, since the Budget, we have increased efforts to tackle the illegal market. As the websites and advertisements of unlicensed operators can fall outside the scope of the robust rules that we have in place for licensed operators, we are paying particular attention to the issue of illegal gambling advertising through the work of our illegal gambling taskforce.

[Esther McVey]

I ask this question through the Minister, as she obviously does not have the relevant figures because she is not the Gambling Minister. What has been the growth of illegal gambling in the UK in the last few years? As I understand it, there has been a considerable increase in the illegal market.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the right hon. Member for her question, and I will ensure that she receives a written response.

By bringing together industry, platforms, regulators and Government, we will identify ways to clamp down on illegal advertising. We hope to ensure that exposure to illegal gambling advertising is reduced, particularly for vulnerable individuals. The Gambling Commission also continues to engage with online platforms to support the removal of illegal gambling content, which remains an ongoing priority. An additional £26 million has also been allocated to the Gambling Commission across the next three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market.

More recently, we announced our intention to consult on banning sports sponsorship by unlicensed gambling operators. By reducing awareness of and exposure to unlicensed operators, such a ban would further protect vulnerable consumers from the unregulated illegal market.

It is important that we do what we can to ensure that all advertising is socially responsible and does not exacerbate harm. Where there is evidence to support it, the Government would like to see more action being taken to ensure that advertising does not adversely affect the young and vulnerable. In the coming months, we will continue to explore this alongside our wider work on reducing gambling-related harms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. I thank all Members who have joined in this lively debate: the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. We have covered a lot of issues and it has been one of the few debates in which we have had an exchange of views rather than of party political positions, so I appreciate that.

I will respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I have not seen that correspondence, but she seems certain that I have received it, so I will go back and check.

[Esther McVey]

It is on the record.

[Alex Ballinger]

I will check, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West responded on what the all-party group may have said.

I should say very briefly that there seems to have been a big debate about the unregulated market and the regulated market. I think that is important. There were questions about the size of the unregulated market, and some of that is in our report, which I have just looked at: it is approximately 9% of the online space, with 700 operators, according to Yield Sec. As everyone has said, that is largely driven by the unregulated market going after people who have been banned by GamStop.

[Esther McVey]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will not give way at this point, because I am just wrapping up—

[Esther McVey]

I will give you the information that you don’t have—

[Alex Ballinger]

It is in the report. I have just told you.

Middle East: Economic Update

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The two-child limit for universal credit will be lifted from next week, and food banks have said that that will reduce reliance on them from families with children. That is a very good thing, but there is more that the Government could do to try to bring down food inflation, including getting a sanitary and phytosanitary deal with the EU, which would bring down prices in the shops. We are committed to achieving that this year. It is opposed by the Conservatives and Reform because of their ideological dislike of the European Union, but it is the right thing to do to reduce food inflation for all our constituents.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The sad truth is that the Chancellor weakened the UK economy with her tax-busting Budgets and jobs tax, and that has been exposed by this middle east crisis. The Energy Secretary’s actions are making things worse: he has just refused to maximise drilling in the North sea and issue new licences, which would provide much-needed energy security and affordability. Will she now see sense and overrule the Energy Secretary’s decisions?

[Rachel Reeves]

Since I became Chancellor, we have had six cuts in interest rates, and for every month that I have been Chancellor, wages have risen faster than prices. Compare that with the previous Parliament, where people were worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. If the right hon. Lady believed in energy security so much, why was she part of the Government who refused to fund small modular reactors or Sizewell C and opposed onshore wind, which is the cheapest form of energy? If she believes in energy security, she should back it.

Spring Forecast

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee for that important question. He is absolutely right: whether through the successful auction round 7 that we have just completed for investment in new renewable energy, or through the planning reforms to make it even easier to build grid connections and wind farms, we are taking action to secure our energy supplies. Through the spending review last year, we invested in Sizewell C and small modular reactors, which will be built in Wales by Rolls-Royce.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor now accept that there is a correlation between increasing national insurance contributions on employers and higher unemployment, or does she still believe that those two things are not connected in any way?

Covid-19: Financial Support

Esther McVey Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for granting it.

There is no doubt that the hardship affecting families, businesses and communities as a result of covid-19 policies is ongoing. The depth of suffering is hard to read about. People have been pushed to their limits, mentally and financially, and have had to endure indignity and injustice through no fault of their own. I hope that we can now all agree that it should never have happened. It is something that we never want to see happen again.

The various Government financial support schemes that were set up helped many people, but for the forgotten businesses and individuals who, for one bureaucratic reason or another, were deemed ineligible, the situation was patently unfair and unjust. Some 3.8 million UK taxpayers were excluded from support, while the rest of the working population were paid to stay at home. Why were they excluded? The reasons were arbitrary. Financial support was not forthcoming if a person was newly self-employed, a PAYE freelancer, a director paid in dividends, starting a new job—the list goes on. The rules were random and confusing, and they pushed so many people into desperate situations.

Sadly, we should not have been surprised that that happened. Although some marvelled at the speedy roll-out of the Government’s schemes, the reality was that they were patchy, poorly thought out and full of gaps—of course they were. How could we ever expect to shut down our society and economy and be able to cover the gigantic financial cost of doing so while ensuring that every person was properly looked after? It was unrealistic —an unprecedented state intervention that was doomed to fail.

I totally agree with Members present who are pushing for assurances that that will never happen again, but if we cannot look back with honesty and clarity about what was done, we are doomed to make the same mistakes again. Lockdown was the mistake from which all that injustice and suffering flowed. It was an unknown and unevidenced imposition that should never have been inflicted upon the British people. Many experts predicted from the start that it would cause misery and, horrifically, cost hundreds of thousands of lives through unintended but very real collateral damage.

[Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)]

I thank the right hon. Member for her powerful speech. Our opinions on lockdown may differ, but does she agree that, had we not gone into lockdown, many more thousands of people would have lost their lives?

[Esther McVey]

I do not believe the evidence proves that. We can look to other parts of the world where that was not the case.

This policy had unwavering and enthusiastic support from across the House, with just a few of us in this House —too few—raising valid concerns, but we were shut down. It should be obvious that some people cannot be damaged in the name of protecting others with interventions such as lockdowns that we do not even know will work. The moral mathematics never added up.

And now we must live with the consequences of what we did. We spent in the region of £400 billion on the covid-19 response—a vast sum that will be clawed back through increased taxation and hardship for generations to come. Of course, the Conservative party had to put up taxes to pay for that £400 billion, and it was voted for by pretty much every Member in the House. For me, such a statist, socialist intervention would never work, and that is proving to be the case.

Those businesses that did manage to survive after everything that was thrown at them in the name of covid are now having to face more gloom and doom from this socialist Government in charge of our country, with their two tax-rising Budgets and their removal of business rates relief without understanding it—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The subject of the debate is financial support specifically during the covid pandemic. The right hon. Lady might want to make sure she stays within scope of that.

[Esther McVey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I added on that sentence because I felt it was very relevant that those who did manage to survive the pandemic are now not surviving, because of the extra taxes that are being put upon them and the removal of business rates relief that was introduced during covid, and it seems that the Chancellor does not even know how that works. Those businesses are suffering twofold, because some of that covid benefit is now being removed. It is no wonder Labour MPs are being banned from pubs, as we see mass closures of pubs.

I simply ask that we examine the bigger picture. Those 3.8 million people who were excluded from financial support suffered a terrible injustice, but so too did those who received support, because lockdown took from everyone: children denied education; mothers forced to give birth alone; people suffering heart attacks, strokes and sepsis but too frightened to burden the NHS; bereaved families unable to mourn the dead—the list of injustices goes on and on. None of it should ever have happened. The costs were always going to be too high, and worse, there appears to be no evidence that lockdown prevented covid infections.

The covid inquiry recently made two incredible assertions. One was that lockdowns were harmful but should have started earlier, and the other was that the modelling should not have been used to justify major policy but simultaneously proved that 23,000 lives could have been saved. Finally, lockdown was, as Professor Sunetra Gupta from the University of Oxford said—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. The debate is not about lockdown; it is about financial support. I hope the right hon. Lady is concluding her remarks.

[Esther McVey]

I am concluding my remarks. I am pleased to have been able to speak today as one of a handful of 650 MPs who stood by “the Forgotten Ltd” and by many of our constituents whose businesses went out of business. I was one of the few in the House who stood up for them.

Finally, as Professor Sunetra Gupta said, this was like taking a hammer to a fly on a pane of glass: you might or might not kill the fly, but you definitely shatter the window. It will take us a long time to pick up the pieces. Next time we face a similar crisis, let us not panic and reach for the hammer.

Horse and Rider Road Safety

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.

Just last week, I had the pleasure of visiting Harry Zimman, a constituent who is a keen rider. He highlighted two significant issues. The first is access to bridleways. Even in areas with excellent riding routes, such as Cheshire, riders must often travel along narrow and winding lanes to reach them. Consequently, they can quickly find themselves in dangerous situations, because even the best-trained horses and most attentive riders cannot eliminate the fact that horses are living, thinking animals that may react suddenly to perceived danger.

Bridleways are too often overlooked in planning and infrastructure decisions. For example, in my constituency the Tarvin bypass cut across a bridleway and was replaced only by signage, effectively cutting off riders.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for giving way. I am getting an increasing amount of correspondence from Tatton constituents concerned about careless drivers on country roads and the dangers they pose to horses and riders. Does she share my concern about the changes to planning rules by this Labour Government—a Government who show so little regard for the countryside, as we saw with the family farm tax—under which green belt will disappear and cities will bleed into the countryside, making the roads even more dangerous, city dwellers not understanding the etiquette of country roads?

[Aphra Brandreth]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that really important intervention. We need to understand what the removal of our countryside and green belt will mean for people using rural roads, and the real impact that some of these developments will have.

For riders and their horses—I should add carriage drivers, who are also often overlooked—the most obvious dangers on the road are fast-moving vehicles, but less obvious hazards can be just as serious. A plastic bag in a ditch, or a cyclist passing too closely, might startle a horse. Harry described a cyclist squeezing between a rider and a car, badly startling the horse. Cyclists might not be aware of their impact, but such incidents can pose a danger to all road users.

As we have heard, many drivers remain unaware that the highway code requires them to pass a horse at no more than 10 mph and with at least 2 metres’ clearance. We must do more to improve education and ensure that horse riders are properly reflected in road safety policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend may know that about 4,000 children in his constituency will benefit from the removal of the two-child benefit limit. That means 4,000 more children being able to go to bed in houses that are not cold and damp and waking up in the morning and being able to have breakfast, and parents being able to afford things that they cannot currently afford. This Government are also providing funds for free school meals in England and delivering free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school in England, and extending the warm home discount to 3 million more children. I am proud to be the Chancellor whose actions have led to the largest expected reduction in child poverty over a Parliament since records began.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The biggest issue for those on low incomes is losing their jobs. Does the Chancellor believe that there is any link at all between her increase in employer national insurance contributions —her job tax—and employment levels slumping to a 14-year low?

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is a very strong advocate for Telford, both for jobs in the private sector and for those in the public sector that we are able to support in his community. I am glad to hear that he, like me, is proud of HMRC’s Telford campus and wants to see it play a key role in improving customer experience through innovation, AI and digital technology. I will be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss those issues.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

The Chancellor has justified her lack of a licence for renting out her house as an “inadvertent error”, but HMRC is never prepared to accept that people make inadvertent errors. Will this now change, or does the Chancellor expect to be treated differently from everyone else who makes an inadvertent error?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am not sure that the matter that the right hon. Member just raised has much to do with HMRC.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Esther McVey Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Because of the Chancellor’s decision to update the definition of debt—[Interruption.] We have been able to unlock billions of pounds of investment into houses and schools and hospitals and GP surgeries across the country. Opposition Members may laugh but, as my hon. Friend points out, they have no plan to share with anyone at all.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

In November last year the Chancellor told the CBI conference that she was

“not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”

Will the Minister, as the Chancellor is not in the Chamber, reiterate that promise today, or has the Chancellor mishandled the economy so badly that she is now going to have to add this to the Government’s growing list of U-turns?

[Darren Jones]

The Chancellor was very clear that the last Budget was a once-in-a-generation Budget because it had to deal with the sheer scale of negligence and mess that we had inherited from the party opposite. I am very grateful now that we are one year into a Labour Government we do not have to keep clearing up their mess year after year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Esther McVey Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. I can reassure her that, alongside the loan charge review, the Government have published a consultation on a comprehensive package of measures to close in on the promoters of marketed tax avoidance schemes. As we know, these contrived schemes both deprive public services of funding and leave their clients with unexpected tax bills.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor believe that the changes she has made to employer’s national insurance contributions will lead to higher levels of employment, or will they lead to higher levels of unemployment?

[Rachel Reeves]

Let us look at the record so far. There are 385,000 more jobs in the UK economy today than there were when Labour came to office a year ago, which is more than 1,000 jobs a day. So businesses are voting with their feet and taking on more workers, because of the policies of this Labour Government compared with the Tory policies that took our economy down.

Spending Review 2025

Esther McVey Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

In the spending review today, we have set out: investment in defence to support jobs in Scotland; investment in Acorn to support jobs in Scotland; investment in nuclear, which will benefit the people of Scotland through lower bills; and a record settlement for the Scottish Government. It is up to them now to use that money wisely. I would not hold out much hope, under the SNP.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I know the Chancellor considers herself to be a world-leading economist, so can she tell me how it is that everyone in the country knew that hiking taxes on employers’ national insurance contributions—making it more expensive to employ people—would destroy jobs, destroy businesses and destroy the economy, and the only people who did not know that were her and her socialist boss?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady, but there are 500,000 more jobs in Britain since the last general election. Business confidence is going up.