Gambling: Regulatory Reform

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will not need that long, Sir Desmond, don’t worry. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing the debate. After the recent Budget, it is a timely moment to discuss how we regulate the gambling sector in this country, and what that means both for taxation as a way of regulating and for regulation itself.

I will be up front: I come to this debate from a slightly different position. The single largest employer in my constituency is bet365, which employs 5,500 people in some of the high-value jobs in Stoke-on-Trent, and there will be job-loss implications as a result of the Budget. I am not here to plead the case of bet365; the company will do that itself. I also have no interest to declare, because I have never taken any hospitality or financial support from it. However, it is important to put it on the record that there are always consequences to the way that we regulate companies, and real people will lose their jobs as a result of the decisions that this House will presumably take later this evening.

As a result of that constituency interest, I have had to do some rapid learning in this area. I have genuinely had to consider and understand how we do regulation in a way that is good. I am a firm believer that regulation should genuinely be a force for making things better. In this country, we often pull the regulation lever when we see something bad, because we think that regulating can solve it. Sometimes that regulation works; sometimes it does not.

Not all 62 recommendations in the White Paper have been implemented. I think that everyone would agree that there are things that have been identified and worked on with the sector that need to be implemented, and implemented more quickly, so that the full package of actions that was determined as being necessary for better regulation of the sector is implemented. There is a cost to the sector from that, and a cost that often gets passed on to consumers.

The other issue, which I will touch on later, is how we do regulation in a way that does not drive people into the unregulated sector. I think we would all accept that one of the huge challenges we face, not just in gambling but in a whole host of other areas, is that access to the unregulated sector is becoming easier. I would wager that every single one of us has a smartphone in our pocket and, within a couple of clicks, can be in a highly unregulated gambling environment that does not subscribe to any of the normal social protections that have been put in place for the big regulated industries.

Quite often, consumers do not know whether they are in a regulated sector or an unregulated sector. Those in the unregulated sector have larger cash-outs and better odds, because they are not restricted in how they conduct their operations and frequently they are headquartered far away, in much more favourable tax regimes, so none of the tax they pay comes to the UK at all. However, consumers will not know that. They will not really know from looking at a website on their phone whether or not they are in a regulated sector.

We must change that. We have to find a way of making sure that if someone in this country is choosing, as 22 million people do each year, to access to gaming or gambling, they know that they are doing it somewhere where they will get protection and security, and that the lockouts are there so that, if they need to access help, they can get it. At the moment, too many people do not. Too many people in this country are able to access unregulated gambling services that bleed them dry and take them for everything they have got, leading to the social harms that the hon. Member for Witney rightly referred to.

Regardless of where we sit in this debate—we might be avid gamblers who enjoy doing so regularly; as it happens, I do not gamble myself, other than perhaps on the Grand National once a year, because I did it with my grandad 20 years ago and it is a fond memory—we all want to make gambling safer and to ensure that it operates within a system that is regulated, secure and provides the help and support that people want. That is where I am trying to come from with my comments today.

We all have constituents who enjoy gambling, but we all have constituents for whom gambling is a problem, and fundamentally we must take action to support them. I was heartened to see the written ministerial statement that the Minister recirculated today about the amount raised through the statutory gambling levy. There are genuine questions that we need to answer about who will get that money in order to provide support services. I think that £120 million has been raised since April, yet, other than a couple of large organisations, there is not really clarity about who will receive that funding. That needs to be sorted out very quickly, because there are people who need that help and support who are not getting it.

There is also work that we need to do to ensure that some of the provisions in the review that took place previously are properly implemented. I welcome the fact that we have things such as the whistle-to-whistle ad ban, so that there is no advertising of gambling while sports matches are happening. Stoke City, who are sponsored by bet365, are currently fourth in the championship. They might get promoted to the premier league, at which point they would have to think about their sponsorship arrangements, because they would not be able to have their shirts sponsored by a gambling company; that is something the sector has signed up to. I really hope that Stoke get promoted—it has been a long time since we were in the premier league—but if they have to make that change, there will be a cost to both the football club and the company in my constituency.

More work could probably be done around the seventh industry code for socially responsible advertising. The mandate is for someone to be over 25, unless there is the targeting technology to do it specifically to over-18s, but I freely accept that there is leakage in that. How we tighten that to ensure that under-18s are not exposed to gambling adverts, as part of the code that the sector has signed up to, is important. I am the father of a 15-year-old who has access to myriad social media apps. There are many I do not like but I have lost the battle. I am confident that she is able to make some decisions for herself, but I know that there will be other young people who will be more attracted to that.

We need to think about what the Gambling Commission is able to do. The Office for Budget Responsibility report, on the back of the tax changes this week, says it expects to see some leakage into the black market. As a result, the Treasury must allocate £26 million to the Gambling Commission to try to resolve that possible movement—a £500 million reduction in yield due to that leakage. We must think about that. If the social and behavioural change caused by regulation and taxation pushes more people into the black market, we must be cognisant of that consequence of our actions and think how to prevent it.

We also need to think about how to ensure that more people do not try to access riskier, higher-value games—I am thinking about games rather than sports betting in that instance, because the 40% rate of the remote gaming duty will mean that some companies will remove products from the market and shrink their offer, and that gap will be filled by others who do not take it so seriously. We have to think about the social consequences of that.

I did say I would not take eight minutes; I have barely 30 more seconds. It is almost certain that next week we will put through the tax changes announced by the Chancellor in the Budget, so this debate is timely in allowing us to explore those issues. We now need a regular reporting mechanism, which I hope the Minister will consider. Significant parts of the White Paper have still not been implemented; those parts that have been implemented have had only 18 months to bed in, and now we have a new tax regime, which means that people will move towards the black market.

We must measure and deal with that, to combat abuse by nefarious gaming organisations that work outside the regulated market and inflict harm. We collectively cannot allow that to happen. We need to be clear that the more we regulate and tax an industry that wants to be part of the solution, the easier we potentially make that move towards an unregulated market.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I call Lee Dillon. It seems he is not here, so I call Cameron Thomas.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts (Ian Murray)]

It is great to have you in the Chair, Sir Desmond, for this important debate. I am pleased to respond to it. I congratulate—as all other hon. Members have—the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) on securing this debate, and on the balanced way in which he presented his case, with the gambling industry on one side and the harms that it causes on the other.

The Government care deeply about gambling regulation. The number of debates that we have had on the issue, and the constructive contributions that we have had from hon. Members from both sides of the House, show that Parliament is very interested in the issue as well. Since the election last year, we have tried hard to strike the right balance between taking action to reduce gambling-related harm in areas where it has the greatest impact and supporting the gambling sector to modernise. I wish to set out how we have approached that task and what might come next, not least in the context of last week’s Budget. I hope to address as many points from hon. Members as I possibly can.

Gambling is enjoyed responsibly by many tens of millions of people, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), laid out. It is an industry that is part of our national life. Having a little flutter on the grand national and betting on the world cup semi-final or the grand prix are the kinds of big events that bring people together. My mother was a bookmaker. What she could do on that chalkboard on grand national day to work out the odds and the winnings—and often the losses—for the punters was something to behold. Many hon. Members have mentioned family members, and I remember my grandfather looking to win that million pounds with 25p a bet on a Saturday afternoon—he died a pauper, never quite making it that far. Gambling also brings people together, so that flutter is something that we should cherish. The industry has worked very hard to protect it and, in last week’s Budget, we tried very hard to protect it too.

For many people, including many Members who have spoken, the regulation of the online sector is of the greatest concern. We recognise that the risk of harm is greater for many online products and we have taken targeted action on that. In May, we introduced a £2 online slots stake limit for 18 to 24-year-olds and a £5 limit for those 25 and over. Those limits are a targeted intervention to protect those most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses. It took a long time to get that through—it was a debate that went on right through the last Parliament if I recall—and many hon. Members, including the former Member for Hyndburn, took that forward to get some limits in place.

Several hon. Members have mentioned advertising. We recognise the impact that harmful gambling can have on children and vulnerable people, and we are committed to strengthening protections for those at risk. There are already rules to ensure that adverts are not targeted at, and do not strongly appeal to, children and those at risk of harm. The hon. Member for Witney majored on the way that advertising can affect children, and I am grateful for his contribution on that, so I want to address it particularly.

We want to protect young people from gambling-related harm, and my noble Friend the gambling Minister, Baroness Twycross, cares a great deal about this issue as well. As part of the prevention stream of the statutory gambling levy, gambling education funding will improve access to and support for gambling education. We also welcome the Department for Education’s expanded guidance on gambling as part of the statutory relationships, sex and health education curriculum. I am sure that my noble Friend would be happy to meet the hon. Member for Witney to discuss those harms for young people.

I will run through some of the prevention measures that have been introduced that the shadow Minister mentioned, such as financial vulnerability checks, safer online casino game design, improving consumer choice on direct marketing, Think 25, extending test purchasing to small operators, financial risk assessments, better access to safer gambling tools such as deposit limits that restrict people’s gambling, and socially responsible incentives. I do hear, however, that there are issues with trying to pull people into gambling—to get them on to the platforms and betting—through free spins, free bets and free cash. That is something we should be looking at.

The industry has voluntarily done a number of things. It has introduced GamProtect, as we have heard already, and the front-of-shirt sponsorship ban for next season, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). I wish Stoke all the very best in being promoted from the championship; my own club, Heart of Midlothian, have burst my coupon on many a Saturday afternoon by not getting the results that they surely deserved. The industry has also voluntarily introduced improved gambling transaction and bank blocking, which is ongoing, and worked on creating the gambling ombudsman. The right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) is no longer in his place, but we are very much looking at that ombudsman issue. It will take primary legislation to bring in something like that, but I assure hon. Members that it has not left the agenda.

We need to work closely with the gambling industry, where we can, on those big advertising issues to ensure that advertising does not exacerbate harm. We intend to redouble our efforts to work cross-Government and with tech platforms to address illegal gambling advertising, which poses the most risk for children and vulnerable people, as hon. Members have mentioned. We will continue to work with the Department of Health and Social Care and the Gambling Commission to develop a new, evidence-based model for independently developed safer gambling messages.

I am sure that many hon. Members will have seen in today’s written ministerial statement, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, that the statutory levy has raised just under £120 million so far. That will be ringfenced, ensuring that it is used solely to address gambling-related harm across the UK. That will support our priority of making sure that there is sufficient independent and sustainable funding in the system for projects and services to tackle and treat gambling-related harm. It will also help to fill the gaps that we know exist in the evidence base and in the provision of treatment and support.

To answer the shadow Minister’s challenge on the timescale, we have appointed a number of commissioners to oversee the delivery of levy funding. Some 20% of levy funding has been allocated to UK Research and Innovation for the establishment of a bespoke research programme on gambling, and to the Gambling Commission to direct further research in line with its licensing objectives. Some 30% will go to the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities and the Scottish and Welsh Governments—they will get their share of that—to develop a comprehensive approach to the prevention of gambling-related harms across all three nations of Great Britain: Wales, Scotland and England. In England, the OHID will prioritise the development of an industry-independent public health approach that recognises the importance of the voluntary sector and local authorities in delivering effective prevention. I think that answers some of the issues that we heard from the shadow Minister about how expertise needs to be involved in this process and to be funded to deliver on some of those issues.

This is really important: the remaining 50% of the levy will go to NHS England and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents to commission the full treatment pathway, working collaboratively with the third sector to increase access to treatment and support for those experiencing gambling-related harm. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and my hon. Friends the Members for Dartford (Jim Dickson) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) said that this should be a public health issue, and I think that the breakdown of that £120 million from the levy—the amount going directly into health issues—shows that the levy is dealing with this as a public health issue, rather than it being a gambling or DCMS issue.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked about Northern Ireland, of course, but this is just a Great Britain initiative. Gambling, as he mentioned, is substantially devolved in Northern Ireland, where a separate regulatory system is in place. We are open to working with the Government in Northern Ireland on issues relating to gambling regulation. I understand that DCMS officials—many of them are sitting behind me—are having a meeting with counterparts in Northern Ireland on this very issue next week, so hopefully there will be progress on that. If there any issues that the hon. Member wants to bring forward, he should please get in touch with the ministerial team and we will certainly take those forward, on behalf of Northern Ireland, to help where we can.

Let me say a little about the modernising measures that we have put in place. Our work to tackle gambling-related harm has not prevented us from introducing modernisation measures, where appropriate, in a balanced way. For example, in June we introduced modernising reforms to the casino licensing regime to support growth in the land-based casino sector. Those were enacted following consideration of all the available evidence and are proportionate modernisations that reflect the changes in gambling behaviour since former restrictions were set many years ago. In October, we launched a consultation on changes to stakes and prizes for low-risk category D machines to support the family entertainment sector that runs seaside amusement arcades and piers. We all remember, as kids, being on the pier and putting 1p and 2p pieces into those kinds of low-stake machines.

Only last week, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced the abolition of bingo duty in recognition of the benefits that bingo halls bring to our local communities and in support of a sector loved by many. I am sure that the shadow Minister will have the odd bingo game at one of his fundraisers to entertain the masses—or not. We are also consulting on the issue of venues that are operating under bingo licences but may be difficult to distinguish from adult gaming centres to see whether there is an appetite for change to ensure that any premises with a bingo licence has bingo at the heart of its offering.

I know that there have been concerns about consumer protection in adult gaming centres. Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, has been clear that she will not consider any deregulatory changes to adult gaming centres without improved protections. The industry has announced new measures on self-exclusion, and the Government will continue to work with it and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the protections are fit for purpose.

Many Members have also raised concerns about the concentration of gambling premises, particularly in deprived areas. To strengthen the powers available to local authorities, the Government will introduce cumulative impact assessments for gambling licensing as soon as parliamentary time allows, and that will empower local authorities to take data-driven decisions on premises licences, particularly in areas identified as vulnerable to gambling-related harms. I hope that answers the question that the hon. Member for Witney raised.

Let me also mention the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central about the way in which the gambling industry supports local communities as well as sports through that kind of advertising. Sports support is obviously an issue for governing bodies, and the governing bodies for the premiership have determined that such advertising on the front of shirts will not be allowed next season. We would encourage every sporting body, or any body, that is taking advertising from the industry to look very clearly at what the impact of that is.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome the Minister to his new role. He is right that a number of sporting sectors derive a lot of sponsorship from the gambling sector, such as darts, the English Football League and horseracing. If, as a result of the tax changes announced last week, those companies withdraw their sponsorship, do the Government have a contingency plan? Have they had conversations with those sectors about how to make up that shortfall? In particular, I think £350 million goes into horseracing every year from gambling companies through sponsorship. If it loses that, the horseracing sector in this country will die.

[Ian Murray]

We talk to the gambling industry about that constantly. My noble Friend Baroness Twycross, the gambling Minister, is taking some of those discussions forward. We will continue to monitor it because a huge amount of sponsorship comes from the gambling industry. That is not a judgment on whether it is right or wrong, as we have heard today how damaging it may be; the hon. Member for Witney mentioned that the industry spends £2 billion a year on advertising. We should monitor it, and individual governing bodies will be looking at it. Premier league football is a good example of where a governing body has made a decision on shirt sponsorship, although I do not think it will have any difficulty in attracting sponsors, but other sports will find it more difficult to attract new money. We have seen this before with tobacco and alcohol advertising being banned, and we will continue to monitor it.

I thank the hon. Member for Tewkesbury for telling the personal story of his friend M. I am sure that story is reflected all over the country. We have heard from other Members this afternoon about suicides and the impact that gambling has had on families and the wider community. We should always reflect on those stories when talking about the positives and negatives of gambling.

I want to address the gambling taxation changes, which the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, mentioned in some detail. The changes to gambling duties were outlined by the Chancellor last week at the Budget, which we will vote on this evening. Everyone will be aware that, in addition to the abolishing of bingo duty, we have announced an increase in the remote gambling duty from 21% to 40%. We have also announced a new remote betting duty set at 25%, with a carve-out to protect horseracing.

We have introduced those increases in gambling duties to reflect the way in which the sector has gone and to support our public finances. I take issue with how the shadow Minister presented that issue, because it is all about making balanced judgments. Of the money that will be raised for the Treasury, £26 million will be used to tackle the black and illegal market, which is a concern for us all. The money will also ensure that we can pull 450,000 children out of poverty, addressing any correlation between gambling addiction and poverty. The Chancellor and I believe that pulling 450,000 children out of poverty would be the best societal way of using that money.

With the Budget changes, it is clear that the Government are not anti-gambling. I have set out some of the measures that we have introduced in support of the sector. Through the Budget, we have also sought to limit the impact on the high street and protect activities that are lower risk and have greater levels of employment. We recognise the dangers posed by the illegal market, and for those in the regulated sector and those at risk of gambling-related harm. That is why we have allocated that £26 million to the Gambling Commission over three years to increase investment, resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. That will be kept under constant review. We also hope to work closely with the industry and others to see how we can go further in this space.

The issue of consumer awareness was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central and for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith), and by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. I hope that we can work on customer awareness to demonstrate that the regulated sector is where people should be, and to spot the unregulated sector. If someone were to land on a website from an advert on social media, is it obvious to the vast majority whether it is a regulated or unregulated website? How would they know? I suspect that the unregulated sector has rather less regulated ways of pulling customers in. Education on customer and consumer awareness through the Gambling Commission would certainly be something that we should look at as well. There is no doubt that the social harms in the illegal industry are more amplified than those in the regulated industry.

I will talk a little about the national lottery, because it is a part of gambling that we do not tend to talk about in this country. I know that the hon. Member for Strangford mentioned national lottery scratchcards, but most people do not see playing the national lottery as gambling. It would be interesting for some analysis to be done about what the public thinks gambling actually is—whether it is the 25p accumulator on the Grand National or playing the national lottery. There is no doubt that the national lottery is a national institution and it has had a huge impact on good causes in our communities. I suspect that a lot of people in this country play the national lottery, yes, to win the big prize, drift off on a yacht somewhere in the Mediterranean and hand in their resignation—I suppose it would be to the Prime Minister in my case if I were to win—and retire. But people also play the national lottery knowing that a lot of that money goes into good causes and they see transformation, whether through heritage or charitable cases and those kinds of things.

To conclude, it is important that as a Government we now take stock of where we are. I know that there are further regulatory reforms that many Members want to see, and we will continue to act when evidence shows us that we need to intervene. Nevertheless, it is important that we implement and evaluate our recent reforms properly and give them time to bed in before moving on to the next thing. For example, we need to ensure that the three strands of the statutory levy are running smoothly. I hope that that gives some reassurance to the shadow Minister. We need to fully engage with stakeholders to understand the impact of the tax changes on their businesses and provide as much certainty as we can while that happens. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central in particular. This all requires a bit of time to bed in.

Ultimately, the Government want a gambling sector that is modern, sustainable and protects the most vulnerable from harm but that is also thriving. Our manifesto committed us to working with the industry to ensure responsible gambling, and that remains important to us. In parallel, we will continue to regulate gambling in a balanced and modernising way and support the regulatory sector where we can.

[Gareth Snell]

I welcome some of the submissions that the Minister has made. Could I press him on what monitoring there will be of movement towards the unregulated market? The OBR report is quite clear that the Government expect to see a proportion of people from the regulated sector move to the unregulated sector. The increased money for the Gambling Commission to tackle that is welcome. However, can the Minister say whether there will be a concerted and specific effort to monitor the direction of travel? The Netherlands saw a five times increase when it made some changes, and is struggling to recoup that. I want to make sure that we learn from those lessons and do not end up repeating the same drive towards the more damaging part of the sector.

[Ian Murray]

I think that the Government have acknowledged the issue around the black and illegal market, given the £26 million that has gone into the Gambling Commission. Since April 2024, the Gambling Commission has significantly increased its disruption activity and has focused on finding innovative ways to tackle the illegal market. The Crime and Policing Bill, introduced to Parliament in February, has passed through the House of Commons and is now in Committee in the other place. It will give the Gambling Commission greater powers to act quicker to take down illegal websites, so there are legislative moves on this issue as well.

As part of the Budget there is £26 million specifically for the Gambling Commission to increase its investment resources and capacity to tackle the illegal market. The message from Government is that if someone is operating in the illegal market, we are coming after them—legislatively, regulatorily and with money. We will continue to monitor the outcomes from that.

This has been a very balanced debate, and I thank the hon. Member for Witney for securing it. No doubt we will return to this for regular updates on where we are. I hope that the levy, the new tax changes and the money for the Gambling Commission for the illegal market can now bed in and that we can try and get some of that £120 million levy into the organisations that deal with gambling harms. I hope, also, that we can celebrate that gambling is harmless for the vast majority of the public who participate in it—and something that this Government are very keen to support.

Maccabi Tel Aviv FC: Away Fans Ban

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

I echo those comments, and I take this moment to pay tribute to those faith organisations. The Communities Secretary and I have been pleased to work with them in anticipation of the threats of significant disorder that have been made by people outside Birmingham who seek to travel to Birmingham to create strife. Their message is ours as well: they are not welcome there.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It was reported over the weekend that, in August, a legal observer to one of the protests was arrested simply for wearing a Star of David because it was considered to be antagonising. Now, with the decision to ban the Maccabi fans from coming to the UK, there is a genuine cumulative effect on what it means for Jewish people in this country, and the effect on the families of Jewish people in this country who watch their friends and family being tortured about whether or not they have a role in this country any more. We should all be significantly aware of that.

If this ban is allowed to go ahead, there will be this challenge. The game after the Maccabi game is with the Swiss-based Young Boys, whose fans have been involved in two riots, including hospitalisations. If their away team is not banned, the question should be: what is different between the Maccabi fans and the Young Boys fans, and what is it that we want to talk about?

[Lisa Nandy]

I think my hon. Friend has put it better than I could.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 16th October 2025 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

5. What steps the Commission is taking to increase the use of British-made ceramics by the House of Commons.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)]

The House Administration sources a wide range of crockery from firms in the UK, as well as those based elsewhere. Where possible, Parliament endeavours to purchase British goods to support domestic supply chains. All purchasing is in line with the relevant legislation for public bodies, which prioritises value for money. Some 85% of crockery purchased in the past two years has been from British manufacturers.

[Gareth Snell]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for your leadership on this? The exquisite Speaker’s House collection that you personally commissioned is made proudly in Stoke-on-Trent by Duchess China. I am sure that the House will be pleased to know that it is in stock, reasonably priced and available in time for Christmas. This place is a great showcase for British talent and skills. Although I accept my hon. Friend’s answer, there is more that we can do. Through him, I encourage the Commission to ensure that whenever a tender is offered for crockery, giftware or tableware in this place, it looks not just at value for money but at the social value of supporting British manufacturers wherever possible.

[Nick Smith]

It pleases me when I see my hon. Friend turning his plate or mug upside down in the Tea Room, to double-check whether the crockery was made in Stoke. It is good when Westminster shows off the best of our UK ceramics manufacturing. Where possible and appropriate, and in accordance with procurement law, Parliament will endeavour to purchase British goods and support our domestic supply chains.

Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr French]

If the regulator is overreaching and strangling clubs with unnecessary red tape, as we believe it will under this Government, we will act decisively on behalf of fans to promote the English game again. The real threat to football’s future is not a lack of regulators; it is the erosion of competition and trust between owners, communities and supporters. We would fix that with stronger transparency rules—such as the rules that Labour Members have just voted against—as well as the better enforcement of existing laws and real fan power, not a vast new quango led by a Labour crony working three days a week on a salary of £130,000.

This shameful Labour Government are already under investigation having once again put their party first, with cronies over clubs, favours over fans and greed over the beautiful game. Tonight, the Conservatives will be voting against this Bill in good conscience, because our national game deserves better than a Government whose only knowledge of football is free tickets and corporate prawn sandwiches. It is worth noting that Labour Members have tonight voted against fans having a drink on the terraces, while their Ministers drink alcohol in their corporate hospitality boxes for free.

We will continue to stand up for the fans, not the bureaucrats creating an even larger nanny state. We will continue to stand up for healthy competition and local pride, not a one-size-fits-all state interference that will relegate English football among global competition. We will be ready to revisit this when, as is likely, it fails to deliver the promises being made, and to review it, to rein it in, to scrap it altogether and to give powers back to our sporting bodies. That was the ultimate goal of the fan-led review, as Labour Members would know if they had read it. Football belongs to the fans, and no badly drafted Acts of Parliament should ever make us forget that. [Interruption.]

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

They think it’s all over!

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Well, it will be for you. I know who you are. [Laughter.]

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Glastonbury Festival: BBC Coverage

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lisa Nandy]

All those involved in the events of this weekend will hear the very strong feelings on both sides of the House, so I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that. I share his view about the importance of the BBC. Those of us who believe in the importance of our national broadcaster are probably more angry than anybody about what has happened over the last few days. It is precisely because we understand the importance of the BBC that we know the BBC has to do better. He asked whether I am satisfied with the explanation that I have had so far. I am not. I have been very clear with the BBC leadership about that, and clear that I expect to get a full explanation immediately, without delay.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of an independent inquiry. I would say to all Members of this House that I am not sure that we need an inquiry to establish that it should have been foreseeable that there would be problems with broadcasts this weekend, that the decision to broadcast live without any delay should have been reviewed, and that the live feed should have been pulled immediately when the chants of “death, death to the IDF” began. What I want to see from the BBC—I know the right hon. Gentleman shares this—is rapid action to ensure that this cannot happen again. I promise to update the House on these developments but I should also say that I am still expecting a response from the BBC about an earlier decision to broadcast a documentary about Gaza, which it was then discovered fell short of the BBC’s own editorial standards. I expect a response swiftly, and I expect action as well.

Finally, can I thank the right hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Jewish community? Having spoken to friends and colleagues across the Jewish community over the weekend, I cannot describe how much this has impacted on them, particularly those members of the Jewish community who were at Glastonbury. I was extremely distressed to hear that there were organisations that are about to be proscribed by the Government whose logo was emblazoned very visibly on T-shirts and banners. I was concerned to hear reports that there were images associated with Hamas and others, as well as Nazi imagery.

Most people who go to Glastonbury, I think, go for exactly the reasons that I have been in the past, and I suspect the right hon. Gentleman has as well. It is because music festivals are an incredible way to bring people together, to show support and solidarity, to bind a nation and to showcase great British talent. It is our job, collectively, to ensure that those festivals become again, and remain, a place where everybody in our country is welcome.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

As well as the despicable chants, the monologue that preceded them by the artist in question clearly drew on the influence of Jewish power in music, an age-old antisemitic trope. Could the Secretary of State say a bit more about what conversations she will have with the BBC, not just on what it broadcasts but on what was allowed to happen at Glastonbury? Does she also agree that those age-old antisemitic tropes, whether they are in Parliament, on stage or in public life, should be a red line for all of us?

[Lisa Nandy]

Yes. My hon. Friend has a long history of standing up to antisemitism, including when it stained and sullied our own party, and I am grateful to him for his leadership on this. Those questions about what happens at Glastonbury are not for the BBC. There are serious questions for the BBC about what it broadcast and the decisions that it took, but there are also wider questions about the sorts of things that we want to see in our country.

As the Secretary of State, I have been very clear that it is not for the Government to try to determine what can be seen and what can be heard, but I also have a view about this as an individual: I do not want to see that sort of thing, I do not want to hear it, and I take great exception to it. The Prime Minister was very clear on that point as well. It causes harm to people in the real world, and I have felt that very strongly this weekend. That is why this Government are determined that, wherever we see that form of antisemitism—including the appalling comments that my hon. Friend referenced that were targeted towards an individual in the music industry simply because they were Jewish—we will always stand up to it and not hesitate to take action.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 4th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mims Davies]

The available training venues are currently being reviewed. I understand that there has already been an initial meeting with representatives of the British judo Centre of Excellence and the University of Wolverhampton regarding the possible use of their facilities. Many great sporting facilities in the west midlands and, indeed, across the United Kingdom will want to host training events, and I am sure that they will receive a very warm welcome from my hon. Friend.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Five junctions up the M6 from Walsall is the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, which stands ready to play its part. How will the Minister ensure that the benefits to which she has referred are felt throughout our region and not just in the conurbation, and what strategy does her Department have for a long-lasting legacy programme so that those benefits do not disappear once the games have ended?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I do agree with my hon. Friend. He will have recognised from the White Paper that what we believe will be necessary to provide for a duty of care for online companies, and for an online regulator to enforce it, is primary legislation. I look forward to his support and, I hope, support right across the House for that legislation.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. The Minister will, I am sure, be aware of the work done by the Industrial Communities Alliance and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) to demonstrate the disproportionate nature of areas that play the national lottery and areas that subsequently receive lottery funding for community projects. What work is he doing with Camelot to ensure that small towns, small cities and industrial communities feel the benefit of the lottery that they play?

[Mims Davies]

The national lottery has raised over £39 billion for good causes since 1994, funding projects in every constituency throughout the UK. It is my job, as we move into the fourth licence, to ensure that it thrives for the next 25 years. The opportunity to re-engage with communities and the public is there for us. If there is a particular concern relating to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, I will be happy to take it forward to the national lottery.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Margot James]

We have established an Office for Artificial Intelligence across the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. Its job is to encourage strong dialogue between Departments and the wider public sector, including academia. For example, The Alan Turing Institute’s specialist public sector AI unit is involved in this process.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Staffordshire University has one of the best AI robotics courses in the country. What role does the Minister see the universities that are training the AI robotics engineers of the future playing in ensuring that the AI technology of today is working?

[Margot James]

I congratulate the university in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency on its great work. The Government have invested £50 million in AI fellowships and £100 million in 1,000 new PhD places, of which I hope his local institution will be able to take advantage.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

What significance does the Secretary of State place on the role of the voluntary sector in helping to tackle loneliness in our country? If, like me, he thinks that it is an important role, will he say what discussions he has had with the Department of Health and Social Care and with local government to make sure that commissioners of services now understand that the voluntary sector should be taken seriously?

[Jeremy Wright]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He may know that part of the responsibilities of Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government will now include attention to issues of loneliness and he will see that, when we announce those who are the recipients of the £20.5 million that I mentioned a moment or so ago, there are a range of different organisations across the country, all of which play a vital part in this and to which we should all be grateful.

Data Protection Bill [ Lords ] (Seventh sitting)

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)]

I welcome new schedule 1, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill and my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore and for Sheffield, Heeley. I should declare that I was first on Facebook as a 19-year-old. Now, as a 31-year-old, I can declare that I do not think there is anything on there that I am embarrassed of.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Lucky you.

[Darren Jones]

I reserve the right for other hon. Friends to remove content from their social media.

I wanted to refer to the issue of data ownership. When we think of the world in terms of things that we own, there are legal bases for that ownership. We have a legal right to the houses that we buy, once the mortgage has been paid off, and we have a legal right to the clothes that we buy. However, we have no legal right to the ownership of the data about us or the data that we generate. In the context of people making money off the back of it, that feels fundamentally incorrect.

Even the language that we use suggests that the relationship is not balanced. The idea that Facebook is my data controller, and that I am merely its data subject, suggests that the tone of the conversation is incorrect. I support the fundamental principle of ownership, because I think that we need to have a much more fundamental debate about who owns this stuff. Why are people making money off the back of it? If they do things with our property that is against the law, or that incurs us a loss, we should have the right to enforce that principle.

We have seen that not just in the context of the personal data that we might create about the things we like to buy or the TV programmes we like to watch. Sir John Bell, in the report “Life sciences: industrial strategy”, talked about the value of NHS data. We are in a unique position in the world, because of our socialist healthcare system, where we have data for individuals in a large population across many years. That is extremely valuable to organisations and others. We on the Science and Technology Committee are doing reports at the moment on genomics data in the health service and on the regulation of algorithms. I recommend those reports, when they are published, to Members of the Bill Committee.

We need to try to avoid allowing, for example, health companies—I will not name any particular ones—to come into this country, access the data of NHS patients, build and train algorithms, and then take those algorithms to other parts of the world and make enormous profits off the back of them. But for the data that belongs to the British people, those businesses would not be able to make those profits.