Mr Louie French
MP for Old Bexley and Sidcup · Conservative · United Kingdom
“As part of that, we allocated £300 million to youth facilities, improving and developing 300 of them. We established the National Citizen Service; this Government cancelled it, but more than 750,000 young people participated in it and it had a 93% satisfaction rate—something this Government could only dream of.”
“As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I congratulate the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Harpreet Uppal) on securing this important debate. We all recognise that this issue is increasingly important to our constituents across the country.”
“The renewed national focus on enrichment is welcome and timely, but access to enrichment remains uneven, and Government funding cuts will only make that worse.”
“Youth work has huge economic benefits. Research has shown that every £1 of Government investment in youth work has a social return on investment of between £3.20 and £6.40. Moreover, it saves around £500 million annually by preventing antisocial behaviour, knife crime and associated criminal justice costs.”
“Government can often be siloed, so I hope that the Minister will also commit to making a concerted effort to ensure that policies and programmes across Government are put into practice in a more holistic and strategic way in this area.”
“The Government’s national youth strategy has some noble aims, including halving the participation gap in enrichment activities between disadvantaged young people and their peers, and giving half a million more young people access to a trusted adult outside of the home by 2035—I believe passionately in the power of role models, and I would…”
The complete record
Every one of 604 lines we hold for Mr Louie French, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 13.
“In the black market, there are no affordability checks, no safer gambling tools, no self-exclusion and no protection at all for punters. We can see that moralistic and heavy-handed regulations simply displace gambling into the unregulated sector, rather than reducing gambling rates and risks of harm. The sector could not be clearer: once punters have entered the black market, they are unlikely to come back. That would be a lose-lose situation for the Government that could result in lower tax revenue and fewer jobs, a loss of revenue for bookies and sports that rely on their sponsorship, and a loss of consumer protections for the public. Sadly, however, that is where the Government are now heading fast. There is another area where the Government’s policy is simply not functioning: the new statutory levy.”
“Within months, the Netherlands has seen regulated gambling revenue collapse by around 25% and tax receipts fall significantly, despite the higher rate, which has left a €200 million shortfall. The percentage of gamblers using regulated sites dropped below 50%, and the Dutch regulator itself reported that illegal gambling sites now receive more visits than regulated ones, with searches for the “100 best illegal gambling sites” surging. That is the reality of the situation in a comparable European country. Over-regulation and excessive taxation have driven gamblers to the black market. We can see the same pattern developing here in the UK, with even the OBR highlighting that the black market will gain from those tax choices. That is before we even consider debating outstanding issues such as affordability checks.”
“From buying a weekly National Lottery ticket to a casual acca with your mates on the 3 o’clock kick-offs and beyond, there is a spectrum of risk and reward, as well as exposures, the complexities of which we must appreciate and understand. The oversimplification of the issue does far more harm than good. We can learn how that happens from neighbouring countries such as the Netherlands. At the start of this year, the Dutch Government raised their gambling tax on gross gaming revenue from 30.5% to 34.2%—a much smaller rise than that which this Government have announced, with another rise planned. The Dutch Government combined it with much tighter restrictions, strict spending caps, deposit limits and sweeping advertising bans.”
“The Labour party has so far failed to explain how those missing jobs and business rates will be paid for—perhaps by even higher welfare spending and taxes. We are all aware that, particularly in recent years, the debate about gambling and its regulation has been dominated by those who see gambling exclusively through the lens of harm. It is, of course, right to support those who struggle with addiction, and I am proud to support a range of specialist charities in that space that do fantastic work on the frontline, helping people across the country. However, the vast majority of punters enjoy a bet safely each week. We cannot and should not build a regulatory system that assumes that every person who gambles is high risk. That is simply untrue. It is the nanny state on steroids from the left of British politics.”
“The highly regulated gambling sector in the United Kingdom supports tens of thousands of jobs, contributes billions of pounds in tax each year, and sustains industries and sports, from horseracing to the high street betting shops that sit firmly in the fabric of the communities that we all represent. The choices the Chancellor has made will, according to modelling by EY, result in an estimated 16,000 job losses throughout the UK. Those will be particularly concentrated in areas where large operators are based, such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme, before filtering through to betting shop closures on high streets throughout our constituencies.”
“Labour’s tax raid was not just anti-gambling industry; it was anti-consumer and, we believe, anti-common sense. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) for securing this debate, so that we can properly interrogate the facts and the impact that the Chancellor’s actions will have on the more than 22 million people across the country who safely enjoy a flutter each month. To put that number into context, it is more than 34,500 people per constituency represented in this House—enough to enjoy a majority anywhere in the country. Whether or not Members like gambling, the facts are clear.”
“As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and I thank all hon. Members for their contributions. For transparency, I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Regulation of gambling must be a careful balance to avoid unintended consequences. Last week, the Chancellor of the Exchequer chose to take a gamble on this regulated industry, and on the lives of some of the most vulnerable people, who are at risk of gambling harms. She took an ideological position instead of a practical one. Despite clear warnings, she chose to fuel the black market, where there are no protections for problem gamblers, and to jeopardise thousands of jobs and livelihoods in the regulated sector as a result, as we have heard today.”
“I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Sport England’s role as a statutory planning consultee promotes participation in grassroot sports, including by girls and women, by protecting vital playing fields across the country from development, including in Greater Manchester. However, this Labour Government are aiming to bulldoze protections, and concrete over grassroots provisions for young people. How will removing the protections in place for playing fields help to improve participation by girls in grassroots sport?”
“No commitment there to stop the concreting over of sports pitches. Alongside the National Lottery, the regulated gambling sector provides more than £400 million of crucial sponsorship to British sports, whether that is horseracing, the Betfred Super League, Sky Bet EFL, William Hill’s sponsorship of Scottish football, or direct funding for grassroots programmes. After Labour’s short-sighted £1 billion tax raid yesterday, which will fuel the illegal black market, will the Minister tell the House how her Department will fill the black hole in funding for British sports, and say what impact assessment it has made on that and on job losses across the sector?”
“The Prime Minister boasted to ITV at the weekend that he had strengthened the ministerial code and the powers of the ethics adviser, and that any Minister who makes a mistake must refer themselves to the adviser. The former Deputy Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), was referred for breaching the ministerial code, so why has the Prime Minister not referred himself? It this just more Labour double standards?”
“More than 5,000 people in Bexley have signed my petition to stop Mayor Khan closing the overnight counter at Bexleyheath police station. Will the Minister tell us who is to blame for the £260 million of funding cuts now facing the Met police: the Labour Government or the Labour Mayor of London?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her involvement in the appointments process for the chair of the Independent Football Regulator.”
“Surely, if the Secretary of State was meant to have been recused for the 2020 donation of Mr Kogan, that must apply to the Prime Minister too—or does the Prime Minister believe that the offside rule does not apply to him? Who is to blame for this sorry mess? How much did Mr Kogan give to the Prime Minister, and did he declare it? Does the Secretary of State agree that Mr Kogan’s deeply flawed appointment must be rescinded, given the risks to football? Finally, will she stick by her words and say that rule breakers cannot be rule makers?”
“The report confirms that Mr Kogan was her preferred candidate, subject to No. 10 giving the green light, and that Department for Culture, Media and Sport officials were asked to make the necessary arrangements for an appointment without competition. The Prime Minister’s fingerprints are also clear from the commissioner’s report. We understand that Mr Kogan donated to the Prime Minister’s constituency Labour party as well as to his leadership campaign. I almost feel sorry for the Secretary of State; she has apologised to the Prime Minister for three breaches of the rules for choosing his candidate. How is it proper for the Prime Minister personally to have given the green light to a donor?”
“Not until the Secretary of State had already recommended Mr Kogan’s appointment—and the night before his appearance before the Select Committee on 7 May—did she conveniently consider checking whether she had also taken thousands of pounds off him. I find that highly unlikely, and the commissioner makes it clear that the Secretary of State was in a position readily to ascertain the details of donations made by Mr Kogan before she made her choice, but that she failed to do so. It was after the political fallout and six days later that she finally recused herself from the end of the process. To show how brazen this crony appointment was, her Department confirmed it while the independent investigation was still taking place—really shameful stuff. This was not a fair and open recruitment process.”
“Last Thursday, the Commissioner for Public Appointments published his report into the appointment of the chair of the Independent Football Regulator. That report found that the Secretary of State breached the governance code for public appointments, updated by her Government, not once or twice, but three times. The Secretary of State has claimed that she did not know about Mr Kogan’s donations, but the commissioner’s report clearly shows that she was briefed twice by her Department regarding this conflict before she decided to appoint him to a role that must be independent. The report also makes it clear that Mr Kogan was not shortlisted by the previous Government and that it was this Government who put him in the running.”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance. During today’s urgent question, the Secretary of State provided a number of answers that seem to contradict parts of the commissioner’s report, particularly around the role of the Prime Minister. In particular, she made reference to a conversation between herself and the new chairman of the Independent Football Regulator before his appearance at the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. I have read the report very carefully, and I cannot find any reference to that conversation in the commissioner’s report. I seek guidance from you on how hon. Members can find out why that is not in the report.”
“For example, the London plan effectively bans house building on large swathes of industrial land, often within walking distance of public transport.”
“Three things have gone wrong. First, Sadiq Khan’s London plan has comprehensively failed to get London building. With more than 500 pages and 123 planning policies, the London plan makes it more complex and expensive to build in London. A 2024 review found that it takes seven weeks longer to determine major planning applications in London than in the next four largest cities. Sadiq Khan’s planning requirements also add to the cost of building in London. For example, the London plan goes beyond the national energy requirements, imposes carbon targets, and has policies on overheating and energy statements. Whatever the merits of those policies, they all add to the cost of building homes. In places, Sadiq Khan’s planning policies actively restrict house building.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank all hon. Members who enabled me to secure this important debate. It could not be more timely, as house building in London has collapsed. In the first nine months of 2025, construction began on only 3,248 homes. Molior London predicts that just 9,100 homes will be built across 2027 and 2028—that is under 5% of the Government’s target for London. London is supposed to deliver more than a quarter of the Government’s 1.5 million homes target, but given the construction slowdown, that target appears to be dead in the water. That is the inevitable consequence of the Mayor of London’s disastrous London plan and the Labour Government’s anti-growth policies.”
“That is why it is so disappointing that the Government stopped the mandated partial review of the London plan a year ago, saving their mayor’s blushes. Secondly, Sadiq Khan’s affordable homes target has made many housing projects unviable in London. By demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable, he has made house building unviable in London.”
“I agree that we should have a brownfield-first approach, seeking to protect our green belt and countryside wherever possible. I understand my right hon. Friend’s concern and her representations on behalf of her constituents. The Home Builders Federation warns that the London plan’s net zero requirements are imposing carbon offset payments of £3,000 a home. Even when building on brownfield land is allowed, it is fraught with problems. The mayor requires 50% of homes to be affordable, which, given the remediation costs on those sites, makes development unviable. Altogether, the London plan review in 2024 found that Sadiq Khan’s policies frustrated, rather than facilitated, development on brownfield land.”
“Since May 2022, Bexley council has built 1,836 homes. Of those, 619 are affordable, making up 33% of all new housing, so I do not agree with the statement the hon. Gentleman just made.”
“If a developer cannot afford the target, they face six burdensome checks on the project’s viability before, during and after construction.”
“I absolutely agree, and I appreciate the hon. Gentleman making one of his well-respected interventions in this important debate. We have to make sure that across the country, we are building the homes that people want to live in and that people can afford, including people in older age. Demanding that 35% of homes built privately are affordable has made house building in London unviable. The higher 50% target for industrial land also applies to public land, which, again, has effectively blocked development in the capital. This policy may seem like a good way to get London building more social housing, but it has hugely backfired. The policy is effectively a tax on house building. It makes some development unviable and deters investment. It ultimately means fewer homes and higher costs.”
“I absolutely agree. We need to unlock brownfield sites in the interests of current and future generations that want to own a home. If there is any surplus profit in the situation I was describing, the developer will lose it, but if they make a loss, the number of affordable homes required will not be reduced. For a decade, London Conservatives have warned that this policy will harm house building. Today, we see the consequences. Sadiq Khan’s failed London plan has created a perfect storm, compounded by failing demand, policy costs and regulatory delays.”
“Developers also face excessive policy costs—section 106 payments, community infrastructure levy payments, mayoral community infrastructure levy payments, carbon offset levies, biodiversity net gain requirements and the new building safety levy. The collective cost of those demands makes it too expensive to build. To make matters worse, on top of the burdensome London plan, the well-intentioned post-Grenfell Building Safety Regulator is now delaying building in the capital. It has rejected 70% of building safety designs, and some completed projects have had to wait 18 months for approval before people can move in.”
“I am going to make a bit of progress, because I have been up and down quite a lot, and I am not fit enough to keep doing it. Under this Labour Government, more and more first-time buyers are unable to afford a home, and they are the primary market for new builds in London. Over 3,700 new homes are sitting unsold. This is not a market where developers will build more. The Labour Government were wrong to slash first-time buyers’ stamp duty relief, costing first-time buyers up to £11,250 more in taxes. That is why the Conservatives’ plan to abolish stamp duty is the right one, and the Labour Government must rule out further market-suppressing tax rises.”
“I appreciate the argument the hon. Lady is trying to make, and I am about to come on to some suggestions to hopefully help the Government. The mayor has had strategic planning powers in the capital for nine years, and he was awarded £9 billion of affordable homes money by the previous Government. We have to be clear about where blame in the capital lies.”
“It will backfire, eroding the little remaining public trust in the Greater London Authority, and it will confirm to outer Londoners that Labour’s plan is not to unlock building on well-connected brownfield sites, but to concrete over our precious remaining countryside.”
“The changes to the affordable homes targets do not go far enough; at 35%, demand is still placed on industrial and public land, acting as a blocker on these sites that could host thousands of homes. While a temporary fast-track route for homes that provide 20% affordable housing is welcome, it is a minor amendment to a system that has ultimately failed. More concerning are the proposals to give the Mayor of London the power to call-in applications for 50 homes or more and for developments on green belt and metropolitan open land. It is undemocratic to withdraw planning powers from local communities.”
“Again, I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady is trying to make. I have already outlined the Bexley position in response to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), so I do not need to go back into that—Bexley has been delivering affordable homes. What can be done now? I am afraid that the recent measures announced by the Government and the Mayor of London—without consulting London’s 32 boroughs—to unlock house building are too little, and potentially too late. They will give developers only temporary, targeted relief from the community infrastructure levy on brownfield sites, but not from the more expensive mayoral levy.”
“Home ownership should be a dream that is open to everyone, but in Sadiq Khan’s London it is frankly not. It is a moral imperative that the Government step in to fix his mistakes.”
“Sadiq Khan and the Labour party may boast about his house building record, but the reality is that four fifths of the homes that were built in London last year received planning permission under Boris Johnson. The same is true of the majority of homes that were started last year—they were approved under Boris Johnson, not Sadiq Khan. We are nine years into Sadiq Khan’s mayoralty, and his predecessor is still building or unlocking more homes than him. The answer is not to build on the green belt, and it is not to let houses in multiple occupation conversions run wild or to take more powers away from local communities. It is to make it easier and cheaper to build in London again, and that means scrapping Sadiq Khan’s failed planning policies.”
“I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, but I understand the argument that he is trying to make. Ultimately, my position is that the way to get truly affordable homes is not by setting artificial targets; it is by building more homes across London. That is how we bring prices down and unlock home ownership for more Londoners across the capital. Why should Sadiq Khan, who has comprehensively failed to get London building, be given more powers? As I have outlined, his London plan has made it too difficult and complicated to build in London, and as a result, Londoners face higher rents and unaffordable housing prices. Now he wants to build on the green belt, while brownfield sites near tube stations sit empty. This is completely unacceptable.”
“This has been a healthy cross-party debate, even if we have disagreed on some of the diagnosis. I thank the Minister for his response. I hope he will take away some of the points that have been raised on a constructive basis. I think we all agree that we have to get London building on brownfield again. People have a right to somewhere they can call home. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered Government support for housebuilding in London.”
“It ensures that public service broadcasters continue to meet their obligations to commission high-quality, independent content while providing flexibility to operate effectively in a rapidly changing digital landscape. It builds on the legislative foundations set out by the Media Act and maintains the UK’s reputation for having a diverse, independent and world-leading broadcasting sector. On that note, we will not be seeking to divide the Committee.”
“It also updates the definitions of “independent production” and “independent producer” to bring them into line with modern industry practice without making substantive policy changes. An important part of the reform relates to Channel 4. Following the removal of the publisher-broadcaster model under the Media Act, Channel 4 has been permitted to undertake limited in-house production for the first time. To maintain its strong relationship with the independent sector, the quota for Channel 4 has been increased from 25% to 35% of its programming hours. We believe this represents a fair and reasonable adjustment that safeguards opportunities for small and medium-sized independent producers, while giving Channel 4 the scope to adapt and innovate. Overall, this instrument reflects a pragmatic and forward-looking approach to media regulation.”
“However, as audiences have increasingly turned to on-demand platforms, such as ITVX and BBC iPlayer, the old system no longer reflected how viewers were accessing public service content. The Media Act addressed this by extending the scope of the quotas so that they could be delivered across a broadcaster’s wide range of services, and by converting percentage-based quotas into minimum hours targets. This statutory instrument gives effect to those provisions, setting the new quotas for each of the main public service broadcasters—the BBC, S4C and Channels 3, 4 and 5—based on a five-year average of qualifying hours. I understand that the updated framework has been agreed with both Ofcom and the broadcasters themselves to ensure that it remains balanced, proportionate and achievable.”
“By modernising the definitions and entrusting Ofcom with the appropriate discretion, these regulations help to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom’s public service broadcasting system, while ensuring that it remains fit for purpose in a fast-changing media landscape. They are a further example of how the previous Conservative Government’s Media Act continues to provide the foundations for a flexible, forward-looking and well-regulated broadcasting sector. Moving on to the draft Broadcasting (Independent Productions) Regulations 2025, as members of the Committee will know, the previous regime for independent production quotas was based on linear television, requiring each public service broadcaster to commission at least 25% of their qualifying hours from independent producers.”
“As members of the Committee will know, the Media Act gave the Secretary of State the power to determine whether repeats of public service content could count towards broadcasters’ quotas. These regulations delegate the responsibility to Ofcom, the industry regulator, which already sets the levels of the original productions and regional programme-making quotas for public service broadcasters, other than the BBC. Allowing Ofcom to decide how repeats are treated ensures a coherent and practical approach—one that links the measurement of quotas to the operational realities of programming, commissioning and scheduling.”
“As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. As the Minister rightly said, these regulations are made under powers introduced by the Media Act 2024, which is a significant piece of legislation designed to modernise our broadcasting framework for the digital age, passed under the previous Conservative Government. The draft Broadcasting (Regional Programme-making and Original Productions) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 update the Broadcasting (Original Productions) Order 2004 to ensure that key definitions and obligations remain consistent with the new statutory regime established by the Act. In particular, these regulations bring the treatment of repeats within the original and regional productions quotas up to date, reflecting the way in which programmes are now produced, distributed and consumed.”
“From grassroots pitches to packed stadiums, it embodies our values of teamwork, fair play and community pride, but it is also a fragile ecosystem. If the Government keep layering on costs and compliance demands at the bottom of the pyramid, the Government risk hollowing out the very base that sustains the sport. Every £1 spent on regulatory compliance is £1 not spent on improving an ageing stand, an overgrown pitch or introducing a new generation of local youngsters to the game. It is an evening of paperwork instead of an evening coaching the under-12s, potentially depriving us of the next Harry Kane or Jordan Pickford.”
“The Premier League and its clubs, and, to a certain extent, the Championship and its clubs, can meet the new burdens of red tape the Government’s new regulator will bring, but the smallest clubs—those closer to the foothills of the football pyramid—will struggle. The truth is simple: many of these teams just do not have the capacity, the officials or the financial resources to cope with the new layers of bureaucracy and the increase in costs that the Government’s regulator will bring. That is something I warned the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), of during Committee stage of the Football Governance Act. In that Committee and in the Chamber, I have said that football is one of England’s greatest success stories.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. Today’s statutory instrument prescribes the top five flights of the men’s English football pyramid as “specified competitions” for the purposes of the Football Governance Act, and brings them into the scope of the Government’s new regulator. Although I think we all understand and support the desire for stronger governance and transparency across football and sport more broadly, I and many others have concerns about the impact that the statutory instrument will have on smaller clubs. Last week, I spoke to the National League and some of its clubs about their 3UP campaign and their broader concerns about the state of the game. Many were concerned about their ability to comply with the new regulatory demands and paperwork that will soon be coming their way.”
“It is because of the Government’s gung-ho attitude to the burdens it is placing on the smallest clubs—I warned it would—that we will vote against the statutory instrument today. As we have set out previously, we welcome stronger tests for owners, and I am grateful to the Sports Minister’s letter to me yesterday outlining some of the steps being taken on this. We support giving fans more of a say over their clubs, but we do not support state interference in our sports or burdening them with more red tape.”
“The Football Governance Act was thought up as a way of protecting football clubs as community assets, not just businesses. We all know that these clubs are organisations that do so much more. They give young people a sense of belonging and purpose, provide an economic boost to local businesses and, most importantly, bring entire communities together. If the Government, however, make it too difficult for smaller clubs—such as Bromley FC, in my hon. Friend’s constituency—to operate, we risk losing them forever. As we know from recent memory, when a club disappears, it does not just take the team with it; it takes away an often major piece of local identity, history and pride.”
“First, it has come months into the current season, and will come into force in less than a month’s time—not the Christmas present that many lower league clubs were looking for. Secondly, and most importantly, the Government have laid the statutory instrument before us in the full knowledge that there is an ongoing investigation into the Secretary of State’s decision to appoint a Labour crony to the chairmanship of the regulator. Will the Minister tell us why the Government think it is appropriate to appoint their Labour crony to the chairmanship of the regulator while there is an ongoing investigation into the process? Will the Minister also please tell us why he thinks it is appropriate to lay the statutory instrument while that investigation is ongoing?”
“My hon. Friend is right that we should have a review of the impact on smaller clubs. He will know from his club, Bromley FC, just how difficult it is to get out of the National League and into the English Football League. Bringing these clubs into scope will make it even more difficult for teams seeking promotion—especially to the National League, and then on to the English Football League—as they go from a successful but unregulated club to a heavily regulated club at the bottom of a higher division in fewer than 60 working days. Clubs already struggling to balance the books could find themselves in breach of regulations simply because they do not have the manpower to meet sudden new obligations placed upon them. I would also like to talk about the timing of the statutory instrument.”
“I understand the hon. Gentleman’s passion as a fan of the club, and we all sympathise with the situation of Sheffield Wednesday. However, his point also highlights the fact that we must reflect on the original test of this individual and whether such tests were strong enough at the time. That is why the Opposition have said that we support strengthening ownership tests, but we need some honesty from the Government in saying that they cannot stop a bad owner from turning up any time in the future for any club.”