Feryal Clark MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  I totally agree with my hon. Friend. When a failure in water infrastructure can disrupt NHS treatment, we are no longer talking simply about poor customer service; we are talking about critical national infrastructure. What made this incident particularly unacceptable was not simply the fact that a pipe burst—we all know that infrastructure can fail—but what happened afterwards. My constituents faced conflicting information about whether their water would return, and they struggled to contact Thames Water. Bottled water stations were located in places that were extremely difficult for elderly and disabled residents to reach without a car. When I raised that issue with Thames Water, this was its extraordinary response: “It’s not uncommon for us to set up bottled water stations in the London area without considering residents without a vehicle.” Think about that: an essential utility provider responding to an emergency affecting thousands of people admits that it does not routinely consider whether vulnerable customers can actually reach the emergency water it provides. If an essential service fails, surely the absolute minimum people should expect is to be told what has happened, what they should do, where they can get help and when the service should be fixed. This experience inevitably raises a much bigger question: who is our water industry ultimately being run for? I welcome the Government’s determination to strengthen regulation, but we should also ask whether regulation alone can solve the problem.

• 14 Sept 2026 · Water Sector: Public Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the 208,000 people who signed the petition. For many of my constituents, this debate could hardly be more timely. Last month, a burst water main on Bramley Road left thousands of households across Enfield North without water, or experiencing low pressure for many days. Around 4,500 properties were affected. Thames Water’s own planning identified almost 3,000 priority services register customers in affected areas, and 24 tankers were deployed. However, those figures alone cannot describe the complete misery caused for my constituents. One told me: “I’ve been a resident in Lavender Hill for 27 years and I’ve never had to endure the incident that I am currently facing. I live in flats and have had NO water for over 3 days.” Many others described the distressing impact on the most basic aspects of everyday life, including cooking, drinking, washing and sanitation. In response, I managed to persuade the local Morrisons store to make its industrial washing machines and dryers available free of charge, and I am really grateful to it for that. Let us be clear: this was not just an inconvenience; for many, it was a crisis. The disruption even reached Chase Farm hospital, where operating theatres lost their water supply, forcing operations to be cancelled for two days while emergency tankers were brought in.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  3. What plans she has to work with local leaders on improving bus services.

• 16 Jul 2026 · Bus Services · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. Our world-class bus drivers are the backbone of London’s bus service but have borne the brunt of the extreme heat that the city has been experiencing. The Mayor of London is working with bus operators and Unite the union to convene a heat taskforce to protect drivers and keep London’s bus network running safely. Will the Minister join me in commending this work, and does he agree that we must prioritise tackling the impact of climate change to ensure that our transport system runs smoothly?

• 15 Jun 2026 · Social Media Ban for Under-16s · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Secretary of State’s actions to protect children from online harm, especially the harms-based approach she is taking. I have heard evidence from educational digital content creators, whose resources are a lifeline for young people. Will she commit to look at exemptions to ensure that teens over 13 do not lose access to long-form educational resources?

• 20 May 2026 · Banking Hubs · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister to her place. My constituency was one of the lucky ones that was awarded a banking hub two years ago, and I worked with Cash Access UK to secure a temporary place in the council library. Two years on, it has failed to secure an accessible permanent site and is refusing to engage with me. Will the review also look into the delivery of commitments by Cash Access UK?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  One of the issues that set Labour apart from other parties is the sheer number of new jobs we are creating in priority areas such as tech, defence and our green industries in constituencies such as mine, Enfield North, as well as across Wales and the rest of the UK. Can the Secretary of State update the House on the new jobs being created in Wales and the opportunities that will provide for every family?

• 22 Apr 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to help create new jobs in Wales.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement. Could he update the House on the proposed legislation to remove peerages from disgraced peers such as Peter Mandelson, who has fallen so far below what is expected of those serving in the House of Lords?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Pride in Place: Community Spaces · Hansard source

  More

  10. What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of Pride in Place funding on community spaces.

• 13 Apr 2026 · Pride in Place: Community Spaces · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Enfield Wash in my constituency last week. After 14 years of Conservative cuts, Enfield lost around 60% of its funding, hitting vital services such as adult social care, youth services and our high street. Despite the cuts, Enfield Labour council has worked tirelessly to protect residents and support the most vulnerable. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me and our brilliant Labour council leader Ergin Erbil—

• 17 Mar 2026 · Immigration Reforms · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures are so sweeping that it is not just asylum seekers who are caught by them, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum) mentioned, those who arrived under the ECAA route, also known as the Ankara agreement? They came to this country and set up businesses, they pay taxes, contribute to the country and have set up their lives here, and now, at just the time that they were about to apply for ILR, they are caught by these measures. Does he agree that transitional protections need to be announced as a matter of urgency?

• 28 Jan 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Violence is again escalating in north-east Syria—Rojava. A humanitarian crisis is unfolding and the city of Kobane is under siege yet again. The Kurdish communities who fought and helped defeat ISIS feel abandoned by their western allies. Will the Deputy Prime Minister commit to working with our allies to hold the Syrian regime to the March 2025 agreement by securing protection for Kurdish civilians, pushing for a meaningful and immediate ceasefire, opening humanitarian corridors into Kobane and supporting constitutional recognition for Kurdish regions?

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this incredibly important debate on the removal of the so-called “aim to permit” rule, and on giving local authorities stronger powers to protect their communities from gambling harm. The harms of gambling are evident and were well set out by my hon. Friend. Gambling addiction means missed birthdays, unpaid bills, broken relationships, families torn apart and lives quietly falling to piece behind closed doors, while communities deal with the consequences. At the heart of this debate lies a simple but fundamental question: who should decide what happens on our high streets—local communities and their elected representatives, or gambling companies pursuing huge commercial gain? Right now, the answer is not local communities. Under the Gambling Act, councils are legally required to err on the side of approval when considering applications for betting shops and 24-hour slot machine venues, even when there is clear local opposition, an area is already saturated or harm is obvious. That is not localism, it is not prevention and it is certainly not protection. If councils do not follow that instruction to err on the side of approval, they face legal challenge, costly appeals and the threat of court costs—that money should be spent on local services, not on defending the indefensible. Residents of my Enfield North constituency have watched their high streets change not because of community demand, but because the law makes it almost impossible for councils to say no to new gambling premises. There are now 30 gambling premises across my constituency. Such venues are designed to drain more deprived communities, and the law still forces councils to approve them. That is indefensible, and the Government must act to end it now. Even if an area already has multiple betting shops or adult gaming centres, and even if constituents object and harm is well documented, councils are still legally pushed towards approval. The “aim to permit” rule is an outdated rule that stacks the deck in favour of gambling companies, as it tells councils to say yes to new gambling premises even when they have serious concerns. The result is predictable. In Enfield North, as in many London boroughs, gambling venues cluster in our most deprived areas, not our most affluent ones. Reports tell us that a third of adult gaming centres are in the poorest 10% of neighbourhoods, but Enfield residents do not need a report to tell them that; they see it every day on their high streets. They are often located close to bus hubs, shopping parades and areas of high footfall from people already under financial pressure. Many operate long hours, and many more are operating around the clock 24/7, relentlessly feeding addiction. My constituents tell me the same thing again and again. They say, “We object, but it makes no difference—the council says its hands are tied. We object, we organise, we lose.” They are right and the situation is wrong. Councillors across Enfield North want to protect their communities, but the law does not give them the tools. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said, change is needed not to ban gambling, close existing premises or stop people from placing a bet, but to restore balance and local control. We need to remove the automatic legal bias in favour of gambling operators and allow councils such as Enfield to make decisions based on evidence, community impact and local need, rather than a law that loads the dice against local communities. The money leaves the community, but the harm does not; it shows up as debt, it shows up as mental ill health and it shows up as pressure on our NHS—and tragically, as we have heard, in lives lost. The Government have acknowledged the problem, which is of course incredibly welcome, but with the “aim to permit” rule remaining in place, councils are being told to say yes by default. We must trust local democracy and empower councils such as Enfield to act before harm escalates and put people and communities before profit. Our high streets should serve the people who live around them, not exploit them. The law is broken, the balance is wrong, and the time for change is now.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank both Opposition spokespeople, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, for their very positive approach and their comments on the SI. I also thank the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for his contribution. The Government appreciate the wealth of knowledge that the House brings to debates on online safety. Members made a vital contribution to the Online Safety Act during its passage, and they continue to dedicate their time and expertise to ensure that the Act is implemented to its full potential. Today, many of Ofcom’s powers are in effect and platforms are now legally required to protect children from harmful content. This includes rolling out highly effective age assurance to tackle pornography and content relating to suicide and self-harm, and eating disorders. The instrument will bring us one step closer to a fully implemented online safety regime by ensuring that companies raising revenue from online services cover the costs of regulation, not the taxpayers, and that those companies take responsibility for keeping children safe online. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot asked about similarities with GDPR. I was not around when the legislation went through, so I shall have look into that and get back to him in writing. I will take no more of the Committee’s time. I hope the Committee agrees with me on the importance of introducing regulation to implement the fee regime. Question put and agreed to.

• 2 Sept 2025 · Draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Act 2023 (Qualifying Worldwide Revenue) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I will first give a very brief background to why the Government are laying this statutory instrument. As the Online Safety Act sets out, Ofcom may make regulations setting out how the qualifying worldwide revenue of a provider of a regulated service is to be determined, and the corresponding qualifying periods. The Act requires that Ofcom sends a draft to the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology; the Secretary of State’s role is limited to laying the draft before Parliament. As such, the Secretary of State laid these regulations before Parliament on 26 June. The draft regulations are a critical component of establishing the fee regime whereby providers of regulated services pay a fee to Ofcom to fund the costs of online safety regulation. They are also an integral part of informing a penalties regime that will act as a suitable deterrent to non-compliance. The qualifying period for calculating the QWR is defined as the calendar year two years prior to the fee-charging year. For example, for the 2026-27 charging year, the qualifying period will be 1 January to 31 December 2024. Under the Act, non-compliant providers may be subject to penalties of up to £18 million or 10% of their QWR, whichever is higher. The Government are committed to a fee regime that ensures that the burden of paying for online safety regulation falls not on the taxpayer, but on the providers in scope of the Act—a principle that was discussed in great detail and that received cross-party support during the passage of the legislation through Parliament. In a policy statement that was published on 26 June and was informed by a public consultation, Ofcom recommended to the Secretary of State a qualifying revenue threshold of £250 million, saying that this “strikes the right balance between proportionality and workability, spreads the fee burden across a range of providers and serves the objective of limiting the impact on SMEs.” The Secretary of State will consider that advice carefully and set the final threshold in a separate SI later this year. The Secretary of State will also consider any exemptions to the fee paying, as recommended by Ofcom. Ofcom will then set out its final policy decision and a statement of charging principles, and publish final guidance to providers. It intends to begin invoicing providers for fees in 2026-27. The Act gives Ofcom, as the independent regulator, the responsibility for drafting these regulations. The Government are committed to establishing a fee regime to ensure that the cost of online safety regulation is borne by the companies that receive revenue from the regulated online services. These regulations are fundamental to allowing Ofcom to do that. If approved today, they will come into force later this year. With that, I commend the draft regulations to the Committee.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. The regulations, which are necessary for the super-complaints regime to take effect, were laid before Parliament on 9 June. They will enable the super-complaints regime by establishing the eligibility criteria that entities must meet to submit a super-complaint, and by setting out procedural matters relating to the assessment of super-complaints. Super-complaints are an integral part of the complaint handling, reporting and redress mechanisms in the Online Safety Act 2023. They enable eligible entities with expertise in online safety matters, such as civil society groups, to raise systemic issues with Ofcom, which is the Act’s independent regulator. Section 169 of the Act establishes the scope of issues that super-complaints may address, including where the features and/or conduct of regulated services may be causing significant harm, adversely affecting freedom of expression, or otherwise adversely impacting users, members of the public, or particular groups. We expect super-complaints typically to deal with cross-platform systemic issues, but a complaint may cover a single service if the complaint is particularly important, or it impacts a large number of users or members of the public. This statutory instrument sets out several eligibility criteria that an entity must meet to submit a complaint to Ofcom. For example, entities must represent the interests of users of regulated services, members of the public, or a particular group of users or members of the public. They must remain independent from regulated services in terms of funding, but representation from the services in entities’ governance is allowed, provided that appropriate mechanisms are in place to maintain independence. They must contribute as experts to public discussions of online safety matters, and be capable of being relied on to have due regard to any guidance published by Ofcom. These criteria aim to ensure that a wide range of entities are eligible while safeguarding the integrity of the process and reducing the risk of vexatious complaints. In addition to the eligibility criteria, the SI sets out the process and timeline for the assessment of super-complaints. First, Ofcom must determine whether an entity is eligible within 30 days; it must then inform the entity whether it is eligible and explain why. The time for assessing eligibility decreases to 15 days for entities that have been found to be eligible within the past five years. In those circumstances, entities must submit information to show that they are still experts that contribute significantly to the public discussion of online safety. The draft regulations also state that eligible entities must present current, objective and relevant evidence to support their view that one of the grounds in section 169 of the Act is met. When assessing the admissibility of the complaint, as well as its substance, Ofcom must typically respond within 90 days of the eligibility determination. That means that, as standard, the entire super-complaint process will conclude within 120 days, or 105 days where there is retained eligibility status. Ofcom may stop the clock in certain circumstances, such as if additional information is required and the complaint cannot be progressed without it, but it may stop the clock only for the amount of time that it takes to receive the requested information. Where Ofcom has determined that an entity is eligible, it must consider the complaint and evaluate the evidence presented to it. In addition, Ofcom can request further input from the complainant or third parties, as required. At the end of the process, it must publish a response including its determination on the matter, which may include what further action, if any, is anticipated. In developing these regulations, the Government have consulted Ofcom and conducted a public consultation. We have listened closely to the views of the stakeholders and, where possible, made changes to the policy, which was consulted on under the previous Government. The changes are set out in further detail in the Government’s policy response, which was published in June. Alongside the consultation, the Government held roundtables with civil society organisations, and their views on the policy have been taken into consideration. The changes include lowering the bar for eligibility to enable new expert organisations to make complaints, and removing the requirement to notify Ofcom ahead of submitting a complaint. The online world is complicated and dynamic, with new harms emerging every day. These regulations have been drafted to ensure that the Act remains agile in addressing emerging technologies and market operators and consequent harms. They mark an important step towards a fully realised online safety regime.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Draft Online Safety Super-Complaints (Eligibility and Procedural Matters) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Minister for his remarks. This instrument will bring us one step closer to a fully implemented online safety regime, with a functioning super-complaints mechanism that allows relevant organisations to help the regulator to stay abreast of new and emerging harms. As well as the civil society organisations I mentioned, the Molly Rose Foundation was consulted during the creation of the super-complaints regime under the previous Government. The changes that have been made will reduce the burden on Ofcom and improve its ability to manage the complaints. It will also make the process easier by providing a smoother path for the relevant eligible organisations to bring forward complaints. The shadow Minister asked about resources and expertise of the regulator. The Government have ensured that Ofcom has the funding it needs to deliver the online safety regulation effectively, with £72.6 million allocated for online safety spending in 2025-26, which is an increase on previous years. That decision followed a business case process that included Ofcom submitting its requirements, including on delivering the super-complaints function. The shadow Minister will be happy to hear that later this month the child safety duties will be in force. We expect that children will see a positive change to their online experience. Services likely to be accessed by children will be required to take measures to prevent children from seeing pornography and content that promotes, encourages or provides instructions for suicide, self-harm and eating disorders. The services will also have to protect children from other types of harmful content, including violent, abusive and bullying content. Under Ofcom’s finalised child safety codes, services will need to take certain steps, including introducing robust age checks, such as photo ID matching or facial age estimation, filtering out harmful content from algorithms, and ensuring that reporting mechanisms are accessible and easier to use. As I said earlier, this is a dynamic, fast-moving and developing world. For that reason, we will continue to keep the harms under review, and constantly evaluate and review evidence of new and emerging harms. As the Secretary of State has said, we will not shy away from introducing further legislation to ensure that our children are safe online. In conclusion, I hope all Members agree on importance of these regulations, and I commend them to the Committee. Question put and agreed to.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government remain committed to ending the use of all animals, including dogs, in scientific procedures, replacing them with modern, human-relevant technologies. Our long-term goal, as set out in our 2024 manifesto commitment, is to phase out animal testing entirely. As my hon. Friend said, we will publish a detailed road map this year alongside convening roundtables with researchers, industry and animal welfare organisations to ensure that we achieve that and hit the target.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend’s constituency is indeed a hotbed of innovation. She will be delighted to know that Healthtech-1 has benefited from a range of Government support to date, including a recent Innovate UK grant.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I do indeed agree with my hon. Friend on that. Child sexual exploitation and abuse is one of the most horrendous harms, and the Government are committed to ensuring that UK law keeps pace with criminal use of technologies including AI. As he says, we have introduced a world-leading offence in the Crime and Policing Bill to criminalise AI models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material. This new offence builds on the protections in the Online Safety Act, and I am very clear that nothing is off the table when it comes to keeping our children safe.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  It was the hon. Gentleman’s party that dragged its feet in bringing forward the legislation and that watered it down. We are busy trying to implement the Act as it was set out in the guidance. While the Act is not perfect, we will see a huge step change. Where there are issues and gaps, we are not afraid to act.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his question. The implementation is happening as set out and against the timeframe that was set out. As I said, we are not only busy implementing the Act, but looking at all the gaps that exist in it because Ministers in his Government watered down the Bill as it went through the House. We will review those gaps in the legislation and come forward with extra measures where they are needed.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on children’s online safety, my hon. Friend will know that keeping children safe online is a priority for this Government. We are focused on implementing the Online Safety Act 2023 so that children can benefit from its wide reach and protection. The children’s code that is coming in next month will see a step change in the experience of children online in the UK. While we do not pretend that that is job done, and we are working at pace to develop a further online safety package, children will no longer be able to access pornography or other unsuitable content, including content that encourages or promotes self-harm, eating disorders or suicide.

• 25 Jun 2025 · Online Safety: Children · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree that some children are still stumbling upon material and content that they should not be. When the Online Safety Act is fully enacted in July, we will see a step change in what children can see online. Ofcom will monitor this and ensure that where such material is continuing, we take action.