Max Wilkinson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  In most cases, a financial loss to the individual who takes part. These people are unable to talk to their friends and family about the losses and their addiction. They are unable to seek help, despite the repeated suggestions from gambling companies that when the fun stops, people should stop gambling. The gambling companies know what we in the Chamber know: addicts cannot stop. They are not able to, no matter how many times they see a gentle nudge on a fun advert on the television. It is estimated that 48% of people in the UK regularly gamble and that the gambling market is now worth about £15 billion. But, as has been said, that is revenue, and then there is other revenue. We must be clear about where the revenue is coming from. Receipts from April to September last year total more than £1.7 billion, a 6% increase on the previous year. A study by the University of Liverpool found that over 290,000 betting accounts experience losses of over £2,000 each year. This leads directly to loss of life. Public Health England estimates that there are 400 gambling-related suicides every year: more than one a day. Every single death is a tragedy. Despite this worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow and has lagged behind the technology, the pervasive level of advertising and changing consumer habits.

• 5 Feb 2025 · Gambling Harms · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. I started by talking about the need for liberals to hold power to account. That goes for Liberal Democrats and small-l liberals, and there are many small-l liberals in the room, I am sure. We know that power does not hold itself to account. Those in positions of power, where they have the power to literally print money, will not regulate themselves. That is obvious to everyone—and, I am sure, to the Minister too. As I said, despite the worrying picture, regulatory action has been slow. Since the Gambling Act 2005, we have seen action on fixed-odds betting terminals and bans on credit card gambling to reduce harm. That is to be welcomed. The 2023 White Paper on gambling sought to modernise regulations, and the new Government increased the gambling levy. That is also welcome, but more action is urgently needed. The Liberal Democrats believe that the remote gaming duty should be raised from 21% to 42% to provide more funding for initiatives to tackle problem gambling. It is also clear that to tackle problem gambling we need more restrictions on the bombardment of gambling advertising on all of our screens. A new ombudsman must be set up to provide redress for people wronged by gambling companies, who are the victims in this discussion. Effective affordability checks must be put in place, and we must start treating gambling addiction as a public health problem. It is simply not good enough to continue under the pretence that this form of addiction does not require the sort of help and therapy provided to the sufferers of other addictions. It makes no sense. Those asks must be funded by duties on the industry, not taxpayers. The gambling industry reportedly costs the economy a net £1.4 billion per year. Organisations like GambleAware and others mentioned today have carried out important work in this sector. That should be commended. While making these changes, which are all about the stick, it is important that the heritage asset that is our horseracing sector, which I represent in Cheltenham, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas), must be given a carrot too. Our racecourses must be placed on a level playing field with their international competitors, and I know that Ministers are looking at this. We have previously discussed in this room reforms to the gambling levy to better provide support for our domestic racecourses. Could the Minister update us on her discussions on that? That is not the main point of this debate today, as I have been very clear. In conclusion, action to prevent harm to problem gamblers is long overdue. The sector requires widespread reform so that the bombardment of gambling adverts luring people into 24/7 betting cycles is ended. We cannot continue to ignore this problem that is costing our economy, splitting families and causing so much unnecessary suffering.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing the debate. Apprenticeships are a vital part of our education system, and the Liberal Democrats think there should be more of them. They break down barriers to opportunity and offer young people a chance to learn while earning through vocational placements. However, after years of Conservative failure, the system is badly struggling and is failing to attract the number of young people it should.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. An alignment of skills with the jobs need for the future is key in the apprenticeship sector. Flawed policy in the past means that there has been a clear drop-off in new apprentices in recent years. Just over 736,000 apprentices participated in an apprenticeship in the last academic year, which is a slight decrease of 2.1% on the previous reporting period. Apprenticeship starts overall have fallen by 170,000 since 2015-16, when the Conservatives started governing alone. The deal on offer is clearly not as attractive as it once was. We need to recognise that apprentices have the same rights as other employees, but experience a large pay disparity compared with other workers. The national minimum wage will be £11.44 for those aged 21 and over, but for a first-year apprentice, the rate is much lower. Young people are not immune from the cost of living crisis and the disparity between those two wages might be a disincentive. Have Ministers considered whether it is and whether it might be putting young people off from taking up apprenticeships? The Liberal Democrats would scrap the apprentice rate and instead pay apprentices more fairly. We must also reform the apprenticeship levy, which many Members have mentioned today. Employers tell us that it simply does not work and the House of Commons Library briefing shows that there are large underspends every single year. The amount of money being put aside to train young people is simply not being spent. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers says that the money is being raised for skills but not spent on skills, at a time when Governments—this one and the last—say they are keen to encourage businesses to invest in skills. The Lib Dems would replace the broken apprenticeship levy with a broader and more flexible skills and training levy. We are pleased to hear that the Government want to abolish the apprenticeship levy and replace it with a new growth and skills levy under Skills England. That is a positive step. However, it is clear that there is still work to be done in establishing the new levy and Skills England to oversee it. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on where things are with that policy. There is also a concern that careers advice systems are not being properly set up to advise people of the many opportunities in apprenticeships. If we are going to fill the skills gaps that we have discussed, alignment of careers advice with those gaps will be key. We Liberal Democrats believe that apprenticeships have a much bigger role to play. We welcome the Government’s plan for changing the system. If we get the reform right, we will help young people and employers, too. Central to that will be finally getting rid of the failed apprenticeship levy, properly valuing apprenticeships and learning from best practice like that in my constituency and that of my neighbour in Gloucester.

• 4 Feb 2025 · Apprenticeships · Hansard source

  More

  I will move on to that, and the hon. Gentleman will find that there is a pleasing consensus between my party and his. There are positive stories around, and I will highlight an example of good practice from Cheltenham. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) mentioned Gloscol, which has one of the most influential, if not the most influential, cyber-clusters outside London. The 5,000 members in CyNam work closely with academia and the education sector to build the skills that drive growth. Gloucestershire college is helping to equip the cyber-security professionals of tomorrow with the skills they need via a range of digital and cyber apprenticeships, in both Cheltenham and Gloucester. Apprentices at Gloscol benefit from being at the heart of Cheltenham’s cyber-security community, close to GCHQ and the Golden Valley development, alongside experienced professionals based in co-working spaces on site. The cyber degree apprenticeship is endorsed by the National Cyber Security Centre and is offered in partnership with the University of the West of England. It gives young people a route into a huge growth sector, helps our economy to thrive locally and nationally, and makes our nation safer too. The college is also offering courses at its new £5.2 million sustainable construction centre. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) mentioned green skills earlier. We are equipping young people with the skills needed to deliver the built environment we need for the future. Those are just two examples from Gloucestershire college, which is ably led by its visionary principal, Matthew Burgess. It is a local success story of which I and the hon. Member for Gloucester are rightly proud, and it shows that offering apprenticeships should be a much bigger priority for this country.

• 4 Feb 2025 · National Cancer Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I lost my father to lymphoma and my wife is an ovarian cancer survivor, so I warmly welcome this statement. In Gloucestershire, we are a designated regional cancer centre, but unfortunately the buildings at Cheltenham general are just not up to scratch any more. Fundraising was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), and we are in that situation. We need £17.5 million and we have £9 million to go. Will the Minister warmly congratulate the Big Space Cancer Appeal fundraisers, particularly Dr Charles Candish and Dr Sam Guglani, who are leading the charge on that? Would he like to meet those consultants to discuss how we might move this fundraising effort along so that the whole project does not rest on the back of charity?

• 4 Feb 2025 · Six Nations Rugby Championship: Viewing Access · Hansard source

  More

  We could go on for hours on that.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Vulnerable People: Work Support · Hansard source

  More

  5. What steps she is taking to support vulnerable people into work.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Vulnerable People: Work Support · Hansard source

  More

  One of my constituents is a highly educated, high-earning civil servant who has serious care needs as a result of a bad accident about 30 years ago. His needs have been assessed as health-related, which means that the NHS pays the £81,000 cost of his care. If they were reassessed as social care needs, he would be forced to exhaust his savings. Each year his disability is reassessed, and during that reassessment his ability to work is unfairly treated with suspicion. The Government say that they want to help disabled people into work, which is a good thing. My constituent is working already, but fears that a huge disincentive will appear on the horizon if his status changes. Do Ministers understand his concerns?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T8. My constituent, Charlotte Durrant, runs a plant shop called the Aroid Attic on Bath Road in Cheltenham. Before Brexit, she was able to import her plants from the Netherlands with no bureaucracy and without any import duties. Do Ministers agree that a customs union with the European Union would solve that problem? If they do not agree with that, do they agree that more needs to be done to help small and medium-sized enterprises like Charlotte’s to tackle the competition from larger supermarkets, which are her main competitors?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Sixth-form Colleges: Pay Award · Hansard source

  More

  Balcarras school in my constituency has calculated that if its funding for its sixth form had increased by just 2% over the past 15 years, it would now have more than £650,000 extra to keep its school running. The head warns me that the sector is now at breaking point. Do Ministers recognise what is going on in the sector after the years of underfunding we have had?

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes a very good point. That does sound like a potentially devastating blow to our nation. Britain has gifted the world the likes of Charles Dickens’s literature, the music of The Beatles and the best film of all time, “Paddington 2”. By amending our education system, protecting cultural spend locally, securing a fairer deal with the EU and protecting creatives from exploitation by AI, we can properly support our creative industry and ensure we continue to make a similar contribution for many years to come.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to his greatest creative output, which apparently is hitting bookshelves soon. I am afraid I cannot match that—a Jaffa Cake haiku, which was cruelly overlooked by the McVitie’s marketing department, and a local news story about gnomes being banned from the graveyard in Wrington in north Somerset are as good as I can muster. The creative industries are the lifeblood of our nation’s cultural wellbeing, and we neglect them at our peril. We must never ignore the voices of creators themselves. This weekend, many of us will have been disturbed to see the interview given by Paul McCartney about the challenge that AI poses to the creative industries and to creators. The Government are correct to pursue artificial intelligence as a route to solving problems in our public services, boosting economic growth and creating new jobs. Nobody would argue with suggestions for speeding up and improving NHS treatment, removing pointless interactions with local councils or smoothing out bureaucracy for businesses in their interactions with Government Departments. In the creative arts, however, we have a very different challenge, and the Government must not put at risk the value of human creativity. I will make no luddite arguments in this House—as the MP for the constituency that is home to the most influential cyber-cluster outside London, that would be daft. I am pro-business and pro-technology, as are the Liberal Democrats. I regard myself as a techno-optimist. Innovation is not just desirable but necessary. However, it is not an absolute, particularly when we are discussing threats to human creativity. I know that because my constituency is home not just to a cyber-cluster, but to a creative powerhouse. Cheltenham festivals bring visitors from around the world. Because we are a creative powerhouse, I receive plenty of communication from creatives in Cheltenham. Robin, a composer, told me that he could no longer advise young creatives to rely on a job in the industry, because it simply will not pay. He told me that things will get worse if the changes to copyright go through. Let us consider for a moment the ability of the human mind to compose a tear-jerking piece of music, or of the delicate human hand to paint an evocative landscape or write prose to persuade, inspire, or move the reader. That is innately human. Such creative endeavour can and does change the world. It brings us growth, and so much more besides. There is no doubt that technology has an important and positive role to play in this process, and it is already doing so. Technology and creative content must work side by side, but if original human creators are not compensated by default, we risk a future not of glorious, creative technicolour but of many shades of pale grey. Some have already warned that we risk a future of infinite pale grey, in which there is no incentive for humans to initiate any creative process whatsoever. It would be a dereliction of duty by Members of this House if they failed to engage with that risk as part of this discussion and the ongoing discussion about AI. Last week, along with other MPs, some of whom are in the Chamber this evening, I joined a meeting with a tech company and one of its social media creators. I will not name the company or the creator; that would not be fair and would not add much to the debate. We were told of the huge growth potential for creators that the online and social media world presented. We were told that creators are employing teams of people to produce their content—a big jobs boost. During the discussion, they were asked what happens to jobs growth when a creator’s work is crawled by AI to the extent that it is reproduced hundreds, thousands or even an infinite number of times. If an answer came, however, it was not comprehensive or persuasive. The mood music suggests that the Government and big tech firms favour an opt-out approach for creators, placing burdens on individual musicians, artists and writers to protect their work. I asked an expert about the potential risks of an opt-out approach and received an illuminating answer. The expert told me: “For human creators, an opt-in model generally offers stronger protection.” The first reason for that was control, as “creators retain explicit control over how their work is used by AI”. The second was compensation, as “An opt-in system could be linked to licensing agreements, allowing creators to receive compensation for the use of their work in AI training”.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  That sounds like a good idea. I think there are some really logical ways we could do this by ringfencing some assets for local value—attaching them to car parks, which are already producing revenue in local areas. There are creative ways that different local areas could do that. However, it is a concern, and I do not think that discussion on this matter has been had as part of the discussion on devolution and local government reorganisation.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Older people in care homes can benefit from such creative outlets—both from having people bring arts and culture to them, and from days out at our local cultural institutions. As some of the challenges we face are global, I will finish with a look at how other Governments are supporting their creative sectors. Since 2010, Germany, France and Finland have all increased their budgets. In the same period, the UK reduced its budget for arts and culture provision by 6%. More recently, Governments of EU nations and others around the world have begun spending more on their creative sectors, with the cultural centres of China, Russia, Portugal, France and Spain all increasing their budgets. This year, we cut the British Council budget by £12 million.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman is entirely right. I agree that the concepts of opt-out and opt-in need to be pursued at greater length. Thirdly, the expert told me that the preservation of value offered stronger protection: “By requiring explicit permission, an opt-in model helps maintain the value of original creative works.” The expert did point out two drawbacks. First, an opt-in approach has potential drawbacks in the form of an extra administrative burden on creators. Interestingly, this expert’s second listed drawback was that an opt-in model would place limits on AI’s ability to gather data for training and development, which does not seem to me like much of a drawback for creators. I asked that very same expert what would happen if creators lost their intellectual property rights to AI. The expert told me there was a risk of “a loss of income and motivation, a devaluation of creative work, ethical concerns, legal uncertainty” and, intriguingly, “domination by AI operators.” I use the word “intriguingly” because this expert seems aware of its own power—the expert was Google Gemini. At this stage, those considerations are unknowns, and there is much uncertainty. Google Gemini is pulling information produced mostly thanks to human endeavour and discussion sourced from across the internet, but the fact that this view is being presented by AI itself surely suggests there is cause for some concern. Our role as parliamentarians must be to protect the interests of humans, not big tech companies; to scrutinise the proposals of big tech companies; to avoid the luddite tendency, crucially; and to build in suitable safeguards.

• 27 Jan 2025 · Creative Industries · Hansard source

  More

  Of course. The Minister will not be surprised to hear that I will be moving on to that in a moment. If, against the will of the creative industry, the Government are to proceed with an opt-out approach—I hope they do not—it seems logical that such an approach must come with strong safeguards, which may come in the form of automatic attribution, in order to identify the creative inspiration for any work that has been crawled and reproduced. However, more importantly, we need suitable levels of compensation to be automatically awarded. In short, if the big tech companies want default access to our creators’ work, they must expect the default to be that they pay for it. Tech firms will argue that an opt-in approach, or one that places the burden on them, would place us out of step with other nations, and I accept that that might be the case. However, let us look at it from another perspective. Is the suggestion that we might give our creative industry more respect really such a terrible idea? I do not think so. Given the widespread threat to the UK’s creative industries from this and other economic circumstances, I would suggest not. Having touched on AI, I will now address a few other subjects more briefly. First, I turn to the unfashionable topic of Brexit. The previous Conservative Government’s disastrous Brexit deal excluded artistic provisions, and the effect of that is reflected in a shocking statistic: between 2017 and 2023, we suffered a 23% drop in the number of British artists touring the EU. The Liberal Democrats backed free and simple short-term travel arrangements for UK artists to perform in the European Union. Secondly, I turn to education. It is well known that changes to policy in the past decade or so have diminished arts education in state schools, with more than 40% of schools now no longer entering students for GCSE music or drama, and almost 90% not offering GCSE dance. Universities are also scaling back their arts offerings. The Liberal Democrats would restore arts subjects to the core of the curriculum, ensuring that every child has the opportunity to study music, dance, drama and the visual arts. Finally, I turn to local government. Local councils are historically the single biggest funders of culture in their areas, but their spending powers have been much reduced. There is a risk that as part of the devolution process, and as local government reorganisation happens, additional pressure will be placed on social care and children’s services. Although those things need attention, we must not allow the arts to be forced further to the fringes of public spending debates.

• 24 Jan 2025 · Climate and Nature Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman will of course also congratulate the Labour Government before 2010 and the Liberal Democrat coalition on their good work, and it is important, in the spirit of consensus, to do that. However, does he agree that one important issue that is always missing from the debate about climate is national security? If we can be self-sufficient in our energy supplies, that will be really important for our national security. We never talk about that issue in the context of climate, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman, as a Conservative, will agree.

• 23 Jan 2025 · Cyber Security · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers in this Department and in others have been generous in engaging with my repeated requests for engagement with Cheltenham’s cyber-security industry, where GCHQ and the National Cyber Security Centre are located. There is increasing evidence that having the private and public sectors co-located is important for our cyber-security sector. The Golden Valley development provides an opportunity to do that, and the Places for Growth scheme might give an opportunity for more public sector officials to be placed alongside one of our most influential cyber-clusters. Would the Minister be interested in having a meeting about that?

• 23 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing · Hansard source

  More

  Bence Builders Merchants in my constituency has been providing good local produce and good local jobs since the Earl of Aberdeen was in power. The owner, Paul Bence, fears that the combination of business property relief changes and changes to employer’s national insurance mean that there is a huge disincentive to invest further. Does the Minister share my constituent’s concern?

• 20 Jan 2025 · Obesity: Food and Diet · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my Gloucestershire neighbour for giving way. He mentioned the nanny state. As a Liberal, I believe in freedom, but there are two sides to it: freedom from and freedom to. Should not freedom from some of those representing the big, powerful vested interests in the food companies, who are not interested in our health, be at the centre of this debate?

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is entirely right. As she knows, the Bill includes a recommendation to set an industry standard, so that consumers can have confidence in what they are buying. Not only is the burden removed from homeowners and responsibility placed with developer, but the Bill creates an efficiency saving in human resources and materials. It is an entirely logical step to take. Installing solar panels on roofs while the houses are being built is at least 10% cheaper than retrofitting. There will be issues around cost, which Members might raise in interventions or in speeches, but Government estimates put the cost of mandatory solar panels on all new homes at around £5,200 per home. That sounds like a lot of money in isolation, but the average cost of a new build in the final quarter of 2024 was far in excess of £400,000, so we are talking about little more than 1% of the price of a new build home. That is next to nothing in the context of a monthly mortgage repayment, if we take the figure in raw form, and it would be offset by lower bills. This Bill would mandate that all new homes are built with solar generation technology covering the roof space—a minimum of 40% of the equivalent of the building’s ground-floor area.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his generous words. Although I accept that I will not be cracking open a beer this evening to celebrate the Bill’s passing—perhaps a bottle of Corona—this has been an important debate and it has demonstrated consensus across the House, save for the local difficulties of the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), which we should not go into again. A range of views were expressed about the energy mix. My view is that we need a mix of energy generation that includes all the things discussed today. I am pleased to hear that the matter will be up for future discussion and I look forward to working on it with the Government—particularly on the important point of applying pressure to developers in a way that gets the pragmatic outcome that we all deserve. I thank all Members for their contributions to the discussion. Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned—( Christian Wakeford. ) Debate to be resumed on Friday 11 July.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is absolutely right. He will recall that if we go back more than a decade, there was a thriving solar energy industry in this country. Sadly, we have taken steps back over the last few years when it comes to the skills pipeline. I know that issue is on this Government’s agenda, and I welcome that. On the date on which we might look at this, we hope that further education colleges will put on courses to train people up, and that there would be more industry work, too.

• 17 Jan 2025 · New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Lady speaks powerfully for her constituency, which I know has a specific issue. We mentioned housing developers, and one housing developer has put its head above the parapet to support the Bill. I am grateful for the support of Thakeham, and it is to be applauded for supporting the measure. Developers should support the Bill for sound business reasons. There is a clear market preference for homes with solar panels, and a relatively small proportion of the price will be rewarded with a decent payback, and customers want them. Politically, there is demonstrable cross-party support. In the last Parliament, 79% of Members were found to be supportive, and I suspect the percentage is higher in this new Parliament. The climate barometer tracks support for mandatory solar panels on new builds and found a clear majority of support among all parties’ voters, so doing this would place us at the centre of political gravity. Some 80% of Conservative voters, 89% of Labour voters, 92% of Liberal Democrat voters and 63% of Reform supporters responded to the survey in favour of mandatory solar panels for new build homes. Those same constituents rightly look to us to make the right and logical decisions on these matters. They back the measure because all the evidence points to clear benefits at every level, including the Government’s positive agenda on energy and climate. MCS Foundation research has found that mandatory solar panels on 1.5 million homes would be the equivalent of two additional Sizewell C nuclear power stations, which should give us all pause for thought. For a country that struggles to build infrastructure, we must not look past these easier, small-scale wins.