High Street Shops: Illicit Activity

Debate between Alex Ballinger and Jim Dickson

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. Local authority trading standards were underfunded and under-resourced by between 30% and 40%, according to some estimates, during the 14 years of Conservative government. Local authorities and the police need resources to tackle this crime.

I will give some good statistics. The National Crime Agency’s Operation Machinize has led to 3,000 premises being raided and close to 1,000 arrests. The £30 million that the Government are investing in tougher enforcement with the new high street organised crime unit is also welcome.

There are many issues that enable these shops to operate, so it is important that all agencies work together: the Home Office, trading standards, the NCA, HMRC, immigration enforcement and local police. Immigration enforcement is important because, as has been mentioned before, we see evidence that asylum seekers are being employed and exploited in these shops. They are sometimes being paid only £4 an hour, which is completely unacceptable.

The new unit gives me real hope that we can achieve co-ordination, and that organised crime groups will not fall through the gaps between agencies and will face the full force of the law. We have talked about resources. Seventy-five new police officers have been recruited, and there are extra resources for customs and trading standards to prioritise the work. The tougher enforcement standards, including the doubling of closure orders to 12 months, are vital for this work.

When tackling serious organised crime, the National Crime Agency employs the 4P approach: pursue, prevent, prepare and protect. The Government have taken positive steps to enable the authorities to pursue offenders, with more co-ordination, resources and tougher enforcement. There is scope to do more to prevent the opportunities for these dodgy businesses to open in the first place. There is a good example in the Netherlands, where the Bibob Act allows public authorities to conduct integrity checks on individuals and businesses before granting licences and permits.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech on an important issue. As he will know, the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 recently came on to the statute book, which I hugely support as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. There is a licensing scheme under that Act, enabling local authorities to have more control over shops that sell products such as tobacco and vapes. There will be a clear method to facilitate the reduction of those shops on our high streets. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important for the Department of Health and Social Care to get on with the consultation on that licensing scheme as soon as possible?

[Alex Ballinger]

I agree that it sounds like a very helpful proposal. On the subject of permits and businesses, there is much more the Government can do to restrict the permitting of high street bookmakers, which many Members have spoken about.

In the Netherlands, public authorities are allowed to conduct integrity checks on individuals and businesses before granting licences and permits, and local authorities have the power to refuse applications if they think there is a serious risk that a permit could be used for criminal activities. I can see the benefit of that, as the police or other intelligence agencies could advise whether individuals are linked to organised crime, or whether it is reasonable to assume that 12 mini-markets and vape shops in one small town centre are operating legitimately.

Gambling Harms

Debate between Alex Ballinger and Jim Dickson

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger]

I am delighted that the right hon. Member raises this important point, and I agree with him wholeheartedly; I will come on to the levy in a moment.

The public, too, are concerned about gambling advertising, with opinion polls consistently showing most people in the UK want a clampdown. As we have heard, we fall well behind other countries, with the Netherlands, Italy and Spain all having almost full bans on gambling advertising and sponsorship. We can clearly see that the boom in online gambling and huge rise in advertising and marketing is leading to an increase in gambling harms.

That leads me on to the legislation, which is in urgent need of an update. The last time primary gambling legislation was put forward was the Gambling Act 2005, which established the Gambling Commission, with the primary aims of preventing gambling from being a source of crime or disorder, ensuring that it was conducted fairly and openly, and protecting children and vulnerable people from being harmed or exploited by gambling companies. The Act was delivered before the rise of online gambling and before smartphones even existed; it is an analogue Act in a digital age and has long been in need of an update.

However, I was pleased to see the statutory levy introduced last week by the Government, which will generate £100 million from gambling operators to fund the research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms —without a doubt, an important step in ensuring that the industry begins to pay for the harm it causes. While the changes to the levy are welcome, however, we lack clarity on where the money raised through the levy will go on prevention. It is important that prevention commissioning is undertaken independently of the gambling industry. We cannot expect people to access services commissioned by the industry that they have been harmed or exploited by.

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has just spoken about the levy, which is a big step forward. Does he agree that prevention needs to focus on people who are at immediate risk but also, more widely, on our education system and services for young people?

[Alex Ballinger]

Yes, I agree that it is important that prevention should work across the piece, but I think it is more important to reduce the ubiquity of advertising that our young people are exposed to. They do not need to learn too young about gambling, and prevention should take that into account.

As I said, the changes to the levy are welcome, but we lack clarity on where the money that is raised will go with regard to prevention. It is important that the prevention commissioner be from the Department of Health and Social Care, given the synergy between the role and the Department’s current expertise in the delivery of similar services.

The introduction of the levy is a good first step, but it is just that—a first step. Two decades on from the Gambling Act, further action is needed to protect individuals and families from harm. I am thinking of the families of Ben and Jack and the thousands of others who have lost someone to gambling-related suicide, as well as the more than 1 million people who are experiencing gambling harms right now.

I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform, working with Members from both sides of the House to minimise the harms from gambling—I am pleased to see so many of them present. I will highlight to the Minister some of the proposals on which the group has been working.

I ask the Minister to continue to monitor and regularly review the statutory levy on gambling operators. As I mentioned, it is important that the levy should commission preventive work independent of the gambling industry. I ask that mandatory affordability checks be implemented, which would help to prevent individuals from gambling beyond their means by identifying those at risk of financial harm and providing timely interventions.

I ask the Minister to commit to properly investigating every gambling-related suicide. Families such as Ben’s and Jack’s deserve each of these tragedies to be fully examined to understand the underlying causes and to develop better strategies for prevention. I would encourage the introduction of a gambling ombudsman to deal with disputes and provide appropriate redress where a customer suffered harm due to the operator’s social responsibility failure.

I would strongly push for greater restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and inducements. We need to stop the practices that encourage children to gamble and that create unavoidable risks for the more than 1 million adults who are already suffering harms from gambling. Many of these challenges can be addressed by reviewing the 2005 Act in the light of the huge technological developments that have happened over the last two decades. That would allow us to follow through on the Labour party’s manifesto commitment to reduce gambling harms.