Early Release of Prisoners
In the wind-ups, I call the shadow Minister.
Showing every spoken contribution, including 12,868 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
- Hansard source
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
Order. I know that this is a very sensitive debate, but we do not use “you” and “yours”.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way just now; she may choose to do so in a moment.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
The right hon. Member, who has been here longer than I have, fully understands that I am not responsible for the content of the Minister’s speech. The Minister may comment, if she so wishes.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
The hon. Member has most definitely put his point on the record, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The Table Office can advise him further. No doubt those on the Treasury Bench will also have taken note.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
As I am an accountant, it will come as no surprise to Members from across the House that I take a keen interest in numbers. Unfortunately for this Government, the numbers do not make for pleasant reading. Labour Members have been busy crowning their messiah from the north—a coronation conducted with little scrutiny and even less debate—but I wonder whether they are aware that youth unemployment now stands at 16.2%, which is close to its highest level since 2015, and already above the pandemic peak. I wonder whether they know that 735,000 young people are out of work—up by 109,000 on the year. I wonder too whether they know that, for the first time since 2013, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million. Whatever is happening in the labour market is landing hardest, and first, on our young people. It is the plain, measurable consequence of decisions taken by this Government, including the introduction of higher national insurance contributions. As we have heard today, the Employment Rights Act has added costs and burdens to employers large and small. I ask Labour Members to think like an employer for a moment—not a large firm with a human resources department, but the owner of a farm, a hotel or a shop on the high street, who has to decide whether to take someone on for the first time, perhaps over the summer. Under the Act, that decision now carries real legal risk within six months, rather than two years, so the rational choice is perhaps not to take the risk at all. The farm does not hire an extra hand for the harvest, the guesthouse does not take on extra staff for the holiday season, and the high-street shop does not offer the Saturday job that may lead to a summer job and permanent employment. Let us be honest about the cost: by the Government’s top-end estimate, the Act lands over £1 billion on employers. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy and a key gateway into work for young people, yet the uncertainty has left too many high-street businesses reluctant to invest, expand or hire. These are not merely statistics to be traded across the House. Behind every percentage point and every headline figure is a young person searching for a first job, eager to build skills, gain experience and achieve independence. Too many are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded, and that aspiration is no longer valued.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I think the pace at which this was brought in has had a massive impact on businesses, particularly smaller businesses, and their ability to adapt to a changing labour market.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
Too many people are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded and aspiration is no longer valued. That is not the message we should be sending to the next generation. We owe our young people better than that. For many of us in this House, a summer job was how we first learned what work is. In my case, it was stacking shelves in a corner shop, then working behind a counter at a local café and then in a greengrocer. Each one of those jobs taught me the same lesson—the value of money and the pride that comes from earning it oneself. That is why I support the action the Opposition are taking to save the summer job. We would cut business rates for the businesses that create those first-rung jobs, not have another round of tinkering with multipliers and reliefs. We would scrap the archaic restrictions that stop young people choosing when they work, such as the outdated limits on Sunday working and the rules that bar them from working after 9 pm. A young person helping in a restaurant or a hotel is not being exploited; they are gaining experience, earning money and developing skills that employers value. We would end the culture of excessive bureaucracy that greets any employer offering a teenager their first opportunity, because every unnecessary form is yet another reason to say no. We would repeal the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act and give employers the confidence to hire again. We would give SMEs proper, simple access to a growth and skills levy, so that a seasonal job can become an apprenticeship instead of simply ending in September. I have heard what the Minister and hon. Members have said, but it is important that we give young people the dignity of a job, and a Government who are serious about work do not legislate away the very jobs our young people need. A summer job is about not just a payslip, but confidence, responsibility and resilience. This Government’s actions have limited those opportunities, so I urge the House to support our motion, and I urge Ministers to give our young people back their first chance of building a successful career.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
Will he hon. Gentleman give way?
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and highlight that I have visited and met a number of trainers in my two years as shadow Minister, as well as with the APPG. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing this important debate. No one can doubt the passion with which he speaks for British horseracing, racing more widely, and his constituents, who have raised concerns about the future of Kempton Park racecourse and the sport more broadly. Dare I say that he might have a future in commentary, given the opening of today’s debate? So watch out, Ruby Walsh! It was very impressive. Like my hon. Friend, I enjoyed the King George and seeing Harry Redknapp being the winning owner. In fact, I have enjoyed going to Kempton over the years. It means a great deal to a large number of people—not just the community immediately around the racecourse, but the wider London and south-east community, which sees Kempton Park as one of its home courses, alongside Lingfield, which is slightly closer to where I live in south-east London. I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns about the development proposals that might come forward and this Government’s weakening of green-belt protections, an issue that I have raised on several occasions as the shadow Sports Minister. We are talking today about the impact that this might have on British horseracing, but the concern is felt across all of British sport. In particular, part of the broader concern around the impact on planning protections is the future of Sport England. If we are going to continue to have great British sports, we must ensure that future and current generations have somewhere to go and watch sports, whether that is at the elite level, as we are talking about today, or the grassroots. I hope the Government listen carefully to that concern. It is not just a Department for Culture, Media and Sport issue, but a local government one. The concern is felt across this House and across a number of sports. More broadly, today’s debate is about the future of British horseracing as a whole. I enjoyed the contributions from a number of Members who I know care passionately about the sport and work very hard as part of the APPG. Horseracing is one of Britain’s greatest sporting success stories. It is woven into our national identity and remains one of our most successful global sporting exports. It is also of enormous economic importance, particularly to our rural economy. British horseracing contributes around £4.1 billion to the UK economy every year, supports more than 85,000 jobs and generates around £300 million annually in tax revenues for the Treasury. More than 500 training yards and 660 stud farms support rural communities across the country. More than 5 million racegoers attended Britain’s 59 racecourses last year, with attendances increasing by 5% year on year. The industry’s value extends far beyond those headlines, as we all know. It supports hotels, pubs, restaurants and countless small businesses across the country. It provides opportunities for people from every background, with institutions such as the National Horseracing College, which we have heard about, and the British Racing School. British breeding attracts significant international investment, and our welfare standards are rightly regarded as the best anywhere in the world. In fact, since 2000, British horseracing has invested £63 million into veterinary research, which has helped to reduce fatal injuries on the racecourse by around a third. Alongside a number of Members who have spoken, I have had the privilege of visiting some horseracing facilities across the country. As the shadow Minister with responsibility for sport and gambling, I recognise the unique relationship between horseracing and betting. Unlike almost any other sport, horseracing’s finances are fundamentally intertwined with a well-regulated betting industry. Media rights, sponsorship and the horserace betting levy contribute around £350 million every year to British horseracing. I smiled when listening to some Members argue that we should have tighter regulations on gambling but who then also complained about a reduction in funding for horseracing. For me, that position is classic—it is a certain party trying to look both ways. I do not think that most people in racing recognise that position, and we have to be honest about the trade-offs at play. We support evidence-led, proportionate regulation that protects the most vulnerable people while allowing the 22.5 million adults in Britain who bet each month to do so safely. Today, the Gambling Commission has announced that following a protracted pilot period, there will be a phased introduction of affordability checks over the course of an implementation period of an unspecified length. That has already caused huge concern. We had hoped that the Government and the Gambling Commission would reflect seriously on this issue, but unfortunately, that has not been the case. On a number of occasions, I have raised my concerns about the lack of Government oversight of the decision made by the arm’s length body, which was also raised by the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden). It seems a complete dereliction of duty from the Government, and DCMS in particular, to have allowed the Gambling Commission to go ahead without bringing the plans back to Parliament following the pilot. It is deeply concerning to me as a shadow Minister, and it is deeply offensive to this House, whose elected Members would like to scrutinise these decisions on behalf of the British public. It is disappointing that this decision has gone ahead, and there will be severe financial consequences and implications for the sport of horseracing and jobs in this country. We can look at a variety of aspects of this issue. There is an element of intrusion into the lives of people who just want to bet safely with their well-earned money in a safe environment. I think we can all see the risk of consequences. I remember a debate in this place during the last Parliament. I was one of the few Members in the room without a horse track in their constituency, or any ministerial or shadow ministerial responsibilities, but I raised the same concerns about the impact of such a policy on British horseracing. Let us consider the amount of money that is spent in a week at Cheltenham or Aintree. We could see these regulations being triggered very quickly, which would lead to more and more people being driven to the illegal black market. That should be a concern for every single Member of this House; regardless of their perspective on gambling and horseracing, that is the biggest threat to gamblers and to people suffering from addiction in this country. Because of the potential unintended consequences, we must not continue with this policy. I find it completely unacceptable for Members to stand up in this place and advocate for British horseracing and for safe, regulated gambling in this country, but then to continue to put in the way hurdles and obstacles that drive the black market in this country. Enough is enough. We have to be honest about the decisions we are making as policymakers, and we have to be honest that the Government are ducking decisions and allowing the Gambling Commission to make them without the scrutiny that there should be from this elected House. Around 120,000 horseracing bettors could face enhanced financial checks, and the majority are expected simply to refuse them, which will reduce betting turnover and cut levy income for the sport, all while moving those punters into the black market, which is growing significantly under this Government. The previous Conservative Government made it clear that these checks should only proceed if they can be delivered entirely frictionlessly, yet following the Gambling Commission’s pilot, decisions were delayed and independent analysis was not fully published. More concerningly, this policy has now been signed off for implementation without key stakeholders in horseracing and betting being able to see that vital evidence, such as NatCen’s independent review of the pilot. The Gambling Commission is now operating beyond its remit, and it must be brought to task by this House or by the Government. I hope that the Minister will agree that like other policies introduced from the gambling White Paper in 2023, this decision needs to have full and proper parliamentary scrutiny. I appreciate that the Minister and the Department are very busy with another race that is currently under way to decide who will be the future Prime Minister, as well as, perhaps, the race to be the future Member of Parliament for Clacton—I understand that has been set off while we have been in this Chamber. However, the fact that this decision has been taken unilaterally by the Gambling Commission shows a clear abdication of duty by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I believe, sadly, that DCMS has failed to grasp and deal with the necessary details in this case. The situation is quite simple. The checks being proposed have been proven by the Gambling Commission’s pilot not to be “fully frictionless”, which had been promised by Ministers in this Government as well as in the previous Government. Evidence suggests that illegal betting has expanded dramatically in recent years, as more and more burdens and taxes have been placed on the regulated market, directly resulting in significant migration away from it. I have said a number of times that I have no problem with bashing the bookies, but I want that to be done in the most traditional sense—that is, by those who have a bet on the horse that they want to win—and not by the Government continuing to drive this underground, illegal, black market trade, which we know is fuelling some very dodgy characters overseas. As we know, illegal operators pay no UK tax. They make no contribution to horseracing. They provide none of the consumer protections required of licensed operators and they create serious integrity risks for the sport. The Treasury is already estimated to be losing around £300 million annually because of this illegal activity, and that figure is only likely to increase because of punitive tax rises by this Labour Government and the introduction of these financial checks. The Government cannot claim that they have not been warned—I have spent the best part of two years warning them that this will only get worse, and I know that there are Labour Members in this House who share my concerns. If we generally want consumers to remain protected, we should encourage them to stay within the regulated market rather than unintentionally pushing them elsewhere. The horseracing industry also needs and deserves clear engagement from the Government, so I hope that the Minister will answer a number of questions, all of which are fairly straightforward. Will the Minister commit to stronger engagement with the British Horseracing Authority and the wider industry, regardless of who is in No. 10? Will she ensure that the “Anti-Gambling Commission” publishes a full update on the financial risk assessment pilot before any further decisions are made? Will she require that the Gambling Commission publishes an implementation timeline for these intrusive checks? Will she also say what steps will be taken to ensure that answers from credit reference agencies will be consistently given with results, and that there will be no discrepancies between agencies’ recommendations? Finally, will she work across Government to ensure that British horseracing continues to receive the scrutiny and support deserved by an industry that contributes billions to our economy, sustains tens of thousands of jobs and forms such an important part of British sporting heritage? I urge the Government to heed my words today and to do all they can to support British horseracing traditions.
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
I think we are beyond this “he said, she said” about what happened in previous Parliaments. The commitment from the previous Government was clear that these checks must be frictionless. The Minister also said at the time that the checks should be frictionless, but she has acknowledged in her comments that they are not completely frictionless, so why are we proceeding with something that is against what the previous Government and this Government have said is their policy?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
Why is the Minister talking about people’s skin?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Every summer, thousands of students, school leavers and young people across our country begin searching for seasonal work. For many, these jobs are much more than a payslip; they are the first step into employment and a chance to earn their own money, gain independence, develop confidence and learn the responsibilities that come with work. I know just how valuable such opportunities can be. Today’s debate is important not simply because it is about businesses, but because it is about protecting opportunity. It is about ensuring that the next generation has the chance to develop the skills, confidence and experience that will shape the rest of their lives. Seasonal jobs matter because they support people at every stage of life. From the responsibility and skills I learned in my childhood paper round to the office temping I did throughout university, my seasonal jobs helped shape my career. Those first experiences of employment have been just as valuable to my career as the more permanent roles that followed. For students across the country, such jobs help them earn money towards university or everyday living costs. They give young people confidence and experience before entering the full-time workforce, and they enable businesses to meet the increased demand that often comes with the busy summer months. However, those opportunities exist only if businesses have the confidence to recruit, and that confidence is being steadily eroded by the policies of this Labour Government. As a result, such opportunities are becoming harder and harder to find and youth unemployment is rising. Businesses across the country are facing rising costs from every direction. Employer national insurance contributions have increased, wage costs have risen significantly, employment regulations have become more complex and burdensome, and energy bills and overheads have continued to soar. Any one of those pressures would be challenging, but together they are forcing businesses to make difficult decisions. The businesses I speak to are not telling me they no longer need staff; they are telling me they simply cannot afford to employ as many people as they once could, and that has consequences far beyond their balance sheets. Across South West Hertfordshire, I have heard that message repeatedly. In Sarratt, I visited Micklefield Hall, a wonderful local events venue. It explained that the biggest barrier to employing young people today is cost. It used to happily recruit students straight from local schools, investing time in training those people with little or no experience. It even offered apprenticeships. Today, that has become much harder. As wage costs have increased, more experienced workers are being prioritised for roles that would previously have been filled by young seasonal workers, simply to keep costs down. Apprenticeships are no longer financially viable and have stopped. The manager, Tom, left me with a simple, powerful question: how can the Government expect businesses such as that to continue supporting their local community when they are spending most of their time simply trying to survive? I also spoke to the manager at Waitrose in Rickmansworth. Weekend shifts there have traditionally been filled by students, giving hundreds of young people meaningful employment and helping them to build confidence, responsibility and valuable workplace skills. The manager explained that the increases in national insurance contributions and wage costs have added millions of pounds to the company’s costs, forcing it to make significant efficiency savings across the business. For now, Waitrose has, as a large employer, managed to absorb those costs, but it raises an important question: if even businesses of that size are having to reduce costs elsewhere, what does that mean for smaller employers who simply do not have the same financial resilience? How long can the reduced amount of summer jobs that remain continue to exist? One of the biggest tourist attractions in my constituency is the Harry Potter studio tour in Leavesden, which is a major employer of young people. The business was hit with huge costs after the last-minute change to VAT resulted in refunds for a significant amount of pre-sale tickets. When such businesses are forced to absorb unexpected costs caused by the uncertainty that this Government create for them, it is our young, inexperienced people whose opportunities are at risk. At the Grove Hotel in my constituency, I was told that, disappointingly, due to the cost of hiring staff since this Government have been in office, the business has had to tighten its approach to seasonal work and has taken on longer fixed contracts over more flexible opportunities that suit students. That is again taking away even more vital first employment opportunities for young people. Another hospitality business, Anna’s Kitchen, caters events across my area and employs many young people around term time. In fact, one of my own members of staff worked there before joining my office. At just 18 years old, the skills, confidence and responsibility he developed through that job played an important role in helping him to secure employment here in Parliament. These stories are exactly why these opportunities matter. They are not simply summer jobs; they are stepping stones to successful careers. Behind every one of these examples lies the same concern. Businesses still want to employ young people—they recognise the value that young people bring, and the value that the businesses offer them—yet increasing costs are making those opportunities more difficult to provide. The consequences stretch far beyond individual businesses. When seasonal jobs disappear, young people lose valuable first experiences of work; businesses reduce their opening hours or scale back services; hospitality, tourism and retail suffer; local economies lose spending power; and, ultimately, economic growth slows. Growth happens when businesses have the confidence to invest, expand and create jobs. That is why this Government must work with businesses, not against them, and why the Conservatives would reduce the cost of employing seasonal workers by repealing large parts of the Employment Rights Act. We would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, cut the red tape that stops employers recruiting young people, and introduce our cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses. I will go back to what I said at the start: this debate is ultimately about opportunity. Our young people should not be priced out of those vital first steps into employment by the harmful policies that this Labour Government used to fund the welfare bill. Every seasonal job created is another young person gaining confidence, building skills and taking that first important step into the world of work. Those opportunities are worth protecting, and I urge the Government to recognise the damage that they are doing to the opportunity for our young people to fulfil their potential.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
Twenty-one!
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
You were overpaid!
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
A great man!
- Hansard source
Human Rights in Kashmir
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) for securing the debate, which is the second he has secured to which I have had the pleasure of responding as shadow Minister. As chair of the APPG on Sri Lanka, I know how much effort goes into running geographic APPGs, particularly those on areas where real difficulties and sensitivities need to be navigated, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work. Kashmir remains one of the most sensitive disputes, with its impacts stretching far beyond the region’s borders. It continues to have profound implications not only for the people who live in the region but for wider regional stability, as well as for the diaspora communities here in the United Kingdom that have close family and cultural ties to Kashmir. There is agreement across the House that allegations of human rights abuses should concern us all, wherever they occur. Those concerns should not be viewed through the prism of geopolitics or partisan politics, but through our shared commitment to universal human rights, the rule of law and democratic freedoms. The long-standing position of the Conservative party is clear: we have never sought to prescribe a solution to the constitutional status of Kashmir. We believe that it is for India and Pakistan to find a lasting political resolution through peaceful dialogue, taking into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Equally, however, we have consistently argued that the United Kingdom should not shy away from raising credible allegations of human rights abuses wherever they arise, and should encourage both countries to uphold their international obligations. I note that the hon. Member for Bradford East secured the debate with a firm eye on the current situation in Azad Kashmir. Reports of the use of force against protesters, internet shutdowns, arrests under anti-terrorism legislation and the intimidation of political activists are of grave concern. Human rights are universal and should be defended consistently, irrespective of which authority is responsible. Recent events have demonstrated how fragile the security situation remains. The appalling terrorist attack last year, in which 26 people were killed, was a reminder of the continuing threat posed by terrorism in the region. There can be no justification for attacks that deliberately target civilians. India has every right to defend its citizens against terrorism through lawful, reasonable and proportionate means. At the same time, all parties have a responsibility to pursue dialogue wherever possible. Against that backdrop, I have a number of questions for the Minister. First, how are the Government using their diplomatic engagement with both India and Pakistan to encourage constructive dialogue on human rights, while maintaining the UK’s long-standing position that the dispute itself should be resolved peacefully by the parties? Secondly, what discussions has the Foreign Office had with both Governments regarding allegations of arbitrary detention, restrictions on journalists and civil society organisations, and the protection of religious freedom across Kashmir? Thirdly, given that both India and Pakistan are members of the Commonwealth, what assessment has the Minister made of the role that Commonwealth institutions could play in encouraging dialogue on human rights and confidence-building measures between the countries? Fourthly, following the recent protests in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, what representations have the Government made regarding the reported use of force against demonstrators, and the importance of thorough, transparent and independent investigations into allegations of wrongdoing? Fifthly, given the terrorist attack last year and the subsequent escalation in tensions between India and Pakistan, what assessment have the Government made of the current security situation, and what steps are Ministers taking with international partners to reduce the risk of further military escalation between two nuclear-armed states? Finally, with elections in the region due to take place on 27 July, what steps are the Government taking with international partners to ensure that they are free from interference and fair for all those who seek to participate? The United Kingdom enjoys important relationships with both India and Pakistan, and those relationships should enable us to have candid conversations where necessary. Supporting dialogue, encouraging respect for human rights, condemning terrorism in all its forms and promoting regional stability are not contradictory objectives; they are mutually reinforceable. The Opposition will continue to support a balanced and principled approach—one that encourages peaceful dialogue, upholds international human rights standards and seeks lasting stability for all the people of Kashmir. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on how the Government intend to advance those objectives in the months ahead.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
In areas like Fylde, which are very dependent on tourism—I would say it is the most beautiful part of Lancashire, but I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr Speaker, so I will say it is the joint most beautiful area—the local economy is based on seasonal trends. Summer jobs are important for not just the young people who get them, but the viability of the tourism and hospitality economy as a whole. Does the shadow Minister agree that this has a wider impact on the economy that sustains areas like Lytham St Annes and other coastal towns across Britain?
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36). Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put. Question agreed to. Main Question accordingly put.
- Hansard source
Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) Order 2026
Thank you, Mr Vickers, for chairing today’s debate. For the avoidance of doubt, I want to be clear that the Opposition support the Government’s decision, and welcome what I hope is a first step to stop the proliferation of these dangerous substances. The evidence that the Government and our international partners have presented on orphines shows them to be dangerous substances that we must stop being used as quickly as possible. We must act expediently to crack down on new and dangerous substances without medical uses and stop them making their way into our society. Orphines have already been involved in at least 15 deaths since spring 2025, and I share the concerns of both the Government and the ACMD about the urgent steps needed to protect public health. In that light, the important question for the Government is: when do they expect to transition from the temporary order to a permanent measure that will offer enhanced powers to stop their use? We all recognise that a transition in leadership can cause difficulties in Ministers offering assurances, but it would be helpful if they could set out a timeline for when we might expect the change to be made. Recognising the dangers posed by this compound, we must also acknowledge the need to be agile and have robust enforcement. A presentation by the Australian Prompt Response Network in June this year, on the emerging threat of new synthetic orphines, identified 14 analogues. Although the three most frequently identified on the digital market are covered by the order, it leaves open the possibility of new substances entering the market without being controlled. The continuing evolution of these drugs means that it is necessary to identify at speed which items are entering the market before they result in further deaths. We have a responsibility to those who have died to be ready to identify any changes. As such, does the Minister know whether conversations have been held with police forces about recognising the new substances? Moreover, given the decrease in police officers, is there sufficient capacity to respond to changes? The order is necessary and comes with the support of the ACMD. We must be ready to confront the changing dangers posed by new synthetics, so I sincerely hope that the Government act fast to introduce all the measures that they have accepted.
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
Can the Minister not understand that people out there, such as my constituent Leanne Vaughan—her daughter was killed by a hooligan driver, and she had to wait 28 months before he was sentenced to 66 months in prison, but then was released after 21 months—do not believe what he is saying? It is appalling. People are heartbroken by their losses, and this Government are not meeting their expectations or ours.
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
I beg to move, That this House has considered the future of British horseracing. It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I am very grateful to hon. Members for attending this debate. I will be very generous with interventions, but I hope that hon. Members will not intervene for the next 45 seconds—they will see why. “The final open ditch is fence number 14. Il Est Francais by about a length and a half. Jukebox Man in second now, being pushed along by Jango Baie in third. They’re bunching up towards the fourth from home and it’s Il Est Francais. He’s now joined by The Jukebox Man on his outside. Jango Baie right there in close third. Djelo now makes a big move round the outside and is now in fourth. Just covered up is Gaelic Warrior and Banbridge. Master Chewy on the inside. Fact To File on the outside. Still no more than four lengths split this star-studded field of eight as they make their turn for home. Three fences to go in this Ladbrokes King George and it’s now Jango Baie on the outside with The Jukebox Man, and Djelo is right there with Gaelic Warrior on the inside. Banbridge tries to go through between two horses. Fact To File was away on the outside towards the second from home. The Jukebox Man has a lead by a neck. On the inside, Gaelic Warrior. Banbridge, the reigning champion, with every chance. Jango Baie right up the inside. Still a length between the leading four of the King George. Over the final fence. Banbridge, a nose in front, Gaelic Warrior to the inside and Jukebox Man racing towards the line in a head-bobbing finish. In the centre, Jukebox Man; on the far side, Gaelic Warrior; and on the near side, Banbridge, in a classic renewal of the Ladbrokes King George.” The reason I focus on that is because I was there on Boxing day last year to watch the running of the King George. There was an audible gasp as the four in the fray came round the final bend into the straight. Members should have heard the roar. I think the whole of Spelthorne was on The Jukebox Man, owned by Harry Redknapp. When he crossed the line—it was very close—the place simply erupted. And the reason I am focusing on Kempton Park racecourse in my constituency is that it is under severe threat because, in around 2017, the Jockey Club sold an option to Barratt Redrow to make an application to flatten the racecourse and put up to 3,500 homes there. The proposal had been seen off under previous planning rules. However, hon. Members will be aware that, under the new national planning policy framework, there is an assumed yes for planning purposes if a proposed development is within 800 metres of a train station with two departures an hour in the same direction. That is despite the racecourse being on highly protected metropolitan green belt, some of it being floodplain and all of it being an internationally famous, iconic racecourse. My aim in securing this debate is to highlight the risk that this proposal could happen. It is policy, not rules, so hopefully the Minister will be so furnished as to advocate for one of our most important sporting venues—most important to horseracing in particular—when the application is submitted. Barratt Redrow told me on 20 March that it was going to put in a planning application by the end of this year. After I started campaigning vociferously for Kempton Park, it elicited a media statement from the company on Friday that it had no plans to put in a planning application during this calendar year. However, my area is undergoing local government reorganisation. On 1 April 2027, Spelthorne borough council will be no more and we will be subsumed into west Surrey and, if I have my way, south Middlesex. I can see what Barratt Redrow is going to do: it will wait until 1 April and then the planning application will go in. That will last until the end of 2028 unless there is a live planning application under consideration, in which case it gets extended for a further two years. Obviously, I am agitating locally. My residents in Spelthorne love their racecourse and have no desire to see it flattened and turned into housing so, as any Member would, I started a petition. It has received over 3,500 signatures so far. I also organised a public meeting in the Magpie pub in Lower Sunbury last week, attended by about 70 people. However, I really wanted to get a view from horseracing itself on this proposal. Although I go to Kempton Park, I do not know horseracing inside out, so I reached out to a number of people in the racing industry, and I have been blown away by the response. I wish to share with hon. Members certain aspects of that response. In doing so, I pay tribute to someone in the Public Gallery who, in my book, is racing royalty—Nicky Henderson. He has been fantastic in galvanising horseracing and the response we have received. I will start with an email I received from a chap called Richard Dunwoody: “As a steeplechase jockey, I enjoyed some of the best days of my career at Kempton Park racecourse. Two of them were when partnering with the great Desert Orchid to win the King George VI Chase in 1989 and in 1990. Hats flew in the air. The roars were deafening. As Dessie crossed the line, his ears pricked. It would be a tragedy to lose this racecourse. With the introduction of all-weather racing, Kempton Park has indeed changed over the years, but the standard of racing at the course has not. Jockeys and horses of the very highest level still compete there, as we witnessed last year in the renewal of the King George. Four horses took the last fence line abreast, with Harry Redknapp’s The Jukebox Man taking the honours by the narrowest of margins.” The journalist Brough Scott wrote that it was: “As good as it gets.” And, yes, Kempton Park is indeed as good as it gets when it comes to grade 1 sporting venues. We cannot let it fall to property developers. Nicky has also garnered support from other names in racing—the list is like “Who’s Who?” From the National Hunt world, there is support from Nicky Henderson, Paul Nicholls, Dan Skelton, Willie Mullins, Ben Pauling, Jamie Snowden, Alan King and Fergal O’Brien. And from the world of the flat, there is support from John Gosden, Roger Varian, Richard Hannon, Andrew Balding, Ralph Beckett, Charlie Hills, Ed Walker and Eve Johnson Houghton, and there is support from a number of people in the racing press—for example, people probably saw Marcus Armytage’s column at the weekend. And the list goes on. The list of names boils down the reaction I have had. Here is a decent example of the wider reaction: “Sir, I am Dan Skelton, I’ve been involved in horse sports all my life and have been a National Hunt racehorse trainer for 13 years. I am currently Champion Trainer of the UK. I am writing in support of Kempton Park Racecourse remaining exactly that. KPR is an elite racing venue steeped in history, with a lot more to offer in the future. Horseracing is the second biggest spectator sport in the UK, and a major contributor to the UK economy and its culture. As an employer, British Racing takes care of a great many thousand individuals and families with specific skills, and quite obviously in more rural destinations. Any job losses in our current economy would be disastrous.”
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
My hon. Friend makes two outstanding points. The race commentary I read out is just the tip of the iceberg. Sitting underneath that, in order to produce a race, is a whole ecosystem and industry of equine specialisms, including stables, stable lads and trainers. The whole thing culminates in a race, but it supports a whole industry. He is absolutely right to say that, if we lose it, we will never get it back.
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
The hon. Member makes a very good point. I think Europe’s largest antiques fair happens at Kempton Park racecourse twice every month. I have been around it and met stallholders who travel from Germany and France. It is absolutely enormous and produces oodles of cash for the Jockey Club—I cannot understand why the Jockey Club would want to sell the family silver. How can we save our racecourses? First, everyone should be going racing. It is a bit like the local pub—use it or lose it. Secondly, we need to educate a lot of people about horseracing, so that things like planning applications are considered from a position of understanding. I am obviously doing my bit by advocating as much as possible.
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
The hon. Member reminds me that I, too, should declare that I am a member of the APPG, and that he is my chair. I received the following email from Kerry Lee: “I am writing to express my full support for your opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Kempton Park Racecourse and to thank you for securing Tuesday's debate. Kempton is far more than a racecourse. Since opening in 1878, it has become part of Britain’s sporting and cultural heritage. It is one of the country’s few truly year-round racecourses, staging over 70 fixtures annually through its all-weather track while also hosting the prestigious King George VI Chase and some of the finest jump racing in the world. It is nationally significant sporting infrastructure”. She goes on to say, to the point made by the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), that it is “an internationally recognised venue and a major economic asset that, once lost, can never be replaced. Locally, it supports jobs and generates substantial spending for hospitality, retail, transport and many other businesses, while providing valuable green space. Nationally, it underpins an industry supporting tens of thousands of jobs”, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) pointed out, “across racing, agriculture, veterinary services, transport, media, tourism, hospitality and countless rural businesses. Internationally, it strengthens Britain’s reputation as a global leader in horse racing, attracting overseas owners, investment and visitors…This debate is about far more than one racecourse. It is about protecting jobs, heritage, tourism, green space and one of the most successful global industries. Once Kempton is lost, it is lost forever”— I will continue with these quotations until Members get bored or intervene.
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
I think the hon. Member was being kind to me there, as much as anything else. I thank him for his point, and he is right. Everywhere I have lived, I have gone to the races. I used to go to Perth races; when I was in the Army, I used to go to Catterick races. The racecourse is part of the experience of a place. This is from Alan King at Barbury Castle stables: “I have run horses at Kempton Park for over 25 years, training over 100 winners. In my opinion Kempton is in the top four of British Racecourses. It is a very fair track and attracts top class horses in both National Hunt and Flat Racing. Its other huge attraction is that it produces decent going mid-winter which is the only southern track that provides this. I think it is irreplaceable.” This is from Philip and Sarah Hobbs: “As a trainer of National Hunt horses for 40 years I am very opposed to Kempton Racecourse closing down to build houses. It is the home of the King George on Boxing day as well as plenty of other important races, and is very free draining maintaining good ground in the winter. It also has a place providing plenty of opportunities for flat horses on the all-weather circuit.”
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
The hon. Member speaks with passion about animal and horse safety. I do not know a single owner, trainer or jockey, or anyone involved with horses, who does not care deeply for them. At Kempton Park, I have been struck by the extensive lengths the racecourse goes to in redesigning fences and barriers to ensure that animal welfare—horse welfare—is a very high priority. I did not see the incident the hon. Member referred to, but I take it on trust that the industry cares deeply for its animals, which are both highly prized and very expensive. This is from Martin Fetherston-Godley: “Dear Mr Jopp…As a former racehorse trainer, I am very concerned to hear that one of our premier racecourses could…be sold for redevelopment. Kempton, with its all weather track, offers valuable opportunities all year round to flat racing owners and trainers and hosts some of the most important races in the jump racing calendar. With its proximity to London and its good transport links it is also a highly valued local amenity. I would like to add my voice and support to preserving Kempton Park’s status as a racecourse.” I would not like hon. Members to think that I was in any way scraping the barrel by now. Mr Russell Grant—he was not in horseracing, but I believe he is the nation’s favourite astrologer—said: “Good morning…Someone has just told me that” you are “leading a campaign regarding the proposed development of Kempton Park. Is this true they want to build over the racecourse? Do let me know if I can help. Kempton Park is one of the four jewels in the Middlesex sporting crown.” Another email states: “Good afternoon Lincoln, I have read the article in the Racing Post today regarding the application that Barratt Redrow intend to make for Planning Consent on the land at Kempton Racecourse. With the closure of Chelmsford, the importance of retaining Kempton as a dual purpose racecourse providing owners with All Weather racing all year round and National Hunt racing during the winter, within easy access of Central London, has become even more important. I have horses in training in Lambourn for both the Flat and National Hunt, where for the latter Kempton is probably the best drained and fairest course in the United Kingdom, rarely impacted by adverse weather. I understand the house builder’s option to purchase the course expires in 2028, which suggests that it is likely to be exercised within the next year. The Council should resist any Consent which would mean that Kempton Park has to close for racing as it is not only Green Belt, but also a course supported by all owners and trainers, providing employment for many”. I am not going to continue with these quotations—I think the Minister and hon. Members have got the message. I was really surprised when I reached out to horseracing, because I thought it would speak with 50 or 60 different voices, but the whole of horseracing—with the exception of the Jockey Club—appears totally united by the notion that we must save Kempton Park racecourse from development. The Minister may be concerned that I am being a nimby, but I can reassure her that if she wants to build homes in Spelthorne, I can show her other places that are not on iconic racecourses, green belt and partial floodplain. I hope I have given her enough political ammunition so that she can go away, make some inquiries and ensure that if this planning application ever sees the light of day, strong signals could be sent to Barratt Redrow about its ultimate lack of success. If it wants housing in Spelthorne, I can direct it elsewhere.
- Hansard source
Future of British Horseracing
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), the hon. Members for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Ely and East Cambridgeshire (Charlotte Cane), as well as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and our own resident expert, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French). I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. I took great note of what she said, and I hope they were also listening to it in the boardroom of Barratt Redrow. I look forward to rereading her words tomorrow, because they told a very large story. I also thank all of racing who have come in behind this campaign to save Kempton Park racecourse and the members of the public, including my own residents, a number of whom have come up here today, and those from racing more widely. I hope that racing is reassured that the expert voices that have been given airtime today show that there are some very fierce advocates for horseracing, and we look forward to it having a bright future. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the future of British horseracing.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.
- Hansard source
Topical Questions
The cost of heating oil remains a major concern for many residents in the Borders, particularly as families plan for the autumn and winter. The Government promised to cut energy bills by £300, yet since they took office, bills have risen by £300. What more will the Government do to support households in rural communities who rely on heating oil to keep warm?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
Will the Minister give way?
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
I recognise that the Minister wants to come to what the Government are going to do, but does he not accept that the decisions already made in the last two years—with respect to the price of employment and the national living wage, the cost of employment with regard to legislation, and business rates—have depressed the appetite of many small businesses to employ more people? Regardless of the strategic changes around the Milburn review, which I accept need to be evidence based, those decisions have had a chilling effect on the capacity of the economy to employ young people.
- Hansard source
Summer Jobs
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In responding to me, the Minister pointed out that it was necessary to increase the national living wage so that everyone had enough money, which is obviously a reasonable point to make. Does my hon. Friend feel that the pace at which that was done—it increased faster than the rate of inflation—has caused a situation in which some young people will no longer have the jobs that they could have otherwise expected?
- Hansard source
Early Release of Prisoners
The Scottish Government famously take no lessons from anyone, but perhaps in sentencing we might learn something from them, because they are in the grip of soft-touch-justice fever. There is a warning from Scotland about rapists and sex offenders, because rapists there will be set free more than two years early under the latest expansion of that soft-touch-justice approach, as the Scottish Government fail to grip the prison places crisis. The average jail time served by people who are guilty of rape will be reduced by more than two years and four months as a result of Scottish National party proposals to automatically release long-term prisoners after only two thirds of their sentence. Rape Crisis Scotland chief executive Alev Taylor said: “Organisations like ours have fought hard to maintain the exemption of rape and sexual offenders from early release schemes, both to ensure the safety of survivors and to maintain overall confidence in the justice system.” What a searing indictment, from someone who has seen the aftermath of one of the most awful crimes that can be committed: the violation of a person’s body, which leaves physical scars and lifelong mental scars. I have visited HMP Dumfries, where the SNP’s former chief executive Peter Murrell, estranged husband of ex-First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, is beginning a five-year-and-three-month sentence for embezzling £400,000 from his party and, it is suspected, from the public purse. I do not envy him, despite headlines about the jail being “cushy”. The staff there struggle with a lack of resources in a Victorian-era prison ill-suited to the modern world. Governor Andrew Hunstone made it clear to me that the loss of liberty is a genuine and serious punishment in itself, and that is the core point of justice. Loss of liberty is what serious criminals rightly face. The public know that simple truth, and legislators should not be lily-livered about it. Politicians salami-slicing sentences is a betrayal. It is a betrayal first and foremost of victims. It is a signal of, “Yes, you have suffered, but we politicians are awfully fixated on prison numbers.” It is a betrayal of the police who work so diligently and so hard to bring criminals to justice. It is a betrayal of the courts themselves, as it ties the hands of those who pass sentences, effectively neutering them. It is also a betrayal of the public, because justice delayed is justice denied, but so too is justice watered down. Today we televise sentencing hearings while simultaneously pulling the wool over the public’s eyes, because what may sound like a hefty sentence is automatically subject to a craven rolling back or to early release. I am all for rehabilitation, and I am all for helping people who have served prison time getting back into society, but we must all be about the victims. Our constituents want custodial sentences to be real, not illusions. The public know that custodial sentences are about punishment, not revenge. They also know the deterrent effect. Legislators who are too queasy to accept that should get out of the way. A well-regulated and just society must have prisons, no matter how many so-called progressive politicians would will them away. Prison works. We should use it, and sentences should be served in full.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)
My hon. Friend is making a comprehensive speech and getting to the nub of all the relevant points. He talks about the system failing; to me, that is the absolute nub. The CQC is absolutely part of the system and of the establishment. If anyone is put off from making a complaint to the CQC when they think the CQC may be to blame, how on earth can the functions currently exercised by HSSIB continue in any effective way?
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. The issues relating to clause 59, principally the abolition of HSSIB, have been well articulated, not least by my colleagues on this side. I wish to add some of my own views too. The debate has been framed as a transfer of the functions of HSSIB to the CQC, and indeed that is the title of the clause. The Minister has certainly articulated her arguments in that way. Effectively, it is the abolition of HSSIB. In fact, clause 59(1) plainly says: “The Health Services Safety Investigations Body is abolished.” Its functions may be transferred, but that is quite a significant change, and I do not want that to be lost within the context of this debate. At the heart of it is this idea around investigatory and regulatory functions. While the argument remains technical—and it is of course easier for the Government and indeed Dr Dash to make the arguments to abolish HSSIB in the abstract—when we talk about the real-life implications and how real people react to different circumstances, it is plainly very significant and negative. That is particularly true when it comes to investigating where things went wrong and when the system is at least in question and could be at fault. When there are things that need airing that people are afraid to air, confidence in the new framework is essential. Regardless of the systems, processes or protocols that the Government may wish to put in place to ensure that the safe space concept continues to exist, who on earth, if they are worried about making disclosures, will be satisfied and confident that those in the CQC, who may themselves be at fault, will not learn about a disclosure to the arm of the CQC that is empowered and entrusted with investigating the problem? An independent organisation, which HSSIB currently is, provides not just technical confidence but genuine confidence that people can speak freely on matters that may well be extremely unhelpful to their employer or the CQC—the national regulator itself. As the hon. Member for North Shropshire noted about the Shrewsbury and Telford situation, it developed while the CQC gave a good rating. It may be that the CQC was fair in doing that, but it does not look good in the eyes of the public, and it will be a consideration for individuals seeking to make disclosures to an investigation. What will the public think?
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)
My hon. Friend leads me to a point I was going to make later, but I will make it now. He is absolutely right: the CQC has not had a lot of good press and does not instil a high degree of confidence in professionals and the public. That is a very real issue. The Minister and, I think, Dr Dash have said that the transfer of powers from HSSIB to the CQC will not happen until it is in a better place, and that is all very well, but these changes are intended to last for a long time—indefinitely, presumably. To merely wait until an organisation is in a better place to transfer those powers, and to expect that organisation to remain in a better place in perpetuity, is wishful thinking. The CQC has had leadership issues. We all hope and I am sure that the leadership will be in a better place in the near future, but if an organisation can be in such a bad place because of a failure of leadership, those circumstances can return in the future. Of course, it might be leadership failings within the regulator that HSSIB is asked to investigate. Again, if its functions are delivered by a regulatory organisation with leadership failings, there will be no confidence whatever that a truly independent and meaningful investigation can take place. Let us not forget that the public are somewhat jaded by investigations, inquiries and reports—justifiably so. They clearly have a valuable function, but their function is far more valuable if there is confidence in them. If a powerful organisation such as the CQC—the regulator—can effectively mark its own homework, that does nothing to help the reputation of investigations and inquiries with the public. I suspect that the problem with them in the public’s mind is that it always looks a little bit like the establishment is looking at itself and coming up with an argument it can then justify. There is a perception that that does not lead to meaningful change. With this Bill, we will create an environment where that perception is even stronger.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Twelfth sitting)
It is, of course. I have been focusing on public perception, and my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that that is only one part of it—an important part of it. Probably, the most important part is what actually happens, and that requires the NHS to learn and improve, which is very unlikely to be improved by this proposal.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
The shadow Minister is absolutely right. Perception is a problem, but the reality on the ground is perhaps an even greater problem. Both are issues here with what the Government plan. There could be a reason why this merger, or the abolition of the Health Services Safety Investigations Body, needs to happen, but we have not seen that compelling argument. We have seen some attempts at justification, but they seem to be incredibly thin—and that is being generous. The principal argument seems to be that there is a busy and confusing landscape when it comes to investigatory and regulatory bodies. The figure Dr Dash put forward was something like 150 different organisations; she was asked to review just six of those. Even if she were to have abolished all six, it clearly does nothing to reduce the busy and confusing landscape. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon made that point well. A busy and confusing regulatory landscape should not be a justification for getting rid of an essential investigatory body and disincentivising the investigation process and whistleblowing and disclosures, by tying it up with the regulator, which itself may be at fault. Streamlining and dealing with a busy and confusing landscape are objectively good reasons to do something, but not this. That is the central point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon referred to, the question was put to Dr Dash, the author of the recommendations, when she gave evidence: what happens if there is a problem with the Care Quality Commission once HSSIB has become part of it? I think we rightly expected a fairly clear answer on that. The answer was a rhetorical response: “‘What happens if the problem is this organisation or that one?’”––[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 8, Q9.] That was the response from Dr Dash. But we are not talking about whether there is a problem with this organisation or that one; we are talking about the CQC, the organisation that HSSIB will become. If there is a problem with another organisation, HSSIB can investigate it; if there is a problem with the CQC now, HSSIB can investigate it; but when HSSIB becomes the CQC, there will plainly be a problem with investigating the CQC. When that question was put to the author of the report on whom the Government are relying, no answer was provided. The reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon was a rhetorical question. I urge the Minister to reflect. There is a major issue here that has not been addressed. Until she, or those on whom she relies, can articulate the answer, I urge her to delay these proposals.
- Hansard source
Health Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Will the Minister give way?