Horseracing

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. To get everybody in, we will start with an informal time limit, so please do not speak for more than five minutes. Keep an eye on the clock, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

Thank you, Sir Edward, for your chairmanship of today’s debate, and it is a pleasure to be able to contribute. I refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing the debate. His extraordinary constituency has Newmarket in it, and I have not been there since I was about 10 or 11, when my godfather took me to see the sales taking place—I hope I can go and relive that experience at some point soon.

I have loved horseracing since I was a child. My dad, who was a dock worker, would take me to local racecourses. I did not grow up in the countryside, but in the city of Liverpool, and he would take me to Haydock racecourse and Aintree racecourse. The first grand national I attended was won by Red Marauder, and only four horses out of 40 finished the race—Red Marauder, Smarty, Blowing Wind and Papillon.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

That is very impressive!

[Dan Carden]

The racecourse was an absolute bog filled with water, and two of those horses had to be remounted to get to the finish. The event hooked me on horseracing because it was so extraordinary.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk and I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock, and our first meeting of this Parliament was attended by well over 20 colleagues. That—along with the strong attendance at this debate on a Thursday—just shows how highly the sport is considered.

I am incredibly proud to represent the Walton constituency, which now has Aintree racecourse within it. Aintree is home to one of the greatest races in the world, which is watched by more than 600 million people globally: the grand national. The economic contribution of the grand national—the three-day race meeting—is well over £60 million for. Aintree racecourse is also a world-class sporting facility, as well as being part of the local community, maintaining strong relationships, as some hon. Members will know, with Alder Hey children’s hospital, Park Palace Ponies and some of our schools and educational establishments. There is so much more potential for racecourses in our communities to have a positive and meaningful social impact, especially in urban areas. There is the potential for young people to benefit from alternatives to the classroom when it comes to skills and apprenticeships, and there are alternative fulfilling careers. Racing can play a role in helping the Government to deliver their national mission for growth.

Whatever the challenges British horseracing faces, it will always benefit from its prestige, including its centuries-old thoroughbred history, from Eclipse to Frankel, and Ascot racecourse, which was founded in 1711. Horseracing bridges the class divide. All of us want British horseracing to thrive into the future. For those who work in the industry, it is a labour of love and dedication, and a total life commitment.

The hon. Member for West Suffolk did an excellent job of putting on record the low prize money offered in Britain, compared to countries with different funding models, so I do not need to repeat that. However, given the reported decline in betting turnover, the current system —the reliance on media rights, racecourse contributions, owners and the levy—leaves the industry looking precarious. That is a real concern for all those who rely on it, and like all those in leadership roles in the industry, we in this place also have concerns. My message to the Minister and her colleagues is that they, and we as a Labour Government, have a responsibility to be good custodians of the industry for the future.

British racing is British soft power; it creates bonds between states—not just our neighbours in France and Ireland, but Japan, Australia, the US and the Gulf states. It is one of the finest cultural and economic assets this country possesses, and it rightly has a reputation as a global leader. Will the Minister commit to being proactive in backing the industry and all those who work in it? Will she carry forward the current levy negotiations with at least the suggested increase and with some urgency? While negotiations between the Betting and Gaming Council and the BHA are resuming, we must remember that the Government set the red lines and make the decisions. Finally, could we have that independent review into the future of racing—into the funding model for racing—to ensure that, in the years ahead, we can arrive at a sustainable settlement to save and promote racing?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin]

My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that. I am a big cricket fan and effectively we have seen what big money overseas can do to the heart of a sport that originated in this country and gives us a lot of power, and we must be really careful about what we do. Obviously, we should also acknowledge that if people are pushed to the black market, there will be even fewer barriers to entry there, which might have a bad effect on problem gambling overall.

So, we are at an important crossroads for British horseracing. As bookies’ takings, which fund the levy, continue to decline, it is important that the Government’s approach to gambling respects individual liberty, and drives growth rather than limiting it. Just to expand on that—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Will the hon. Member now draw his remarks to a close?

[Jack Rankin]

Certainly, Sir Edward.

I hope the Chancellor will carefully consider introducing further punitive taxes on the gambling sector in next week’s Budget, because that would further squeeze the horseracing industry. And given that the Labour party made growth its priority, I hope that this Government will be forthright in their support of British horseracing—an industry that plays a vital role in my local economy and in generating this country’s unrivalled soft power.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I begin by referring to the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having taken part in a charity bet earlier this year and attended Donny races this time last year. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) on securing this important debate on the future of and support for horseracing. I congratulate him and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) on being elected co-chairs of the all-party group; the Department looks forward to working with them.

We have heard from hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the shadow Minister did an excellent job of listing all the places, so I will not repeat them. Instead, I will speak about the issue in broad terms before addressing some of the specific points made by the hon. Member for West Suffolk and others.

His Majesty’s Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British culture and its particular importance to the British economy. As has been rightly mentioned, it plays a central role in the livelihood of many different communities. I am well aware from my time as the shadow Minister for Gambling of the strength of support on both sides of the House for horseracing, and of the concern around its finances. In February, I took part in a Westminster Hall debate on that subject, prompted by a petition signed by more than 100,000 people. Horseracing is a powerhouse industry that supports employment across racecourses, training yards, breeding operations and related sectors, and is respected at home and abroad.

Horseracing is the second-biggest sport in the UK in terms of attendance. According to the British Horseracing Authority, racing is worth more than £4 billion annually to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure. British racing and breeding enjoy a reputation as a global leader and is promoted worldwide as part of the “GREAT Britain & Northern Ireland” campaign, recognising the cultural and economic importance of horseracing to the UK and the role it plays as a soft power asset.

I will outline the measures that the Government are taking to protect horseracing and its valuable economic and cultural contribution. I will also take this opportunity to highlight the importance of the horserace betting levy, which has been mentioned a number of times. Given the long-standing acknowledgment of the symbiotic relationship between racing and betting, racing is the only sport with a direct levy that is overseen by the Government. The levy is therefore our most direct lever for supporting the sport, but it needs to reflect the common interests of both sides of the relationship.

The Horserace Betting Levy Board collects the levy, as Members know, and applies the money raised for one or more of the following purposes: supporting breeds of horses; the advancement or encouragement of veterinary science and education; and the improvement of horseracing. The largest proportion of the levy is used to support prize money; in fact, prize money is a means of injecting funds into the wider racing ecosystem through the employment of trainers, jockeys, work riders and a whole host of people in over 500 training yards who are involved in caring for horses and putting on race days.

The ability of prize money to cover the costs of training is a key consideration for owners deciding to enter and remain in the industry. This is seen in the board’s recent announcements that it has budgeted to contribute £72.7 million to prize money for racing fixtures in 2025—an increase of £2.2 million on 2024 and around £13 million more than each of the pre-covid years of 2018 and 2019.

The horserace betting levy has evolved in step with the betting industry since it was introduced in the 1960s. In 2017, the previous Government extended the levy to online bookmakers and fixed the rate at 10% so that it no longer had to be negotiated each year. The 2017 reforms almost doubled the amount of levy collected, from £49.8 million to £95 million, and it has continued to perform well, collecting £105 million in 2023-24.

I place on the record my thanks to the Horserace Betting Levy Board, which continues to do an excellent job, especially in difficult circumstances following the sad death of the chair Paul Darling in August this year. I understand it was his memorial this week, and I send my thoughts to his family. The Government will continue to work with the levy board and the wider industry to maximise the benefits of the levy and ensure that it continues to deliver for the sector.

The previous Government undertook a review that concluded in April, and I recognise the significant work undertaken by both the racing and betting industries to secure a sustainable future for the sport. I am aware that, as part of that review, the British Horseracing Authority presented its case that there is a significant gap in its funding, stating that it is unable to compete with jurisdictions such as Ireland and France. The Minister for Gambling has met representatives from both the horseracing and betting industries, has encouraged a voluntary deal that fairly reflects the relationship between racing and betting, and will write to both parties soon. I understand that both parties agreed the value of a growth fund for the sport, and we look forward to hearing about progress on that.

It is fair to say that racing and betting should maximise income from other sources, as the levy represents just 6% of income, with far greater proportions earned from owners, breeders, racegoers, media rights deals and sponsorship. The Government welcome recent changes to the fixture list that are designed to grow the sport, engage new and existing customers and bring an additional £90 million to racing by 2028. I was also encouraged to see horseracing showcased in the recent TV documentaries “Horsepower” and “Champions: Full Gallop”.

Let me address the specific points raised by the hon. Member for West Suffolk. Several other Members made similar points. First, as I have hopefully made clear in my speech so far, I absolutely agree that British horseracing is an international success story. I am delighted to put my support for it on the record. As I said, I was at Donny races last year. Indeed, the year before that I was at York races with my good friend, the late great Jim Andrews, who was my agent. That was one of the last days we spent together before he sadly passed away— I pay tribute to him—and I have very fond memories of York races for that reason. I know of the huge contribution that horseracing makes not just to our economy but to communities up and down the country.

On the hon. Gentleman’s second and third questions, in the absence of any current legislative opportunity to impose changes to the levy, the Government are inviting the betting and racing industries to resume negotiations on a voluntary deal. We think that is the best and fastest option to get additional money flowing to the sport. I share the hon. Gentleman’s hope that we will not go back to square one, and that the parties will reflect on areas where there was agreement.

I do not think the previous negotiations were publicised at the time, but they have been discussed in detail today. I believe they resulted in an offer of an additional 1.5% from the betting industry, which racing agreed was reasonable. There was further agreement that the majority of those additional funds should be targeted towards a growth fund to generate interest in the sport. The Minister for Gambling is happy to continue dialogue with both parties, and if racing would like to hold its own independent review, the Government would welcome that.

The hon. Gentleman’s fourth question was about reforming the scope of the levy to include international races, which a number of Members discussed. There are strong arguments on both sides, but we should focus on what is achievable in the short-to-medium term. Although it is true that racing in other jurisdictions benefits from British racing in a way that is not reciprocated, the funding mechanisms in Ireland and France operate more centralised, state-led systems, and there are fewer opportunities for the commercial deals that we have in the United Kingdom.

On the hon. Gentleman’s fifth question, he might be new to this place but he is an experienced and seasoned actor or character—I am trying to be diplomatic—in the Westminster and Whitehall world. He tempts me, but he knows that I cannot comment on plans for the upcoming Budget.

The hon. Gentleman’s sixth question was about addressing problem gambling proportionally. He will have heard the answer that the Secretary of State gave him in the Chamber last week. I think that, as the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) said, it is incredibly important to strike a balance when dealing with problem gambling. Nearly half the population gambled in the past four weeks, so although it is of course important that we provide support to tackle problem gambling, we must do so in a balanced way.

A number of hon. Members raised frictionless checks. As they will know, the Gambling Commission is leading the pilot work on financial risk checks. We will be watching those pilots with interest, but I have heard Members’ concerns and will reflect them to the Minister for Gambling.

I will make representations to my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on animal welfare and the number of vets. I will ask the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) on the question he asked.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), made an important point about loneliness. I have visited most of the betting shops in my constituency of Barnsley South, and I have seen at first hand the difference they make in helping to combat loneliness. As the Minister responsible for loneliness, I take that seriously. I say gently to him that we do not have a part-time Gambling Minister; we have a Gambling Minister who sits in the other place. I have answered a number of questions about the Government’s broad support, but I am happy to facilitate a meeting or a letter from the Gambling Minister to him.

The Government remain committed to supporting British horseracing. We believe it is vital to our economy, and it brings joy to many people. I know the Gambling Minister will look forward to continuing to engage with stakeholders in this area. This debate has highlighted the huge benefit that racing has for communities up and down the country.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Does Nick Timothy wish to say a few words to sum up?

[Nick Timothy]

Unfortunately for you, Sir Edward, I would like that very much.

I thank everybody who participated in this really constructive debate. We have learned a lot—and not just about the dubious music tastes of my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp). I took the hint from the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), and I will extend an invitation to all hon. Members who participated in the debate to come and see the delights that Newmarket has to offer.

There was strong agreement from Members from all parties on the six issues I raised. I will not repeat them, but I want to say something in response to the Minister’s answer, for which I am grateful. I note and appreciate the warmth of her words and those of the Secretary of State in the main Chamber last Thursday. I appreciate that it is early days for the Government, and that Ministers often need time to familiarise themselves with the challenges, but I gently say that Labour Members are in government now; they are not shadow Ministers. Being in government means that they have power, and it may not be enough to convene conversations between interested parties and hope that we might reach voluntary agreements. In the end, Ministers often need to decide.

On each of the points made by the Minister, I encourage her and the Secretary of State to go a little further. It is easy for us all to agree on the ends, but when we agree on the ends, we have to determine the means. Sometimes that will involve making decisions that some of the interested parties might not like to hear. Sometimes people assume that the racing and gambling industries’ interests are coterminous, but they are not. Therefore, I invite Ministers to intervene on such issues.

Specifically on including overseas races in the levy, as on other issues, there was a high degree of consensus among all those who contributed to the debate. Obviously, an opportunity is coming up—I do not know whether the Budget has been put to bed, but a Finance Bill will follow, and that is the easiest change in the world to make. From a Government perspective, it is cost-free, and it would make sense for British racing. The Minister noted the difference in structures and financing of racing in countries such as Ireland and France, but the debate has exposed the extent to which the industries in those countries stand in an advantageous position compared with ours. I press the Minister once more on that.

I thank everyone for participating in the debate and you, Sir Edward, for your excellent skills in the Chair.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

It has been a pleasure to chair this debate. I am only sorry that no one mentioned the best racecourse in the country—Market Rasen.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for the horseracing industry.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

8. Whether the Church has taken recent steps to support the Armenian church in the old city of Jerusalem.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

The Bishop of Southwark has raised this issue repeatedly in the other place over the past six months, and it remains an ongoing and very concerning issue. Only 15 days ago, an unlawful eviction was led by the Israeli police within the premises of the Armenian Patriarchate, with no court orders or permits presented.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Those of us who are good friends of Israel need to call out the violent activities of the settler movement. The Armenian Christians have enjoyed the best part of 2,000 years in their part of the old city in tranquillity. The appalling incident on 3 April was led not just by thugs but by an Israeli officer called Assaf Harel. Frankly, there was downright intimidation and an attempt to force out Armenian Christians. The Christian population in the old city has declined from 25% a century ago to just 1%. Will the Church of England stand up for Christians in the old city?

Budget Resolutions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On tax cutting, there has always been a social contract in this country by which people pay national insurance until they become of pensionable age, and then they do not pay national insurance. Therefore, cuts in national insurance do not help pensioners, and in particular aspiring pensioners, who have put something aside. What I would like to know from the Secretary of State—I see alongside her the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who said this change might take decades—is what is the long-term plan to protect pensioners? National insurance cannot just be abolished and replaced with nothing. It can only be replaced with higher tax, from which pensioners do not benefit.

[Lucy Frazer]

My right hon. Friend knows that we want to reduce taxes on working people. It is not right that they have double taxation. He will also know about the importance of protecting pensioners, which is why, throughout our time in government, we have protected them, with one of the key ways of doing that being through the triple lock.

I will highlight the progress made on the five priorities that the Chancellor and the Prime Minister set out some time ago. Debt is falling in line with our fiscal rules, inflation has halved and growth is a full 1.5 percentage points higher than predicted. That has only been possible because of the decisions taken by this Government, such as putting an average of £900 back into the pockets of 27 million workers in the space of four months. There is further to go, and the Budget will help us get there, creating more success stories like our creative industries across our economy and across the entire United Kingdom.

While the Labour party snipes aimlessly and endlessly from the sidelines, we are targeting funding where it is needed most. While the Labour party talks the economy and indeed the rest of the country down, we are backing working families and British businesses with tax cuts and tax breaks. While the Labour party U-turns on its U-turns, we are putting our economy on track for new jobs, new growth and new investment. The Conservative Government have a plan, and that plan is working. I commend the Budget to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wes Streeting]

I agree with the hon. Member. Politics is about choices, which is why we choose to end the tax breaks enjoyed by private schools, which are attended by the 7%, in order to fund more teachers and education for the 93%. The Conservatives have not nicked that policy yet—it could be any day now—but it does say something about choices.

There is something else that I found really galling. When the Government appointed Sir Kevan Collins as their catch-up commissioner, they could not have found someone better to advise on education, life chances and how to correct the obvious damage that had been done to children’s education as a result of successive lockdowns. Most of us in this House—on both sides—felt that the lockdowns were necessary, given the scale of the virus, but we ought collectively to acknowledge that there was a consequence and a debt to be repaid to that generation. When Sir Kevan Collins published his report, which was commissioned by the Government, the Prime Minister decided that he could not do any more. If the Prime Minister’s children attended state schools and he understood the challenges that such schools were facing with recruiting teachers and providing the wide range of extra-curricular opportunities that so many independent schools offer, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would have made the same political choices—or is it just for other people’s children that this Prime Minister and his Government have low aspirations?

I think it is fair to say that we know why the Prime Minister was so wedded to the non-dom tax status. In fact, the only way the Chancellor could have upset his neighbours more was if he had raised taxes on helicopter rides and heated swimming pools too. But at least the Prime Minister can now look the British people in the eye and honestly tell them that we are all in this together. In fact, we have to pity poor non-doms—they cannot even look to their friends, or indeed their husbands, in the Conservative party to defend them any longer. Nor can pensioners, incidentally, because 8 million pensioners will see their taxes increase as a result of this Chancellor’s decisions. I do not think that is right or just, and I do not think people will forget it come the general election.

I turn to the Prime Minister and how he evaluates his own performance. At a Wetherspoons in Maltby last week, he told the public that at the start of this year we “turned a corner.” He is right: at the start of this year the economy turned the corner from flatlining and entered recession. Rishi’s recession is taking a heavy toll on working people. Labour’s candidate for Rother Valley, Jake Richards, told me about John from Maltby, who lives just down the road from what was probably the first ’Spoons the Prime Minister has ever been in. John is a veteran of our armed forces. He served his country and now, thanks to the recklessness and incompetence of this Government, he cannot make ends meet. That is the price that people are paying, and it is why this country is crying out for change.

Having crashed the economy just two years ago, the Conservative party is at it again with a £46 billion unfunded tax plan. Can any Conservative Member explain how on earth they are going to pay for the abolition of national insurance? This is a bigger unfunded commitment than the “kamikwasi” Budget of the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). Mortgage payers are still paying the price for that grotesque act of economic self-harm, and the Conservatives are at it again—

[Sir Edward Leigh]

rose—

[Wes Streeting]

I hope that the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) can tell us why.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

This is great knockabout stuff, but I would like to make a serious comment on the whole national insurance thing. With the retention of the triple lock and with fiscal drag, more and more pensioners are being dragged into paying tax. I understand that the Labour party will support the cut in national insurance rather than in income tax, so what is its long-term plan?

[Wes Streeting]

The right hon. Member made a right and fair point earlier about the cuts to national insurance and what is happening to pensioners’ incomes at the moment, but the Government’s long-term plan is totally unfunded. They cannot tell us how they will fund it or when it will be delivered by. I am happy to give way if anyone wants to correct me on that, as I am sure the whole country would like an explanation on this £46 billion unfunded tax plan. We cannot have a situation where once again the Conservative party gets away with an entirely unfunded gimmick. We saw where that led our country before, and Labour will not play fast and loose with the public finances in the way that the Conservatives have—[Laughter.] It is no use laughing. I am amazed that Conservative Members still laugh when people’s mortgages are going up month after month. They still have the audacity to laugh at their recklessness and not take responsibility for their mistakes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 22nd February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

More girls should have the opportunity to play sports that are traditionally the preserve of the boys. That is why we are encouraging all schools to offer all sports to all their pupils, whatever their gender. In addition, we are backing women’s football, with £30 million for 30 pitches across the country to which girls will have priority access. It is absolutely right that we continue to encourage girls and women to take up more sport.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T6. Gainsborough was once the capital of England under the incomparable Sweyn Forkbeard. It is an historic market town with the Old Hall at its heart. What plans do the Government have to preserve the character of historic market towns such as Gainsborough?

[The Minister for Media, Tourism and Creative Industries (Julia Lopez)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising the beauty and heritage of Gainsborough. Heritage, of course, has a vital role to play in levelling up, and can act as a powerful catalyst to increase opportunities and prosperity. We recognise the opportunity that historic high streets give us, and we have a £95 million high streets heritage action zones programme that is driving the regeneration of 67 of our towns and cities. I believe that Gainsborough has previously been a recipient of heritage lottery programmes, and we also have a scheme to help with historic churches.

BBC Licence Fee Non-Payment (Decriminalisation for Over-75s) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 20th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is right on both points. He is right that enforcement action has largely not been taken by the BBC against over-75s who have not acquired a television licence—certainly no prosecutions have yet followed. He is also right to cite our stricture to the BBC that it should approach this matter with sensitivity. Like him, “sensitivity” is not the first word I would choose to describe the general tone of communications about TV licence fee collection.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

This is no defence. We deal with the actual law here; we do not deal with what might or might not happen. Under the law, an 80-year-old pensioner living on a tiny state pension could be sent to prison because she refuses to pay for the untold millions paid to Gary Lineker with her licence fee. There is no point in the Minister’s saying, “This is not enforced.” If this law is an ass, it should be repealed. Parliament should not have on its statute book a law whereby someone can be sent to prison for not paying a licence fee for an entertainment channel—this is ridiculous.

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I would slightly disagree with my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] The law does not say that someone can be sent to prison for not paying their licence fee. If they are convicted of failing to have a TV licence, they can be fined. Where they then refuse to pay the fine, custodial sentences can, as has happened in some cases, be imposed. Criminalisation is a matter we have debated before, but it is still one of great controversy. We have looked at it on a number of occasions and I am happy to keep it under review.

Let me go back to the issue of the licence fee for the over-75s. As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) suggested, in the 2015 funding settlement the Government agreed that responsibility for the over-75s concession should transfer to the BBC. The Government and the BBC agreed to make that change alongside a number of other elements of the licence fee settlement, such as the closure of the iPlayer loophole, to which I have already referred, and an agreement to increase the licence fee in line with inflation from there on. It was also agreed that the transfer would be phased in over two years so that the BBC had time to adjust to meet the additional cost of maintaining that. It was debated extensively at the time of the passage through Parliament of the Digital Economy Act 2017.

The result is that responsibility for the over-75s concession now rests with the BBC. The Government made it plain that we hoped and expected that the BBC would maintain the concession, but the BBC chose to restrict it to those in receipt of pension credit. The Government remain disappointed about that decision. I recognise, however, that even that concession represents quite a considerable cost to the BBC, and how the BBC budgets, and the extent to which it feels able to maintain the concession, is a matter for the BBC.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Sir John Whittingdale]

The hon. Gentleman is right that policy has evolved, as indeed have the Ministers responsible for it over the last few years. I agree with him: this is a very important Bill for the media. It contains measures that were in the manifesto at the last election. We have published it in draft as a demonstration of our commitment to get it on to the statute book, and I hope we will do that as soon as possible.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

4. What assessment her Department has made of the potential impact of the gambling White Paper on the horse-racing sector.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

The Government recognise the significant contribution that racing makes to British sporting culture and, crucially, the economy. The review did not look at the horserace betting levy, but we are aware of the close relationship between racing and betting. Our assessment was set out in the White Paper—the impact on racing will be minimal in the context of its overall income—but we are reviewing the levy to ensure that racing continues to be appropriately funded.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I declare an interest, in that the wonderful Market Rasen racecourse is in my constituency. Does the Minister accept that there is an inextricable link between horse-racing and betting? Both give enormous pleasure to millions. Does the Minister agree that the sweeping blanket checks envisaged in the White Paper are neither advisable nor appropriate, and the nanny state is just harming the harmless punter taking a little flutter?

[Stuart Andrew]

We took careful consideration of precisely that matter when we developed the White Paper. The financial risk checks outlined in that White Paper will be designed so that they are frictionless. The majority of people who enjoy a flutter and for whom it causes no harm whatsoever will not notice any difference, but hopefully this will identify much earlier on those who are getting into an area where this is causing harm, so that we can act fast. The racing industry can be assured that the Government are on its side.

--- Later in debate ---

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

5. What steps the Church of England is taking to support parish life in small, rural communities.

[The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)]

Parish ministry is at the heart of the mission of the Church and, per head of population, there is a higher proportion of ministers in rural areas than in urban ones, although I fully recognise how great the loss is to rural areas when they lose their minister. Between 2023 and 2025, the Church Commissioners will distribute £1.2 billion to support the Church’s mission and ministry, which is a 30% increase on the current three-year period, and a significant share of that funding will go towards revitalising parish ministry.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

Rural Lincolnshire has arguably the finest collection of medieval churches in the country and it is a joy to visit them. Many are open through the open churches event organised as part of the West Lindsey Churches Festival. Does my hon. Friend agree that the glory of the Church of England is the parish structure? Does he agree with many of the points made by the Save the Parish campaign, which prioritises keeping our parish churches open and functioning through worship, despite increasing diocesan bureaucracy?

[Andrew Selous]

I completely understand where my right hon. Friend is coming from. His concerns are shared by many colleagues across the House, because they care so much about the great work done in local parishes. If any of the communities in his constituency have candidates for non-stipendiary ministry—or self-supporting ministry, as we call it these days—that might be a way to provide a focal minister at slightly less cost; the Caleb stream might be one way to provide that. The Church of England’s lead bishop for rural affairs, the Bishop of Exeter, has also recently published “How Village Churches Thrive: a practical guide”, which might be helpful to my right hon. Friend’s local churches.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 1st December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

3. Whether the Sponsor Body is taking steps to ensure that construction related to restoration and renewal of the Parliamentary Estate will make use of the River Thames.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough)]

The restoration and renewal programme is considering a range of innovative methods to support future works on the Palace, including making use of the river access. No decisions have yet been taken, but consideration will be given to minimising impacts on the environment, the local area and those working in and visiting the Palace.

[Mr Sheerman]

I would never want to pinch or punch the right hon. Gentleman, but may I ask him to wake up to the real opportunity we have of giving the River Thames a renaissance, putting much more traffic on it and bringing it back as the main concourse of London? This is a real opportunity, both for this place and the new holocaust memorial building.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that question. He is a formidable campaigner for making use of the river. Along with others on the Sponsor Body, I am putting pressure on that body, and on the new Committee that will be meeting from January, to make full use of the river. Indeed, the delivery authority is already undertaking full feasibility studies on how we can make much more use of the river. So I say to him, “Well done.”

The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[The Solicitor General]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that important issue. She is right that the workload on our police and the CPS is high. Close working between the police and the CPS is vital. Hot off the press is the refreshed joint national action plan, which was published today and shows that the CPS has seen a 58% increase in charges. I know that she takes the issue incredibly seriously. I would be delighted to meet her, whether here or in her beautiful constituency of North Devon.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service in prosecuting protesters who block public rights of way.

[The Attorney General (Michael Ellis)]

The Government continue to ensure that the police and prosecutors have the necessary tools to tackle the dangerous and highly disruptive tactics used by a small minority of protesters to wreak havoc on people going about their lawful daily lives. In relation to the Insulate Britain protesters, for example, the CPS has so far secured no fewer than 364 convictions in the magistrates court. It continues to take those cases to trial, which shows its resolute determination to bring those criminals to justice.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

On Tuesday, the House decided to criminalise grandmothers who hold prayer cards outside abortion agencies. At the same time, quite rightly, we brought in ever more new powers to deal with Just Stop Oil protesters. The difference is that the grandmothers will go away quietly, but the other protesters will keep turning up. There is no point having more and more legislation—we have so much legislation in this area—if the police do not enforce it and the CPS and the courts do not throw the book at these people and give them long custodial sentences.

[The Attorney General]

Of course, the sentencing of such individuals is a matter for our independent criminal justice system, but we have an offence of nuisance on the statute books, as well as offences such as obstructing the public highway, the powers of which have been increased to 12 months’ imprisonment. The Public Order Bill is going through Parliament, which I was rather surprised that the Opposition did not support. As I have said, we are determined that those who seek to disrupt the normal lives of citizens meet the full force of the law. That is what should happen and that is what is happening. The Crown Prosecution Service and the police, as the operationally independent authorities, are working extremely hard in close partnership to bring those people to justice and see that they receive the punishment that they richly deserve.

BBC Funding

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

I do not set the budgets for the BBC’s investigative programmes; the BBC does.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Reform is clearly needed. It is absurd in the modern world that people can be criminalised for not paying a licence fee just for an entertainment channel. However, the devil is in the detail. I represent a rural constituency where many smaller villages and hamlets cannot get superfast broadband. If we are to base public policy on the fact that everyone can stream programmes, can we ensure that they actually can stream programmes before any final decisions are made or reforms are implemented?

[Ms Dorries]

There is no policy; we are just starting a discussion and a debate. This is not based on whether people can achieve streaming or not, but 100% of households achieving superfast broadband or gigabit broadband is the objective.

Covid-19 and Loneliness

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Westminster Hall

[Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con) [V]]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. First, I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) for calling this debate. At some point in all our lives, we will feel lonely. That may be for an endless number of reasons, but it is worth noting that loneliness is not the same as being alone. We can be surrounded by friends and loved ones and still feel fundamentally lonely.

The covid-19 pandemic has had an undeniable impact on loneliness. A report by the British Red Cross found that almost 40% of UK adults are more concerned about their loneliness now than they were a year ago. A similar number had gone more than a fortnight without having a meaningful conversation. Around 39% of UK adults say that they do not think that their feelings of loneliness will go away after the coronavirus crisis is over, and one third say that they are concerned about being able to connect with people in person in the way they did prior to the pandemic.

Loneliness has long been thought of as an issue that is most likely to affect older people, and indeed older people are hugely affected. Before the pandemic, an estimated 200,000 older people regularly went more than a month without having a conversation with a friend or relative. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) said, loneliness can and does affect people of all ages. Young people aged between 18 and 24 years old consistently report higher levels of loneliness than any other age group, and more than 11% of children are estimated to feel lonely often.

During lockdown, our young people were isolated from their friends at school and university. Their prospects of starting new careers were dashed as a result of many industries limiting staff numbers. In particular, hospitality, which as an industry is the largest employer of young people, was closed throughout lockdown. All the data show an alarming trend such that the pandemic will have a long-lasting impact on the mental health of young people.

I pledge my full support for a connected recovery. When emerging from this pandemic, we must ensure that nobody is excluded from our recovery. The only way in which we will all recover is by connecting, reaching out, and ensuring that no one is left behind.

In April 2020, at the start of the national lockdown, the Government launched a comprehensive plan to try to tackle loneliness. That included categorising loneliness as a priority for the £750-million charity funding package; continuing the “Let’s Talk Loneliness” campaign; and bringing together the new Tackling Loneliness Network, made up of private, public and charity sector organisations that want to make a difference. Following this, the recommendation from the Red Cross that tackling loneliness should be built into all local authority covid-19 recovery plans and integrated care system population health strategies, would ensure that tackling loneliness was at the heart of the recovery.

I thank the Government for recognising the scale of the issue of loneliness and laying out plans to tackle it. I specifically commend them on attempting to tackle, through the “Let’s Talk Loneliness” campaign, the taboo around discussion of loneliness. My belief is that this problem will not begin to be tackled until anyone can, without fear of judgment, reach out and say, “I feel lonely.”

Covid-19 has also demonstrated how vital our digital infrastructure is. When families and friends could not be together in person, they could see one another online and still connect online. That is why I am so glad that the Government have come together with the national lottery for the local connections fund. The funding will help to bring people together in safe and secure ways, recovering the costs of technology and equipment that will help people to feel more connected in their communities. It is my hope that the funding will begin to bridge the digital divide by building skills and confidence online.

I recently held a number of meetings with WaveLength, a charity that uses technology to help those suffering from loneliness. I was delighted when, just this week, WaveLength was able to support multiple organisations in my constituency of Broxtowe.

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Blaydon for calling this debate during Loneliness Awareness Week. I end by thanking all the charities and organisations that are working tirelessly to help tackle loneliness—Mind, Age UK, Samaritans, Re-engage, Calm and the British Red Cross. All those organisations help those dealing with loneliness. I encourage anyone listening today who is struggling to reach out to one of those groups. It is more important than ever that we connect with each other while emerging from this pandemic and ensure that we have a connected recovery, so that the message from the Government, coming out of this pandemic, is that you are not alone.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

We now go to Jim Shannon, for the second time this afternoon.