Future of Horseracing

Debate between Philip Davies and Stuart Andrew

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) for securing this important and timely debate, and I appreciate his support for horse racing not only in his constituency but across Britain.

The Government acknowledge the significant contribution that racing makes to our economy. As has been rightly mentioned by Members from constituencies across the country, it plays a central role in the livelihoods of many people in our rural communities. The employment that it supports across racecourses, training yards, breeding operations and related sectors reflects a powerhouse industry that is respected at home and abroad, and it is one that I am keen to explore even further through a forthcoming visit to a training yard. We absolutely agree that British racing is a substantial asset to the country and remain committed to supporting the industry.

As many Members have said, horse racing is the second biggest sport in the UK in terms of attendance and contributes £4 billion annually to the economy in direct, indirect and associated expenditure. The fact that so many people go to the great races—some 65,000 to 70,000 to the grand national, and 200,000 over the four days of the Cheltenham festival—shows how important it is. I have seen that at first hand during my visit to Newmarket this summer and in discussions with the Jockey Club and Arena Racing Company, as well as the measures around welfare, which were particularly interesting to see in Newmarket. The industry enjoys a reputation as a global leader and is part of the GREAT campaign, which recognises that horse racing is a valuable asset and has a tremendous amount of soft power.

My hon. Friends have noted the importance of the levy. As has been said, in 2017, the levy was extended to online bookmakers and fixed at the rate of 10%, so that it no longer had to be negotiated each year. That has seen a significant rise—almost doubling in amount from £49 million to £95 million—and the forecast for 2022-23 is around £100 million.

On the horserace betting review, the British Horseracing Authority has presented its case that there is a significant gap in its funding that means that it cannot compete with jurisdictions such as France and Ireland. The authority has submitted suggestions on how to close the gap, and we are considering those proposals as we undertake our review, which is due by April next year. Of course, I cannot pre-empt the outcome of that at this stage, but I reassure all colleagues that the decision will be firmly based on the evidence.

Changes would require legislation, so a sensible first step is to explore a voluntary agreement, especially when there are so many competing demands on parliamentary time. We are looking at all options and encouraging racing and betting to work together in the best interests of the sport. Reaching a mutual agreement on the way forward for the levy would be beneficial for everybody. To support that aim, the BHA and the BGC were invited to submit evidence over the summer and have been given extensions to come to an agreement. I met both groups in early September for an update on the discussions, and I look forward to hearing more from them when I meet them again in the next few weeks.

The levy is not the only source of funding for racing. It represented just 6% of racing’s total income in ’22, and far greater proportions were earned from owners, breeders, racegoers, media rights deals and sponsorship. While we review what the levy provides, we have also asked racing and betting to explore jointly how they can maximise other sources of income for racing. I am encouraged by the close engagement that has taken place and welcome the recent changes to the fixture list, which should bring an additional £90 million to racing by 2028.

The BHA and other industry stakeholders have raised concerns about the impact of the financial risk checks that were set out in the Government’s White Paper in April. As the darling of the Racing Post, as I seem to be these days, I want to reassure everyone that I have heard those concerns and take them very seriously. I have already met many Members who are present today, including members of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock, and we have many more meetings to come. Given that the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) is next door to mine, I cannot avoid him, as much as I may try, but I commit to those meetings carrying on long after the consultations have been completed.

[Philip Davies]

Given that the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock) and I actually agree on this issue, which does not happen very often, does the Minister accept that we really must be on to something?

[Stuart Andrew]

If only I could have achieved that when I was the deputy Chief Whip—that would have been great, but there we go.

I have also met with horse racing bettor forums to hear about this from a customer’s perspective, which is incredibly important, and I will continue to engage with all those stakeholders. Let me also take this opportunity to address a couple of important points. The first is to distinguish between the checks that many operators are currently doing and the future system that was set out in the White Paper. At present, the Gambling Commission has not set specific thresholds or requirements for how or when operators must consider customers’ financial circumstances. There has only been an ask to prevent a repetition of the cases in which operators allow rapid losses that would be life-changing for most of us. However, that has led to inconsistency across the sector, with different operators seeking proofs at different points, often in the form of onerous documentation such as payslips and bank statements. We also know that many operators are requesting personal financial information for a range of reasons that are not necessarily related to safer gambling. I have heard concerning reports that some operators are using checks as a way of restricting the accounts of successful bettors. As a result of listening to all of this, I have spoken to the Gambling Commission CEO about these issues. I asked him to challenge operators to be more transparent with customers and more consistent in how they apply the checks now. They are looking at that and I am waiting to hear back in the coming weeks.

My focus is also on the new coherent national framework underpinned by data sharing, which was outlined in the White Paper and the consultation. We want it to be a significant improvement for customers and companies, to have clear requirements and a much smoother process for assessments, and crucially to bring uniformity rather than the process that people are seeing now and which has been described by Members here today. It will ensure that we see no more of those terrible cases where people lose tens of thousands of pounds in a very short time. As the Minister for gambling, I have also had to hear the awful stories that families have raised with me, and it is right that we act in that area.

I agree with many Members who have pointed out the need to be proportionate. The White Paper was clear: we only want checks for those most at risk of harm. We want the checks themselves to be painless for the overwhelming majority of customers, and neither the Government nor the Gambling Commission should put a blanket cap on how much money people spend on gambling. That will be at the forefront of our minds. The point about being frictionless is essential. I reiterate my commitment that proposed checks will not be mandated across the sector until we are confident that they are frictionless for the vast majority of customers who will be caught by them. The Gambling Commission will continue to work closely with gambling operators, the financial services sector and the Information Commissioner’s Office to develop the checks. We are also exploring options such as pilots and phased implementation. I am pleased that the Gambling Commission has agreed to host a series of workshops with the industry to explore these in detail.

It is important that the wider public have their say too. It is great that the Gambling Commission’s recent consultation received over 3,500 responses, many of which focused on financial risk checks and the relationship with racing. The regulator is working hard to analyse those responses and, notwithstanding its statutory independence, we will continue to work closely with it as it refines proposals before introducing new requirements. The consultation was on all aspects and all details, including the levels at which those checks will come in and how we consider the previous winnings.

The Government are keen to ensure that measures such as these checks do not adversely affect racing or interrupt the customer journey. They also cannot push away high-net-worth individuals such as owners and trainers who invest in the sport. We want to protect those at risk of harm, but with minimal disruption to the majority who, I recognise, place bets on horseracing with no ill effect. I also want to point out that the proposals the Commission are consulting on will apply only to online gambling accounts; they will not affect betting shops or on-course bookmakers.

On the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk about the workforce, the Migration Advisory Committee has recommended adding six racing roles to the shortage occupation list. That recommendation is currently being considered by the Home Office, but I will ensure that I write to my colleagues there to highlight this debate.

The Government remain committed to supporting horseracing in this country. It is vital to the rural economy and a source of great pleasure to many people. I look forward to further discussions on these important issues, especially as the review of the levy continues.

Housing Targets (Pudsey)

Debate between Philip Davies and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I am grateful to have secured this debate, which is very important for my constituents. All hon. Members think their constituency is unique and special, as I certainly do. The Pudsey constituency is made up of many individual towns and villages that have a history dating back centuries. All have their own unique identity and are blessed with being close to one of the busiest and most successful cities in the north—Leeds—and being a stone’s throw from the beautiful Yorkshire dales countryside. What makes living in Pudsey, Horsforth and Aireborough enjoyable is the countryside that acts as the natural green lungs between the communities, helping to preserve their real sense of identity.

Every part of the constituency, however, has seen significant change over the past 15 years. Where once stood mills and factories, we now have thousands of new houses. As a consequence, the issue of planning has always been high in the minds of local people. All those extra houses have brought real problems: roads such as the A65 and the ring road have become notoriously congested; schools have such high demand that it is difficult for some parents to get their children into their local school; and doctors’ surgeries have got busier and busier.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has been a persistent campaigner on this subject for his constituents, for which I commend him. With regard to the A65 and the schools in his constituency, does he agree that the proposed developments in Menston right on the edge of his constituency, which will be a disaster for that village, will also have a massive negative effect on the A65 that his constituents use and on local schools? Children living in those developments would go to Guiseley school.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is right. I am trying to get across that these issues affect not only my constituency; planning applications in his constituency will also have a severe impact.

Just as we thought that things could not get any worse, we are now facing a new onslaught. Like many councils across the country, Leeds city council is currently developing its local plan. The core strategy sets out the council’s housing target. To my amazement and that of my constituents, the council has set the target at a staggering 70,000 houses during the next 16 years. In doing so, the Labour-run council has all but adopted the housing figures from the now-defunct regional spatial strategy, which is an unacceptable prospect for me and my constituents. As a base for that target, the council has used Office for National Statistics population growth projections from 2008. Those data are clearly out of date and inaccurate. More recent data, such as the census, show that growth has been some 43% less than predicted, which presents the first anomaly in the target.

Additionally, the council has based housing numbers on a large explosion of jobs in Leeds, which is good news. However, the council predicts that all the people who fill those jobs will need housing in Leeds, which, in an age of commuting, is clearly nonsense. Currently, only 66% of people who work in Leeds actually live there. Why else would Leeds railway station be one of the nation’s busiest? And why else would trains arriving at stations just within the city’s border, such as Guiseley, Horsforth and New Pudsey, be so crammed if so many people working in Leeds were not from neighbouring areas?

I attended the core strategy examination with Conservative councillors and community groups to argue that the target was too high and was based on outdated and flawed data. Sadly, our case fell on deaf ears and the target was approved. Since then, I have been warning that such a high target will pose a real threat to our green belt, which we will see, now that the council is seeking to identify the sites it needs for housing, but even I could not have foreseen how bad the threat would be.

On 4 January, the council announced a range of sites across the city that it is to consider for development, and there are sites in every part of my constituency. Shockingly, the majority of sites are in the green belt: fields on Ings lane that separate Guiseley and Menston; fields along Coach road that buffer the border with Bradford; and land in Rawdon along the Southlands estate that abuts important woodland. There are also the fields along the A65 from Rawdon crematorium down to the notorious roundabout at Horsforth, and land off Owlcotes road, Gain lane, and Rodley lane.

I recognise the need for house building, and across the city of Leeds there are masses of brownfield sites that need regenerating, particularly in the centre. An ambitious plan was proposed by Leeds sustainable development group for the south side of the city to transform old, derelict sites into good housing, schools and a park—in effect, creating a garden city. That is exactly the sort of development we should surely be encouraging, particularly given the excellent transport links, but again that proposal seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The last time I looked at the figures on the number of empty homes in Leeds city alone, it added up to around 14,000. If we add the 20,000 or so planning permissions that have been granted, that is more than 30,000 opportunities to create properties for people, so let us get that system right before we start demolishing our green belt.

I have outlined the five criteria in the green belt methodology, but in the Leeds city council site allocation, item 5—the crucial bit about assisting in regeneration by recycling land—seems to have been removed. The reason cited is that it is in the core strategy. Is that right and proper? It seems very convenient.

We have also heard lots from the Government about the need for infrastructure. Improvements are being made to notorious roundabouts in the constituency, and new railway stations are being built, but those are solutions to problems we are facing now as a result of building over the past 15 years. Any further development will make those problems return. What does the Minister consider to be adequate infrastructure, and should that not be in place before we start building new houses?

[Philip Davies]

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend’s flow, but does he agree that we are in a ludicrous situation? His local authority and mine are next door to each other, wanting to build more and more houses in our constituency. At the same time, the west Yorkshire combined authority is putting all the infrastructure spending into the Labour heartlands, starving our areas of the infrastructure that they need to support the housing that it wants to impose on us.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I confess that I had intended to make only a short intervention today. However, having listened to the debate, I feel that it is better to make a longer contribution—although it will still be short, if that makes sense.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) for the work that he has done. I fully back the new clauses that he has tabled.

During the general election campaign, I was contacted by a constituent, a lady called Lorraine Fraser, with whom I have worked over the past four years. Her story is really quite harrowing. She had a 16-year-old son called Tyrone. One day, she was alerted to a problem outside the house. Sadly, she discovered that her son was being attacked by a gang of 30 youths. One of them was carrying a knife and stabbed him fatally. At the age of 16, he lost his life. In Lorraine’s own words, Tyrone was not always the best of boys, but he was always a considerate young man. It is really sad that he lost his life on that tragic day.

What has struck me is that, in the face of such a horrific experience, Tyrone’s mother has gone on to campaign tirelessly to do something about knife crime so that there is not another case like Tyrone’s somewhere else in the country. One thing that she has always asked of me and of Parliament is that we get a bit tougher in our rhetoric and our work on knife crime. I believe that new clause 6 is badly needed. I have seen some of Lorraine’s campaigning work, and I have been with her in schools when she talks to young people, telling them about the dangers of carrying a knife. Sometimes the answers she gets back from those young people are shocking.

I stand here today not in support of a newspaper or as a knee-jerk reaction, but because some of those young people will say that they want to carry a knife to defend themselves, and they know there will be no consequence of that because too often people get away with it. Lorraine is constantly battling the system, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister who has worked tirelessly with her. She is extremely grateful for the support he has given.

It was recently 10 years since Tyrone was killed, and Lorraine held a service in a church in the centre of Leeds. People from across the city—certain areas in particular—came along to remember members of their families who have lost their lives. To sit in that church and listen to people talk about their fathers, sons, brothers and nephews was a difficult experience. One young boy spoke about his father. He did not really know him because he had been murdered thanks to gang crime. The boy pleaded with the Government to do something. He said that people in their community were doing their bit to try to get across the message about the dangers of carrying a knife, working with young people and engaging with them in the schools, but he wanted the Government to do something about knife crime. I am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North is providing us with an opportunity to do that.

Even today on the news I saw a former gang member saying that for too long the Government have been too soft on this issue, and we need to come up with some serious consequences to stop the temptation to carry knives. I do not believe that people do not listen to the messages that come from this place; I think they get the message that the consequences are too soft, and we must send a much clearer message. Carrying a knife can totally destroy not only the life of the person who carries it, but the life of a young person such as Tyrone, and the lives of family members, as I have seen with Lorraine. For her sake, and for the sake of others around the country, I will be supporting the new clause.

[Philip Davies]

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and commend him on his new clause, which I will be supporting enthusiastically.

I will concentrate my remarks on the three new clauses that I have tabled in this group, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) for adding his name to them. I was disappointed that the shadow Minister, who usually has plenty to say about lots of things, had nothing to say about any of my new clauses. The Labour party having nothing to say on the economy appears to have transferred to justice, as they have nothing to say on these matters either.

Canterbury City Council Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stuart Andrew

Thursday 31st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is right. In many respects, the attitude that some local authorities have adopted has been sad—

[Stuart Andrew]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Prisons (Property) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stuart Andrew

Friday 30th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend kindly says that he has been “gently supportive” of my amendments. He could have fooled me! I have heard nothing but criticism from him so far, so I would hate to think what he would have said if he had disagreed with me. I ought to be grateful that he is gently supportive. He makes a good point; we might well want to avoid enabling the scenario that he mentions. I am sure that he would acknowledge, however, that it would be a travesty if an item that contained evidence of a serious offence could no longer be used by the authorities because it had been disposed of. The prison authorities could find themselves in an embarrassing situation if the perpetrators of a serious offence had been recorded on a device, and that device had been tossed away without giving any thought to the possibility of it containing such evidence. We could all end up looking rather silly if that were to happen.

Amendment 9 would protect the data on phones, for example. If the measure looked likely to result in a significant reduction in the number of items being disposed of, it might be sufficient to say that an expert should remove all the data from the device and assess it. The device could then be disposed of.

I do not really know what happens at the moment. This is an important issue for this particular amendment. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can explain it—whether or not all illegal phones or unauthorised phones that are confiscated in prisons or any other recording devices or whatever are scoured for evidence or intelligence whenever they are confiscated. I do not know whether that is a natural practice that happens in prisons. I absolutely hope that that is what happens when these things are confiscated. I hope that we do not have some sort of ridiculous human rights law stopping prison officers and prison governors from looking into these things to see whether what they have confiscated contains any evidence. If it does already happen as a matter of course, I would be the first to concede that the amendment might not be necessary. If that is not happening, however, and if the Government are not giving out that guidance to prisons or other laws are preventing that from happening, I would like to think that my amendment is an essential safeguard to stop any particular offence going undetected.

In a nutshell, those are my amendments. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey on his Bill, which I warmly support. I hope that my amendments will not be seen as trying to ruin the Bill; I hope my hon. Friend sees that I am trying to strengthen it. His heart is absolutely in the right place with this Bill. I simply think that my amendments would improve it further.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I welcome the interest of my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). I have no doubt that he wants to do all he can to make sure that the Bill achieves what we all want it to achieve.

It was said on Second Reading and in Committee that this was a simple Bill—led by a simple person, I suppose—and I hope that we are not going to over-complicate it. As I say, I want the Bill to do what we set out to achieve through it. Let me go through all the points that my hon. Friend made, as I hope to persuade him that many of the legitimate issues he raised are already covered in the Bill.

Beginning with amendment 2, the power already exists for these items to be confiscated wherever they may be. If a prisoner is in a hospital or at another venue as my hon. Friend described, they will, on return to prison, be searched, and if an item is found, it will be confiscated. Equally, if it is found on them in the hospital, it can be confiscated and taken back to the prison where it will be dealt with through the processes that we seek to introduce through the Bill.

[Stuart Andrew]

My hon. Friend is challenging me, so I am going to defer that one to the Minister. I thank him for his interest, but I am going to move on to amendment 3.

[Philip Davies]

Before my hon. Friend moves on, I take the point he made about my amendment 2, which was a helpful clarification. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) for pressing him on it, but the problem is that the provisions talk about articles

“found inside the prison or in a prisoner escort vehicle”

or

“found in the possession of a prisoner”,

but if something is found in the possession of the prisoner in another place such as a hospital, I wonder whether that could be a potential loophole.

[Stuart Andrew]

As I understand it, prisoners would not be able to take such an item back into prison with them—that is the whole point. If an item is found in the prisoner’s possession in the hospital and the prisoner tries to take it back to prison with them, it will be confiscated as an unauthorised item. It would therefore be subjected to disposal and destruction.

[Philip Davies]

I am sorry to press my hon. Friend, but there are two remaining loopholes. The first is that some of these things are not detected by the detection units when the prisoner goes back into prison. Some of these things like BOSS—body orifice security scanner—chairs do not always work, so we cannot always be confident that these things will be found. Furthermore, if in a hospital, a prisoner could take something out and leave it for somebody else to collect outside the prison.

[Stuart Andrew]

The issue here is that the item can be taken from prisoners, but that the confiscation process would happen back at the prison. I believe that the provisions cover this point clearly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is obviously more easily persuaded than me, but I know that, like me, he does not do anything to try to get a job. Nobody could ever accuse him of that, and I hope that he would never accuse me of it. However, I was not persuaded because I am not sure what “otherwise dispose of” means. I am concerned that “dispose of” implies getting rid of something, perhaps by throwing it in a bin.

[Stuart Andrew]

The Minister clearly said that there would be a Prison Service instruction that would give guidance so that “otherwise dispose of” will include recycling or donating items to charity. That will be covered in the Prison Service instruction.

[Philip Davies]

I knew that if I gave my hon. Friend enough of a chance, he would come up trumps and persuade me of the merits of his case. I will take my hon. Friend’s word that the substance of the amendment will be covered in guidance to prisons to encourage them to follow that route, despite the only reference to a definition of disposal being “selling it”. He has eventually reassured me; my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West was reassured much earlier.

I take the point that the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey made about amendments 6, 7 and 8. As I said at the start, I do not intend to do anything to cause the Bill any problems. If my hon. Friends say that those amendments would introduce too much controversy into the Bill, and that they may not be supported elsewhere, thus putting the measure at risk, I accept that they are not worth pursuing.

On amendment 9, I am greatly reassured by the Minister’s comment that things are interrogated for evidence when they are confiscated. That is very helpful. I noted that she said that she would write to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) with more detail about that matter. We thank her for that.

However, we come back to amendment 2. We had an interesting and extensive debate about what was covered. The Minister tried to make it clear that everything that amendment 2 tries to do is already covered by the Bill. I am afraid that I am not persuaded that that is the case. The Bill therefore contains a loophole that should be avoided. Even if the Minister turned out to be right and I turned out to be wrong—it certainly would not be the first time and I am sure that it will not be the last—I do not understand what harm the amendment would do. It tries to ensure that everything is covered. If the Minister thinks that it is unnecessary, it nevertheless does nothing to detract from the measure. In the worst case scenario, it would be a belt-and-braces approach. I do not want some of the loopholes that my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North and for Worthing West discussed to be left in the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey has done a brilliant job in getting the measure this far. Today is probably our only chance to get it right. I cannot see anybody revisiting it ever—or at least not for many years—and I am anxious that we do not leave any loopholes in it. I therefore want to press the amendment 2 to a Division.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Leeds Children’s Heart Surgery Unit

Debate between Philip Davies and Stuart Andrew

Tuesday 30th October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I am grateful to have a further opportunity—you might wonder why we are taking another chance to raise the issue—to discuss the Leeds children’s heart unit. Given that there is a new ministerial team at the Department of Health—I am delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry) to her new post—and that the decision on the unit has been referred to the Independent Reconfiguration Panel, it is critical that the independent review gets this right. The issues that we have been raising need to be assessed in great detail by the independent panel.

It is important for us to remind ourselves of the key issues. I want to make it crystal clear at the outset that we have always supported the objective of the review. Of course, we all want the best services for our children, and having fewer specialist centres is a principle that we have never doubted. My grave concern is that the review will fail to meet the objectives, particularly in the north of England, subjecting my constituents and those in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire to a worse service than the one that they currently enjoy. That is why I want to outline our concerns.

First, the review has always made it clear that units need to perform 400 operations or more a year. If that is the agreed standard, we must accept that. However, a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers showed that the majority of patients who live in east, west and south Yorkshire would not travel to Newcastle. Instead they would go to Liverpool, Birmingham, or, in some cases, even to London. Anyone who knows our area knows that that is instinctively the case. Since the decision was made, adverse weather over the past couple of months has caused huge problems on the A1. Would a parent go there or would they choose less problematic routes? The issue is made clear in the analysis. The independent review document states:

“There was more reluctance amongst members of the public to consider travelling to Newcastle as a centre. If the preference of the parents and the public were factored into assumptions of patient flows, they may have implications for projected levels of activity at – in particular – the Newcastle centre.”

What is the review’s answer to the problem? At the decision-making process meeting—a seven-hour meeting to rubber-stamp a decision that clearly had already been made—it was said that patients preferring centres other than Newcastle would be influenced by referring doctors, with the assumption made that they would be pointed to Newcastle. Frankly, the evidence points to the contrary: all 20 referring clinicians in the Leeds network, whose views were never sought by the Safe and Sustainable review, said that they would not refer patients there for treatment.

In addition, the review argued that if 25% of patients from Leeds, Sheffield, Doncaster and Wakefield chose to go to Newcastle, that unit would perform 403 operations a year, conveniently just over the target of 400. That also assumes that 100% of patients in the other remaining postcodes, including Hull and Harrogate, would go to Newcastle. Newcastle can only reach the 400 figure if all the assumptions—that 25% will go from south and west Yorkshire, that clinicians will refer, and that 100% in Harrogate, Hull and elsewhere would use the centre—are correct, but there is no evidence to support such assumptions.

Given the importance of the 400 figure, it is staggering that it has been reached on the basis of assumptions. I know my hon. Friend the Minister was a barrister before entering the House. I wonder how the court would have reacted if she had based her defence or her prosecution on assumptions. That is why I believe the review is flawed. If we are going to change, it must be for a much better service.

That brings me to the issue of co-location. The foundation of the review was the inquiry at Bristol, and ensuring that such events never happen again is crucial. A key recommendation of the inquiry was to have all paediatric services under one roof. The British Congenital Cardiac Association has stated:

“It is important that the centres designated to provide paediatric cardiac surgery must be equipped to deal with all of the needs of increasingly complex patients. For these services at each centre to remain sustainable in the long term, co-location of key clinical services on one site is essential.”

I completely agree with that statement. Indeed, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, in his report following the Bristol inquiry, stated in recommendation 178:

“Children’s acute hospital services should ideally be located in a children’s hospital, which should be physically as close as possible to an acute general hospital. This should be the preferred model for the future.”

Yet despite Sir Ian’s assessment panel describing the location of key services on a single site as optimal, Sir Ian accepted a watered-down definition of co-location, which allowed Newcastle to be described as a co-located service, and that led to the decision to close Leeds, despite the Paediatric Intensive Care Society’s assertion that it

“would dismiss any suggestion that a service located on another hospital within the same city can be regarded as being equivalent to a service located on the same hospital site.”

What has caused Sir Ian Kennedy to change his mind? Anyone visiting the Leeds unit will know that it is a wonderful, integrated unit. It has all the services that are needed for children with complex and multiple needs. They need paediatricians there with other specialities. On my several visits to that unit, on each occasion I have seen paediatricians coming to help patients with complex needs.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has led this campaign in Parliament with his customary charm and tenacity. As ever, he is making an excellent case. The national health service is paid for by the public for the benefit of the public. Ultimately, the services that we provide should be the ones that the public want. MPs from our region, from across the parties, are here today, and it is clear that the people in Yorkshire have confidence in the unit, want it to continue and believe it will offer the best possible treatment. Should that not be one of the most important factors that the Government bear in mind?

Prisons (Property) Bill

Debate between Philip Davies and Stuart Andrew

Friday 14th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His background in law and his experience are showing far more than mine, as I have not been in the law. He is right. Indeed, I am sure the House would be amazed to learn that the real problem is mobile phones. Some 41,000 mobile phones alone are currently being held in storage by the Prison Service. They are all waiting to be claimed by people who frankly should not have had them in the first place. All those mobile phones are being stored and administered by staff who are already busy in their day-to-day jobs. Furthermore, there is a genuine concern that the legal position might not enable prisons to deal with unauthorised property, such as that which has been adapted for unauthorised use—for example, radios with the mechanics removed to enable drugs to be smuggled into the prison.

As I said earlier, the current position is considered perverse. It is remarkable that although a prisoner can be prosecuted for smuggling a mobile phone into prison, under the Offender Management Act 2007, or for possessing a mobile phone in prison, under the Crime and Security Act 2010, that item is retained at the taxpayer’s expense and then returned to the prisoner when they leave. What sort of message does that send out, particularly to the victims of crime? That is why there is a genuine need for this Bill.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s Bill says that such property can be either destroyed or otherwise disposed of. I just wonder what he has in mind by “otherwise disposed of”. Does he envisage prisons setting up a sideline selling things on eBay, for example?

[Stuart Andrew]

No, I am most certainly not suggesting that. However, I hope that the Bill will finally allow prison governors to sell such property, and then donate the money to charities such as Victim Support, perhaps. In that way, the proceeds of those criminal activities could go back to the victims who have suffered at the hands of those prisoners.