Combat Sports for Children: Safeguarding

Dan Carden Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on safeguarding children in combat sports. I do so with a heavy heart and a profound sense of responsibility, because today I speak for a young constituent who can no longer speak for himself.

Alex Eastwood was just 15 years old when, just over one year ago, he stepped into a ring for a kickboxing bout and never returned home. He was a son, a brother, a friend— described by his family as the heart and soul of their home. He had dreams, hopes, and an infectious passion for sports. He was a boy who filled every room with laughter and warmth. His father Ste and his mother Nikita are with us today in the Public Gallery, as are representatives from Leigh Day, the law firm that represented the family at the recent inquest. I have previously met his brothers Jake and Frankie in preparation for speaking today.

Alex’s family have shown extraordinary courage in the face of unimaginable grief by turning their pain into a powerful call for change. Alex’s death was not simply a tragic accident but a preventable loss, and it has highlighted a dangerous gap in our duty to protect children.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Taiwo Owatemi.)

[Dan Carden]

Alex died following an unsanctioned exhibition kickboxing match at a gym in Wigan. That means it was not sanctioned by any national governing body and fell outside the jurisdiction of Kickboxing GB—the only organisation for the sport in the UK that is officially recognised by both Sport England and the World Association of Kickboxing Organisations, which is recognised by the International Olympic Committee.

The fight was meant to be “light contact”, held as part of a charity event, but it strayed tragically and fatally into danger. Alex’s opponent on the night was two years older and had experience and training in full contact fighting. As the match was unsanctioned, no independent ringside doctor or paramedics were present. Instead, there were two first responders with first aid qualifications.

Alex competed in three rounds. After becoming disoriented, he was assisted to the ring floor. He was then taken by ambulance to the Royal Albert Edward Infirmary in Wigan and later transferred to the Royal Manchester children’s hospital after he was found to have a catastrophic bleed on the brain. He underwent surgery but died in hospital three days later. A four-day inquest at Bolton coroner’s court, which concluded on Thursday 12 June, examined the circumstances of Alex’s death, the safety measures in place at the time, and the broader regulatory environment for children participating in combat sports.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman; this is a very difficult subject and he is speaking with admirable compassion and understanding. I am sure the family appreciates that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that while there is a moral duty and a legal obligation to protect children and young people in sport through the creation and promotion of a safe environment that protects them from harm, each sport has different requirements when it comes to fulfilling that obligation? While it is reasonable that a football coach does not need to lay hands on a child in any case, it is also reasonable that a karate instructor must position children, and that must require regulation and Government action. Does the hon. Member agree that there must be a sport-by-sport approach to safeguarding and regulation?

[Dan Carden]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for being here tonight, and I know that the family will be grateful for the interest he has shown. I will go on to talk about the lack of regulation and what the family are calling for.

I know that the family would want me to thank the coroner in this inquest—Michael Pemberton—for his approach to Alex’s case. He described the match that Alex was part of as “chaotic and somewhat disjointed”. There was no national governing body oversight, and no clear or enforced safety standards. Gordon Mitchell, head of welfare and governance at Kickboxing GB told the inquest that the organisation would never sanction a light contact bout in a ring. He explained that such matches are permitted only on mats, where mitigating factors such as fighters stepping off the mat allow referees to step in, in the event of a mismatch or escalating risk.

On the broader framework governing children’s participation in combat sports, the inquest heard that standards around safety, medical oversight and safeguarding vary widely, and in many cases are absent all together. In the words of the coroner, the level of confidence in organisational safeguards that people would expect to exist within the sport is “sadly lacking”.

If a match is unofficial or unsanctioned, there is no guideline minimum standard that must be met to provide safeguarding for a child participant, no minimum standard of medical support that might be required, no maximum rounds, no periods of rest, no welfare checks on participants, and no risk assessment and critical incident plan. It should stop us all in our tracks to learn that in this country, children can be placed in combat situations without clear, enforceable national protections.

Alex’s family did everything right—everything a loving family would do. They encouraged him to get involved in a range of sports and activities and supported him when it became clear that he had a talent for kickboxing. They enabled him to thrive in what he loved doing and to become a six-time world champion. However, as the inquest made clear, they and Alex were failed by a lack of safeguarding, responsibility and regulation.

Every single day, children up and down the country take part in activities like Alex did. They lace up gloves, put on headgear and step into training halls and rings, with no minimum standards in place to ensure their safety. Parents who just want the best for their children, and who want them to be fit and healthy, to enjoy sports and to discover and nurture their talents are sending their children to participate in contact sports without realising the risks. Many people do not know that there are sanctioned and unsanctioned bouts, or what that means in terms of safety. Many people do not know that there is no one governing body for kickboxing and that membership is not mandatory.

That is the shocking reality exposed by the inquest into Alex’s death. It is the reason the coroner took the highly unusual step of issuing to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport a regulation 28 prevention of future deaths report before the inquest had concluded. In that report, he raises concerns that

“there is no guidance or regulation of contact sports involving children’s participation.”

He says that

“action should be taken to prevent future deaths”

and that the Government

“have the power to take such action.”

I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has tasked her Department with exploring ways to urgently improve the safety and welfare of children in martial arts and combat sports and to ensure that it is always a priority. Urgent action must follow, and I would be grateful for any further update that the Minister can provide today. What Alex’s family are demanding is simple: clear, enforceable national protections for children in combat sports. That would replace the current patchwork in which there is no consistency in rules, no oversight and no accountability.

From this tragedy, a better system must emerge. We owe it to Alex and to his family, we owe it to every parent who believes in good faith that their children are protected by the rules operating around sport and we owe it to every child who steps into a ring or on to a mat, trusting that the adults around them are keeping them safe. No child should lose their life participating in a sport they love.

I finish with the words of Alex’s parents:

“Our lives have been changed forever. Alex’s future was taken—and with it, part of ours too. We miss him every second. Now, all we have left are memories, but we also have the responsibility to make sure his death was not in vain and for his sake we will make sure we do that.”

We cannot bring Alex back, but we can ensure that his legacy is one that prevents such a tragedy from ever happening again.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) for securing this important debate and for his moving speech. The death of his constituent, Alexander Eastwood, as a result of a kickboxing bout is devastating. I know that my hon. Friend cares deeply about child safeguarding and I can reassure him and the House that it is a priority for this Government. He advocates with care and thought for his constituents, making a powerful and moving speech—one that I have heard very clearly. In the time available to me, I will set out the Government’s plans to strengthen safeguarding for children in combat sports. I will begin by outlining key safeguarding issues in those sports; then I will set out the Government’s next steps in addressing this incredibly important issue.

First, I recognise that this is a debate that everyone would have hoped we would not have to have. The tragic death of Alexander Eastwood is something we hoped would never have happened. I am sure I speak for the whole House in extending our deepest sympathies to his family, who are here this evening. As my hon. Friend has said, they have shown incredible courage. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be meeting Alexander’s family next week, and we are both committed to making sure that meaningful change happens so that no other family has to go through the pain that they have felt.

It is a priority of my Department that the safety and wellbeing of children taking part in sport are paramount. Alexander’s death is such a tragedy, and it has made it very clear that more needs to be done to protect the safety of children in combat sports. Ahead of the inquest into the death of Alexander Eastwood, the assistant coroner for Manchester West filed a regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths. The report highlighted specific areas of concern for children in martial arts. In her response, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport set out plans to work with the martial arts sector to address those concerns.

In considering our next steps, we must take account of the entire martial arts sector and its complexity. The sector is made up of many different disciplines, including judo, taekwondo, kickboxing and more. Many, though not all, of these disciplines have publicly funded national governing bodies. Many providers across the sector have robust safety measures in place. National governing bodies set minimum safeguarding standards for their affiliated clubs and competitions to comply with. These standards are in line with guidance issued by Sport England, our arm’s length body for grassroots sport.

Many clubs and competitions are not affiliated with a publicly funded governing body. However, many unaffiliated providers choose to sign up to the safeguarding code in martial arts. Organisations such as the British Martial Arts and Boxing Association support unaffiliated martial arts providers to adopt the safeguarding code. The code is funded by Sport England, and recognises clubs and associations that demonstrate strong safeguarding practices against a set of minimum standards. Providers with recognition under the code can display a logo on their promotional materials to show participants that their safety measures have been vetted.

The coroner’s report on the case of Alexander Eastwood highlighted specific issues around clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with a national governing body. We are now looking into that as a matter of urgency. The coroner identified that without set standards, clubs and competitions may not have adequate regulations around medical checks and support, the number of rounds and periods of rest, participant welfare checks and critical incident plans. Despite the programmes in place to support robust safeguarding practices in martial arts, unaffiliated providers are not required to meet any shared safety standards. I recognise that coaches and providers work hard to make martial arts available to communities across the country, and I recognise the work done by clubs and associations to comply with the safeguarding code in martial arts, but there must be strong, consistent standards for safeguarding children across all martial arts. Clearly, more must be done.

Clubs and competitions across martial arts should share consistent standards for safeguarding children. Parents and carers should be able to trust that appropriate safety measures are in place, regardless of where their children participate. Existing safety standards for martial arts set by Sport England and its partners must be robust and fit for purpose, but national standards must also translate into strong safety practices across all martial arts. The sector should look to encourage as many clubs as possible to adopt shared safety standards. The Government will consider what more can be done in this space.

Parents and carers deserve to be able to make informed decisions about where their children participate in martial arts. Information on best safety practices and which clubs and competitions meet shared standards should be readily available to participants and their guardians. Of course, the burden of finding information should not only lie with participants and their guardians; clubs and competitions with robust safety practices should be supported to promote the standards they meet. The Government are looking at all these areas to assess what more can be done to safeguard children in combat sports. As promised in her response to the coroner’s report, the Secretary of State will meet the family of Alexander Eastwood to hear about their experiences and views, and to discuss our thinking before we go into more detail publicly. I hope everyone can appreciate why that approach is being taken.

In addition, in response to the coroner’s report on this case, my Department has tasked Sport England with working with the martial arts sector on this issue. It will identify improvements and present a plan in the coming months. That work will include developing guidance for the martial arts sector and reviewing the safeguarding code for martial arts to ensure that it reflects best practice and is fit for purpose. Sport England will also work with the NSPCC to help educate parents and carers on what to look for in choosing where to participate in martial arts. That will involve the NSPCC’s Keeping Your Child Safe in Sport Week—a week of educational programming in October.

My Department is also exploring ways to strengthen safety standards in clubs and competitions that are not affiliated with national governing bodies. We are having conversations with the martial arts sector to understand how we can help parents and carers to be confident that their children will be safe when they participate. Our aim will be to ensure that safeguarding practices in martial arts are consistent, effective and transparent.

[Dan Carden]

I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State, who has been up to see the family in the Gallery this evening and who will meet them next week. I know the family and the solicitors, Leigh Day, will be incredibly grateful for the thorough response the Minister has given tonight, putting a lot of information on the record. These sports and activities for young people are so important for our communities, and we do not want to put any young person off taking up a sport, competing or becoming a professional in that sport. This is about safety; it is about giving parents the safety and security they need, and about something good coming from Alex Eastwood’s death.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for his work, his moving contribution and for putting that important point on the record. As he said, sport should be a safe and welcoming environment that participants, parents and carers can have confidence in. Many martial arts providers work hard to safeguard children who participate under their supervision, and there are strong safety practices in place across many areas of combat sport, but more must be done to ensure that safety standards are strong, consistent and transparent. Standards of practice should be robust and widely adopted across the sector, and it should be clear to parents and carers which clubs and competitions comply with shared standards and which do not.

Nothing can bring Alexander back, but as the Secretary of State said to me before the debate, we are determined to work with his family to make sure that part of his legacy is real change, so that a tragedy like this never happens again.

Question put and agreed to.

Gambling Harms

Dan Carden Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow two such accomplished speeches. There is real intelligence on both sides of this House in terms of where we need to go now with gambling legislation.

Most Members will know that I have worked over a number of years on the issue of alcohol and drug addiction treatment, and I share similar concerns about addiction in gambling. As you know, Mr Turner, I also have a passion for horseracing, and I will give a bit of context to bring the two together. We can all agree that the incessant advertising of gambling, in particular of online casinos and the most harmful forms of gambling, is destructive. I do not see why we should stand for that any longer.

There is a second levy that is important in this debate. Fixed-odds betting goes back to about the 1960s. Horseracing—which I consider to be a great British sport that I wish to support, and is an industry that employs many people and livelihoods—is reliant on a levy from the bookmakers to the horseracing industry. That levy is applied only to bets that are placed on horseracing.

There is therefore no risk to racing in dealing with the most harmful forms of gambling in this country. In fact, there can be a benefit to the horseracing industry if this House gets the legislation and the regulation right. We can reduce the most harmful forms of gambling and encourage forms such as taking a flutter on a bet or a Yankee on a Saturday—as we have done for many generations in this country.

We can redraw the landscape of betting and gaming in the United Kingdom for the benefit of real-life sports and entertainment, away from the online casinos and the most addictive forms of gambling. Through the levy that my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) talked about, I hope that we can also make sure that more money goes into addiction treatment and support for those who are so tragically harmed and who, in some of the worst cases, lose their lives to this pernicious habit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will come on to answer some of those points, but in the interests of time, I will endeavour to get the Minister for Gambling to write to the hon. Member with a full response.

The shadow Minister also asked about operators paying more in the first year. That is simply not correct. The levy is charged at a flat rate based on previous years’ profits. We believe that is the fairest and most sustainable way forward. Operators’ first levy payment will be based on profits reported to the Gambling Commission via regulatory returns. The commission changed the returns process for non-lottery licences last July. As such, operators’ first levy payment is based on three quarters’ worth of data multiplied by 1.33 to get the full year.

On the assessment the Government have made about anyone losing out on treatment in the transition period, we are clear that operators must maintain the level of contributions to the National Gambling Support Network to ensure that it has the funding it needs. We have received reassurances from the industry that that will happen. As I have just said, I or the Minister for Gambling will write to the shadow Minister. In the interests of time, I will move on to make some progress on the question before us.

We know that the vast majority of people who gamble do so safely—indeed, half of adults gamble each month. The shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) spoke about the contribution the industry makes economically and in terms of jobs, and I will not repeat those comments. However, 300,000 people in Great Britain are estimated to be experiencing problem gambling. It is clear from today’s debate that many of us share the commitment to do more to protect people who are suffering that harm, especially given the significant changes that we have seen in the sector in recent years.

In that context, the Government are committed to taking forward White Paper measures such as new protections on marketing and bonuses, financial risk checks to prevent unaffordable gambling, and allowing consumers to seek redress from gambling operators via an ombudsman, which has been discussed today. We will continue to work with the industry, the third sector and the Gambling Commission to ensure that the reforms are proportionate, targeted and effective.

[Dan Carden]

Reflecting some of the points made early on in the debate, will the Department look at lotteries, pools and sports betting differently from addictive online forms of gambling, which we know are some of the most harmful? There is an opportunity to shape how gambling goes forward in this country.

[Stephanie Peacock]

I will be happy to discuss that with my hon. Friend. He knows that the levy is proportionate to the type of product, so it is different for different products, but I or the Minister for Gambling will be happy to discuss it with him.

The work on reform has already begun, with regulations on stake limits for online slots and a statutory gambling levy, which was debated last week and has been discussed today. I am pleased to report that the House approved both those statutory instruments, and they will be considered in the other place next week.

I will talk briefly about the first of those statutory instruments, on stake limits for online slots, which provides an important and proportionate intervention aimed at better protecting those who are most at risk of gambling-related harm. Online slots are the highest-risk and fastest-growing gambling product, but there are currently no statutory stake limits for online slot games, unlike their land-based counterparts. As the popularity of slots grows, so does the risk for vulnerable people. The limit builds on previous protections introduced by the Gambling Commission. The new regulation introduces statutory maximum stake limits in online slots games of £5 per game cycle for adults aged 25 and over and £2 per game cycle for young adults aged 18 to 24. Those limits will bolster existing safer game design requirements to ensure that online slots games are safer to play than ever.

I have heard what some Members have said about £5 being too high. The average stake in online slots is 60p, and the evidence shows that people staking high amounts are more likely to be experiencing gambling harm. The £5 stake limit is a targeted intervention to protect those who are most at risk of gambling harm and unaffordable losses.

Horseracing

Dan Carden Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nick Timothy]

I am sure all hon. Members would look forward to a trip to Ludlow to experience the racing. If I am honest—I say this as a Conservative—this issue has dragged on for a while. I will turn to some questions for the Minister shortly, but time is of the essence.

As so often with Britain, part of the draw, especially for international investors, traders and spectators, is our history and tradition. Racing in this country dates back more than three centuries, and thoroughbred racing was first created here. The association with royalty, which continues with His Majesty the King, only adds to the prestige—I am sitting next to my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), the most ardent monarchist in the House of Commons.

That success story, however, is strangely neglected. To those who do not know the industry, it can sometimes appear to be something of a caricature, with horses selling for millions of pounds, breeders paying hundreds of thousands for a particular stallion to cover a mare, and aristocrats and royals being prominent in their patronage. But the reality of racing, unfortunately, is that its future is far more precarious.

Many breeders and trainers operate on tight margins and, as many hon. Members present will affirm, any conversation with them turns quickly to prize money. A horse that wins a top-tier British race increases its future breeding value, but the immediate return is limited compared with in Australia, Ireland and France, where racing benefits from Government support, or in Japan and the United States, where there is simply more money around.

The prize fund for the Dubai Turf, for example, is £4.5 million, and for the All-Star Mile in Australia it is £2.7 million. The Queen Anne Stakes in Ascot, which is a fair equivalent, offers £600,000, and the same is true for the less famous races. At an average of £16,000 to be divided by all placed horses, prize money across the board is much lower here than in competitor markets. Lower down the pyramid, most races pay less than £5,000 to the winner. Owner expenditure far outstrips the total prize money up for grabs in British racing. That is down to how the industry is funded.

In Japan and Hong Kong, where betting is generally banned, there are exceptions for horseracing and some other sports, because they are seen as being run efficiently and by Government Departments. That means proportionately more bets are placed on horseracing than elsewhere, and in both places the industry controls the gambling. In France, prize money is underwritten by the Pari Mutuel Urbain, which enjoys a monopoly on betting. In Australia, where prize money has almost doubled in a decade, it is funded mostly through a betting tax. In Ireland, more than two thirds of prize money comes directly from the Irish Government.

Our system is different. Here the funds come from media rights, executive contributions from racecourses, owners’ entry fees, and the betting levy—a 10% tax on bookmakers’ profits from bets placed on races staged in Britain. Around a third of prize money comes from the levy, but income is falling. Over the past two years, the industry estimates that betting turnover on British racing has fallen by over £1.5 billion and could be as low as £7 billion this year. The Horserace Betting Levy Board says

“falling turnover is unlikely to prove a positive for the sport’s long-term health”,

and I agree.

Nobody expects us to adopt a Japanese or French model, but I ask the Minister how things might be changed so that we can put racing on a sustainable footing and make sure that we retain our position as the best place in the world to breed, train and race horses. First, does the Minister agree with all hon. Members present—this is probably the easiest of my questions— that the British horseracing industry is an undoubted international success story, a source of British soft power around the world, and home to many vital community assets in regional towns here, and that we must therefore do everything in our power to make sure it continues to prosper?

Secondly, will the Minister confirm today that the Government will not go back to square one and will instead pick up where their predecessors left off? In May, the British Horseracing Authority agreed with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport that the levy should be increased to 11.5% to create a growth fund to market and promote British racing at home and abroad, and to hold an independent review of the racing funding model.

[Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate—he and I are co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on racing and bloodstock. It is important to get more money into the racing industry because there are so many people employed throughout the sport for whom racing is their livelihood, but their commitment and the lifestyle that they have to lead to do their work means that we must make sure they are in decent well-paid jobs as well. We cannot have racing squeezed, as it could be in years ahead.

[Nick Timothy]

I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The racing industry is connected to many associated industries and many different kinds of jobs. As I said, when people see the large sums that are invested in bloodstock and so on, they do not always see that the industry rests on thousands of people, many of whom are on low incomes.

--- 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?