Alex Ballinger
MP for Halesowen · Labour · United Kingdom
“I thank the right hon. Lady. She talks about the UK’s military support in the conflict. I wonder whether she is suggesting that we should have provided support to the Americans during the initial attacks, as some Opposition Members suggested, or whether she is talking about other types of military support.”
“The right hon. Lady raises the JCPOA and the negotiations with Iran 10 or so years ago. Do you think we are closer to a nuclear negotiation today than we were back then? Do you think that negotiating at the start would have been a better approach in this conflict?”
“I was concerned to see reports last week of drones launched from Russian shadow fleet vessels overflying critical infrastructure in the UK, including nuclear air bases and nuclear sites, as well as other concerning issues.”
“T4. I was pleased to see co-operation with the Netherlands on a new amphibious fleet in the defence investment plan. I spent two years of my career working alongside the Dutch marines, and the Royal Marines have a long history of co-operation with them—mostly not fighting each other—but since our amphibious ships HMS Albion and HMS Bulwar…”
“Q4. I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s comments on the legacy of Jo Cox.I know that all of us in this place have been following the contest for No.”
“Last week we heard the very welcome news that the final asylum hotel in Dudley borough has closed. The system set up by the Conservatives was a complete failure. It was very inappropriate to house people in town centres, and it was extremely costly for the taxpayer.”
The complete record
Every one of 426 lines we hold for Alex Ballinger, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 9.
“It has fuelled mistrust, created uncertainty and offered a false promise of protection to veterans that could never be delivered. Secondly, the remedial order removes the statutory bar on troubles-related civil claims. The 2023 Act sought to block citizens of the United Kingdom from pursuing justice for crimes that they faced during the troubles. I believe that was wrong in principle, and indeed it was found to be incompatible with article 6 of the convention. Thirdly, it removes the exclusion of protected material gathered by ICRIR from being used in civil proceedings and certain other processes. In plain English, that stops victims who would have had their hands tied by the law from using evidence they would need to seek justice.”
“So it is right that the Labour Government have committed to repeal and replace the previous Government’s failed Act through primary legislation, but today is about a necessary interim step: the remedial order before the House. The remedial order will fix human rights breaches quickly, when the courts have found that Parliament’s work has cut across basic protections. What does it do? First, it removes the Act’s conditional immunity provisions—the quite outrageous provisions that allowed terrorists to secure immunity from prosecution by offering an account “to the best of their knowledge and belief”. Those provisions were never enacted as they were struck down by the courts, but their presence on the statute book has done real damage.”
“The Joint Committee on Human Rights warned in 2022, when there was a majority of Conservative politicians on that Committee, that the Government’s approach risked “widespread breaches of human rights law” and would fail “to meet the minimum standards required to ensure effective investigations.” Victims of the troubles and their families, including British servicemen killed by terrorists, would have had their routes to justice shut down by the Conservative’s unlawful legacy Act. Nevertheless, they pressed ahead regardless, passing an Act that they knew would never be compatible with UK law, and therefore would never commence. False promises were made to our veterans and negligence was dressed up as decisiveness.”
“I am happy to speak in support of the motion as set out on the Order Paper. The wider context is straightforward: the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 passed by the Conservatives attempted to replace long-standing legal routes with a new commission, ICRIR, and a conditional immunity scheme. However, that approach did not command support in Northern Ireland and it did not withstand legal scrutiny. Both the High Court and the Belfast Court of Appeal found key provisions in the Act were incompatible with UK human rights law, in particular where they undermined the state’s duties to investigate serious harm and where the Act shut victims, including the victims of terrorist attacks, out of court. This was entirely foreseeable.”
“I am grateful to have the opportunity to gently correct the hon. and gallant Gentleman. When asked that question a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister said categorically that we would not allow Gerry Adams to claim compensation. There are several civil cases that would be blocked, supporting the victims of IRA terrorism, including a case involving Gerry Adams, and this remedial order will help going forward. It is important that we think about the victims of those appalling terrorist paramilitary crimes.”
“That is the difference between the soldier and the terrorist.” This is not happening in Afghanistan or Iraq, but in Northern Ireland, where UK citizens are affected, so rule of law is vital.”
“I am a veteran, and I speak to many veterans, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that there are range of views on the issue. Those of us who served, in whichever service, did so to uphold the rule of law. It is beholden on us and those who served that if they are upholding the rule of law, they are accountable to that rule of law. Brigadier John Donnelly, who served in Northern Ireland and is chair of the Centre for Military Justice, said: “You cannot have a system of law that applies to some groups and not to others. It is vital that soldiers operating in support of the civil powers are held fully accountable to the laws they are required to enforce.”
“My hon. Friend is right. It is important for everyone involved, including the many veterans concerned about the situation in Northern Ireland, that we end this legal wild west. The defective Act that led to more litigation, uncertainty and distress for victims and those who served on Op Banner should end.”
“However, as the Act was rejected by the courts, it never provided any protection to veterans. We will go on to protections for veterans as part of Labour’s new Bill—I will not cover that now, because we will have another opportunity to do so. This remedial order is a necessary correction. It removes discredited provisions, restores basic legal rights and helps to rebuild confidence in a process that must command legitimacy across Northern Ireland, and I will support it.”
“I do not have the statistics in front of me, but the right hon. Gentleman will know that the overwhelming number of prosecutions that have happened in Northern Ireland have been of paramilitaries and terrorist groups. Only one serviceperson has been convicted since 2010, and that was on a suspended sentence. I am afraid that the threat is exaggerated for political effect by our opponents, which is not helpful in a very serious business that people are very concerned about. It is important that we deal in facts, not scare stories. Claims that 800 civil cases will be reactivated and that this measure will drag veterans through the courts again are simply untrue. The reality is that almost 800 civil cases continued unaffected by the Conservatives’ 2023 legacy Act, as it was aimed at new claims.”
“Those opposing the Bill need to be clear about what they are opposing. They are opposing a treaty that secures the base for 99 years with full operational freedom, one that is backed by our allies and was negotiated substantially under the previous Government.”
“In answer to the intervention by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), there is more than one veteran on the Labour Benches. I wonder what the veterans from the Conservative party who went through 11 rounds of negotiations under the previous Government were saying; they clearly supported this decision at that point, and there were clear reasons for doing so. This is not an exercise in process; it is about whether this House chooses to protect on firm, enforceable terms an overseas base that is fundamental to British security and our closest alliances. Diego Garcia is a critical asset for the UK and our allies. It supports counter-terrorism, monitors hostile state activity, and enables the rapid deployment of UK and US forces across regions that matter deeply to our national interest.”
“The Government published full details of the financial arrangements on the day that the treaty was signed, including the relevant explanatory material. The methodology is clear: it uses the Office for Budget Responsibility’s inflation forecasts to calculate the average annual figures, and those figures have been verified by the Government Actuary’s Department. The House of Commons Library reached the same conclusion, and the Office for Statistics Regulation has welcomed this approach. The amendment is not about transparency; it is about rerunning an argument we have had time and again in this House, including through I do not know how many urgent questions. Lords amendment 6 deals with Commons votes to cease payments if Mauritius breaches the treaty. This would require additional parliamentary steps on anticipated expenditure.”
“The treaty already establishes a joint commission to deal with issues as they arise, and international treaty law provides routes to termination if an indispensable object for execution permanently disappears. The amendment adds risk, not security, undermining confidence in the treaty framework that we need to keep the base operational. Lords amendments 2 and 3 were rejected by Mr Speaker. Lords amendment 4 deals with the procedure for orders under clause 6 of the Bill. It is a Government amendment; responding to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it provides appropriate parliamentary procedure. It strengthens scrutiny and is a sensible refinement to how the Bill operates, and this House should support it. Lords amendment 5, which deals with the publication of the total costs and methodology, is duplicative.”
“The UK will control installations and the electromagnetic spectrum; we will control a buffer zone of 24 nautical miles, within which nothing can be built without UK consent; and there will be a strict ban on any foreign military or security presence on the outer islands. Those are precisely the kinds of protections that make the base secure, usable and resilient against interference. As we are in the Chamber today to consider the Lords amendments, I will go through each in turn. Lords amendment 1 would require renegotiation so that the UK can stop payments if it cannot use the base. On the surface, as others have mentioned, this may sound prudent, but it is a recipe for uncertainty and delay at the very moment that we need clarity.”
“I will not be supporting Lords amendment 1, because it would require renegotiation. We already have a joint commission to deal with issues that arise, and international treaty law would provide routes to termination if we were in that sort of situation, so the amendment is not necessary at all. I will come back to this question later in my speech. If we refused to comply, others—international organisations and partners—would not ignore any provisional measures that were put in place, undermining the practical operation of the base. That is the same reason that negotiations were started under the last Government, and the treaty contains safeguards that are not decorative, but operationally vital.”
“I will happily outline that to the House. The Minister has already outlined it: it is approximately 0.25% of the defence budget, which is tiny in comparison to the base in Djibouti that the French operate. If we compare it with the operation of an aircraft carrier or something of that size, it is very good value for money. Lords amendment 6 would cut across long-standing constitutional practice on treaty payments, and would infringe Commons financial privilege and established arrangements for authorising expenditure. More importantly, it would send a damaging signal that the UK is building an exit ramp into primary legislation, weakening our hand and injecting instability into the very agreement designed to secure the base. The treaty already contains robust dispute resolution mechanisms, which is the right way to deal with such issues.”
“Yes, I will continue. The strategic logic is straightforward. Diego Garcia’s location, infrastructure and operational utility are indispensable.”
“My hon. Friend makes a good point. This treaty has been through the interagency process in America and has support across the system. Colleagues may have mentioned the President changing his position, but the US system is much wider than that, and I do not think we should we should base our long-term strategic and security interests on Truth Social posts. This House should reject Lords amendments 1, 5 and 6, support the Government’s sensible procedural amendment 4, and pass this Bill in a way that protects national security, rather than gambling with it.”
“Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise the 24-nautical mile exclusion zone that the Government negotiated in the treaty? It will prevent many of the things that he referred to.”
“I thank the hon. Member for giving way. In my constituency, many people have written to me about the impact of fireworks on dogs. Two people in particular, Marianne and Rosleen, wrote about how excessive fireworks around fireworks night cause their dogs to tremble uncontrollably and run desperately away from their owners. Does he share my concern about the impact on animals, and does he agree with the petitioners that the Government must do more to regulate and control the amount of fireworks we see throughout the year?”
“Will the Government commit to publishing the findings from that report so that we can all see what advice the Government are getting from the sector? The evidence is clear. The public are tired of gambling adverts—that much is obvious. I urge the Government to heed the report of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform, which will include proposals on limiting the most harmful forms of advertising, particularly as it affects young people. I will not pre-empt the report, which will be coming soon, but it will include lots of sensible steps that we can take on restrictions. It is important that we do not let outdated regulations allow more children to slip through the net and be primed for gambling harm in the future.”
“We need to change the Act, but the Government could do a lot of things right now that would not require primary legislation, including effective regulation on advertising, marketing and sponsorship. That can already be done by the Gambling Commission and the Advertising Standards Authority. Many other European countries, including the Netherlands, Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium, have much stronger advertising restrictions than the UK. I urge the Minister to look at what lessons we might learn from other countries. I also ask him about the Betting and Gaming Council’s report on gambling advertising, which I understand was commissioned by the Government and informs their policy at the moment. Does he agree that asking the BGC to mark its own homework in that way is problematic?”
“It is clear from talking to the many MPs engaged on this issue that the public are tired of this. Some 74% of people polled think that there are too many gambling adverts in sports and that under-18s should not be exposed to gambling advertising at all. That is a position that many of us can agree with. It seems completely reasonable considering the scale of harm that we are seeing. A lot of the current situation stems from the fact that the Gambling Act was established in 2005 and we have not had primary legislation since then, while the world has changed completely. Many Members have talked about digitisation and smart phones, and how 24/7 online casinos have made things more difficult.”
“Having elements of gambling and actual gambling in computer games means that we are priming children to get involved in dangerous types of gambling in future. Influencers on platforms like Twitch are using opportunities to promote gambling and talking about it, which is very concerning. Recent research by the academic Leon Xiao, who has provided advice to DCMS, found that 26% of games offered loot boxes that are illegal under current interpretations of gambling law. There is a real lack of enforcement and a lot of people are operating in this grey area, providing things that, under many interpretations of the law, are not legal. I have not even talked about the opportunities available to children to access the unregulated gambling market or to use crypto, or the many other dangerous types of gambling.”
“There is a real problem in the self-regulation of content marketing. The Advertising Standards Authority has a Committee of Advertising Practice code of practice that requires gambling marketing communications to be clearly identifiable as such, but again and again, we are not seeing that followed. In fact, 74% of gambling ads on social media were found not to follow that basic rule, which is seriously concerning. As we have spoken about, gaming is a real challenge—37% of young people who use games have been exposed to gambling-related marketing. Games are designed with the same psychological elements that we might see in gambling, as they target dopamine and encourage people to take that chance of an opportunity to win.”
“Obviously, that is a step in the right direction, but it is just a drop in the ocean compared with the number of gambling adverts that we see in a typical football match. Social media is also an enormous problem—53% of boys have seen gambling adverts on social media. Of course, we are debating whether people under 16 should even be able to access social media, but one of the reasons against it is the amount of harmful content to which they are exposed, and gambling adverts are one such example. Particularly concerning is the fact that 31% of children who have been exposed to gambling adverts have seen them through influencers. These people are not typically talking about doing paid adverts or showing themselves as gambling advertisers; they are simply influencers talking about the ways in which people can access gambling products online.”
“The University of Liverpool highlighted a really high incidence of new cases of problem gambling particularly among boys and young men between the ages of 17 and 20. In fact, 57% of boys under the age of 18 have seen gambling adverts at sport events in the last year. The University of Bristol found that, in just the opening weekend of the premier league alone, there were 27,000 gambling adverts or inducements. Football is of course a family sport, and lots of people of all ages go. We have to ask ourselves: do we think it is acceptable that children—whether they are going with their parents, going alone or watching it on television—are subject to so many gambling adverts? We have talked about the voluntary industry measures that have been put in place, including the front-of-shirt ban that is planned to be introduced later this year.”
“The all-party group recently had an inquiry on the subject, on the back of which we have written to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the gambling Minister. I want to highlight some of the things that we pulled out from that inquiry, particularly the effect that gambling advertising has on children and young people. Whether it is through social media, sport or even gaming, we are particularly concerned about the way in which such advertising normalises gambling among people under 18. People of that age, who are not even legally able to participate in gambling, are being bombarded by adverts across the board. There is loads of research on this issue, and a lot of it points to the fact that many gambling adverts target boys rather than girls, and they are much more likely to receive them.”
“We are protecting people by incentivising gambling companies not to work in those areas. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey mentioned, the scale of gambling harm in the country is enormous. He talked about how 2.7% of the population suffers from gambling harm, but I find the figure among young people most striking: it is 10.2% for those under the age of 25. Some 70,000 children under the age of 18 face serious gambling harms, including addiction, debt and mental health problems. We are certainly priming people in the next generation to get into even more trouble when they reach the legal age at which they are able to gamble properly. I want to talk about gambling advertising in particular.”
“It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Kevin McKenna) for delivering an excellent speech that covered many of the issues on which many of us in the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform have been campaigning. I also thank him for organising this debate, as it is really important to focus on young people. Like many in this room, I am a member of that all-party parliamentary group, and we are particularly concerned about the harms that gambling causes to people across the board. I put on record my thanks to the Government for listening to our campaign on gambling taxation, through which we have raised additional money from the most harmful forms of gambling: addictive online slots and casinos.”
“This week FIFA announced a four-year partnership so that gambling platforms can stream world cup games on UK websites for the first time. Football fans are already heavily exposed to gambling advertising, and the Government have confirmed that there is clear evidence linking gambling advertising to harm. As the Premier League has agreed to remove gambling adverts from the front of shirts this year, does the Minister share my concern that the livestreaming of world cup games on gambling sites is a step in the wrong direction and can perpetuate further gambling harm?”
“Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the proposal to harmonise gambling taxes, which the horseracing industry was most opposed to, was first proposed by his Government? It is something that they were proposing; we have just inherited it.”
“Our laws have not kept pace with technology, they have not kept pace with the scale or sophistication of online gambling operators, and they have not kept pace with the reality of the harm we now see every day in communities across the country. I welcome the measures in the Bill, but I urge the Government to move quickly to update advertising rules, strengthen affordability checks, protect children and vulnerable people, and ensure that tax policy, regulation and public health strategy on gambling are all aligned. The measures on remote gaming duty and general betting duty are excellent steps in the right direction. They acknowledge the reality of harm, strengthen fairness in our tax system and take us closer to a modern framework that puts the wellbeing of the public first.”
“I want to highlight another pressing issue for the Minister, which is the continued prevalence of the B3 gaming machines on physical premises. These high-intensity machines, so often located in areas with higher deprivation, continue to cause significant harm, yet they remain under-regulated and undertaxed relative to the risks they pose. If we are to take harm seriously, B3 machines should be included in the next phase of gambling tax reform. Finally, the most recent gambling Act was introduced more than 20 years ago, in a completely different era: before the smartphone, before the explosion of data-driven behavioural targeting, and before 24/7 online casinos in your pocket. A new Act is clearly needed.”
“For us, the Chancellor’s move is a matter not just of revenue, but of fairness, responsibility and aligning our tax system with the reality of modern online gambling. However, taxation is only one element of harm reduction. Raising duty alone will not of course prevent gambling addiction, stop children being exposed to online gambling advertising and ensure that families receive the support they need when a loved one falls into crisis. If we are to tackle these harms, we need a public health approach. That means proper funding for treatment, and I welcome the steps already taken under the statutory levy. However, it also means serious investment in prevention, community education and early intervention, and a modern regulatory framework that puts people, not profits, first and is fully independent of the gambling industry.”
“In another example, an unnamed online bookmaker was investigated by the Gambling Commission for illegally directing customers to offshore-based platforms —indeed, to the black market itself—to avoid paying UK tax and to avoid UK regulations. Increasing these online duties means that it will be harder for unscrupulous operators to avoid tax by moving operations offshore. Online gambling in the UK will be taxed fairly in the UK. Raising remote gambling duty to 40% and general betting duty to 25% for remote bets also puts us on a footing much closer to that of other European jurisdictions and many states in the United States. Until the Budget, the UK was behind the curve in taxing these highly harmful online products.”
“So the Chancellor’s decision to increase remote gaming duty targeted at these most harmful forms of gambling is absolutely the right thing to do. It sends a clear message that the tax system must reflect the level of harm caused. There is another reason why this change—as well as clause 84, which increases general betting duty—is the right thing to do: many online gambling operators, particularly large global operators, have spent years offshoring their profits, booking revenues overseas, minimising their UK tax liabilities and contributing very little in meaningful employment or investment in our communities. In one example, at the end of last year the online operator Sky Bet moved its headquarters to Malta specifically to avoid UK corporation tax, cutting its contribution to the Treasury by tens of millions of pounds.”
“There are many types of gambling harm—debt, family break-up, crime and, at the most severe end, suicide—so it is extremely worrying that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has seen a threefold increase in the number of those referred for gambling treatment since gambling moved online during the pandemic. In my own area, the Dudley-based Gordon Moody charity, which provides gambling treatment centres all over the west midlands, has seen a large increase in referrals, most worryingly among younger people involved in online gambling. This is not a coincidence, because online slots and casinos are designed to be high speed, continuous, psychologically manipulative and, for many, overwhelmingly addictive.”
“For us, fairness was not just about asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more, but about ensuring those whose business models generate the most harm make a proper contribution to the cost of that harm. That is why clause 83 is so important, as it targets the most addictive and dangerous forms of gambling: online slots and casinos. As a country, we are experiencing record levels of harm caused by gambling. The Gambling Commission’s figures tell us that 2.5% of adults, which is more than 1 million people, are suffering from serious gambling harm.”
“I want to speak in support of clauses 83 and 84 on gambling taxation. I of course strongly welcome these steps on remote gaming duty, which cover online slots, online casino games and other high-risk remote gambling products. Ahead of the Budget last year, I was one of more than 100 Labour MPs, alongside Gordon Brown, who wrote to the Chancellor calling for a different approach to gambling taxation and one that recognises the reality of the modern gaming industry. We highlighted how taxing the social ills caused by online gambling could pay for the abolition of the two-child benefit cap, and I strongly welcome the action the Chancellor has taken to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty on the back of these changes.”
“The point that I was trying to make was not at all that people who work in the gambling industry are not involved in meaningful employment. The online sector represents less than 10% of jobs yet makes enormous profits, so in fact, if online companies are taxed more, gambling companies are incentivised to put more people in the land-based gambling sector, which could increase employment and would be good for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency.”
“I agree with my hon. Friend—I am also concerned about the black market in online gambling—and I welcome the extra money that the Chancellor has introduced for the Gambling Commission, which has powers including blocking ISPs and blocking payments, among other things, to crack down on unregulated gambling. Does my hon. Friend share my concern about unregulated online gambling companies advertising in the UK, including in the premier league? Does he agree that the Government should be doing something about that so that we can better support the regulated sector?”
“I want to pay tribute to Colin Brookes, the president of Halesowen Town FC, who passed away at the end of last year doing what he loved most: watching his beloved Yeltz. After playing as a professional footballer and serving as a police officer, Colin dedicated 25 years of his life to Halesowen Town FC. He led the club through the ups and downs that all non-league clubs face. Colin was a champion not just of football, but of Halesowen and the surrounding communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Colin Brookes and celebrating the impact of the good people who, like him, keep our non-league clubs alive and contribute so much to our communities?”
“I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; she is delivering an excellent speech, and I support her campaign to end the aim to permit. Another issue I have heard lots of people concerned about is the 80:20 rule, which requires gambling shops to have only 20% of their machines to be the higher stake, more dangerous and addictive machines. There is a rumour or a consultation out that the rule might be liberalised. Does she agree that the liberalisation of that rule, at a time when gambling regulation is not fit for purpose, would be completely unacceptable?”
“That diversity is not a weakness to be managed, but a strength to be celebrated. It is seen in the way that communities support one another. It is also seen in the celebration of the Black Country Multicultural Day in the town centre, or at the Halesowen/Dudley Yemeni community association, which offers language classes and youth activities. Culture, after all, is a shared language that allows people of different backgrounds to recognise themselves in a common home.”
“That matters profoundly when we talk about a town of culture, because the competition should not be about parachuting in a programme of events, and leaving behind a banner and a few glossy photographs. Instead, it should be about enabling a town to tell the truth about itself: what it has been, what it is now and what it wants to become. In Halesowen, one of the truths that we can express with confidence is that ours is a welcoming town. For generations, people have come to Halesowen to work, to build families, to contribute and to become part of the place. That is not a recent trend—it is part of the Black Country story. We have communities who have shaped the local economy and culture over time, bringing traditions and different languages, food and faiths, that have widened the town’s horizons.”
“That brings me to someone who deserves to be named in this debate—Colin Brookes, the long-standing chairman of Halesowen Town FC, who passed away at the end of last year. Colin was a towering figure at the club, and he is remembered by many as the embodiment of its spirit and in many ways the town’s spirit, too. Colin guided Halesowen Town through many challenges, always remained close to the club and—fittingly—passed away while watching his beloved Yeltz. However, the truth is that Halesowen’s culture is not only what I can list in a speech; it is also the daily life of the town. It is what happens in community centres, churches, schools, parks, cafés and small businesses; it is the volunteers who turn up in the cold to help run a youth club; and it is the sense that the town is more than a collection of streets.”
“Culture is not only what happens in big cities; it is also the patient recording of lives and places that feel to the people who live there like the centre of the world. Halesowen is also the world centre of music. I mentioned Led Zeppelin earlier. Robert Plant grew up in Hayley Green and went on to become one of the defining voices in British rock; indeed, he was voted the best lead singer of all time by Rolling Stone magazine. And no town is complete without sport. Halesowen Town football club is not merely a team but an institution. It is one of the places where community life is renewed weekly, through familiar rituals: the talk on the terraces, the work of the volunteers behind the scenes and the intergenerational bonds that non-league football clubs uniquely sustain.”
“It is not just a historical feature; it is a demonstration of civic pride in action. The walled garden has been brought back from ruin through the determined efforts of the Halesowen Abbey Trust and a remarkable team of volunteers who have given their time, skill and patience to restore a piece of heritage for public benefit. That work has received national recognition: just last month, the Leasowes walled garden was listed as grade II by Historic England, recognising both its historic significance and its architectural interest. Halesowen has not only landscape but cultural reach through literature. It is the birthplace of Francis Brett Young, whose writing helped to put our region in the frame.”