Charity Commission

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have secured this debate and to raise an issue that is important not only to my constituents but to everyone who relies on the vital work of charities. It concerns whether the Charity Commission currently has the necessary powers and resources to respond effectively when charities are not properly governed.

A charity’s ability to operate successfully and serve our communities depends on public trust. Well-governed charities can make an enormous difference to people’s lives, and trusteeship carries series legal responsibilities. Trustees are custodians of charitable assets, and they must comply with the governing documents and manage the charity’s resources responsibly to ensure that activities further charitable purposes. When charities are not appropriately governed, the consequences are significant, and it undermines public confidence and deprives the local communities they are supposed to serve. When trustees fail to meet their responsibilities, there must be an effective regulator with the powers and resources to intervene swifty and restore public trust in the charity sector, the vast majority of which does an excellent job. That is the role of the Charity Commission.

I acknowledge the important work of the Charity Commission. It regulates more than 170,000 charities in England and Wales, overseeing a sector that is responsible for tens of billions of pounds in annual income and expenditure. It has a range of statutory powers, including the ability to investigate misconduct and mismanagement, to require information and documents, to issue official warnings, to suspend or remove trustees, and in appropriate circumstances to appoint interim managers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for her assiduousness in bringing forward this issue. Although the Charity Commission should have teeth, does she agree that it is the job of enforcement agents such as HMRC, or indeed the local council, to take a bite out of those who are in breach? The delineation of powers must be clear, and that is one thing that charities perhaps needs some help with.

[Ashley Dalton]

A wide range of powers are held by a number of organisations, and it is crucial that each one of those takes responsibility and has power to work within its own remit, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. There are serious questions as to whether the Charity Commission’s current framework is sufficient. A regulator’s ability to investigate concerns does not necessarily mean that it has the capacity to intervene swiftly or effectively enough, and there is a pertinent concern in my West Lancashire constituency, where I have been engaging with the Charity Commission over long-standing concerns about the management and governance of Scarisbrick village hall.

In 1972, local people secured a piece of land and went about fundraising and building a village hall, a village green and a children’s playground. They then fundraised and erected a war memorial to the Scarisbrick residents lost in the world wars who had not previously been recognised. Many years went by, with the village hall being a valued community asset, including the village green and the children’s playpark. In recent years, however, concerns began to surface over the running of the hall and facilities.

First went the children’s playpark, with trustees claiming that funds could not be found to maintain it. The trustees then changed the name of the village hall to The Venue Scarisbrick, marketing it as a function suite. Local organisations such as the Scouts were allegedly deprioritised, and regular slots that they had been using were changed, making it difficult for them to continue, forcing them to go elsewhere. The trustees then fenced off the village green, denying access to local residents, and renting the green space to a private sector petting zoo. The final straw came in July 2025 when the trustees proposed the permanent removal of the war memorial. I launched a petition to save the memorial, and wrote to trustees in August 2025 setting out my concerns and requesting a meeting. I received no response. I chased it in August and later in October, but I still received no response.

Meanwhile, local residents became increasingly concerned about not only the trustees’ decisions, but their behaviour towards residents. It transpired that the trustees were using the hall as a base for their own private sector businesses and charging other businesses to use the address. When challenged, the trustees refused to meet local residents, refused to meet or correspond with me, and called the police when local residents protested at the proposed removal of the war memorial. On inspection, it transpired that the trustees have set up a limited company in the name of The Venue Scarisbrick, of which some of the trustees are directors. There is no indication of how that company relates to the charity that owns the building. They have also failed to register accounts for the charity for several years running.

Residents demanded an annual general meeting, as one had not been held for some time and was long overdue. In February 2026, six months later than the governing document required, the trustees, despite receiving advice from the Charity Commission that they must hold the AGM in person, held an online broadcast, claiming that it was an AGM. There was no way to ascertain who was there, how many people were present or whether they were eligible to be there. There was no way to contribute unless explicitly invited to do so.

When it came to so-called elections, the trustees were appointed by ballot by email. It was not secret, and there was no adequate scrutiny or transparency. Unsurprisingly, all the existing trustees were re-elected. Not only was the so-called AGM appallingly run, but the chair of the trustees took the opportunity to launch a 15-minute verbal attack on local people who challenged him. Local parish councillors have been threatened with legal action and intimidatory language on social media. While the war memorial was saved—at least for now—the village green remains inaccessible and the trustees remain in charge.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making a bold and brave case. As she knows, she has recently become a bit of a heroine of mine following a recent and well-publicised speech. Is not the problem here the Charity Commission? I do not know if it has the resources, the means or the legal powers required, but, in a variety of cases that I have drawn to its attention on woke causes—about which we might not agree—it seemed to be highly ineffective. She is talking about a very local case, but she is highlighting a bigger point in doing so.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. That is the point that I am making: whether the Charity Commission has the powers, resources and ability to act. I fear that the story I am laying out today is far from unique across the country.

[Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on securing this debate. There is a really key point about trust and accountability. Does she share the concerns of myself and other members of the coalfields group of MPs about the activities of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation? It is a charitable body established by Parliament in 1952 to provide support to mining communities. Many former mining communities, including some in my own constituency, say that they are missing out on millions of pounds of investment from the sale of former miners’ welfare halls and outdoor welfare schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public must have confidence that charitable trusts are held accountable for their actions? Will she support our efforts to ensure that the Charity Commission takes all appropriate action in the cases that we have identified?

[Ashley Dalton]

I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has outlined. The Charity Commission should support all charities, because it is fundamental that public trust remains. That is why residents and I have engaged with the Charity Commission and raised concerns regarding the transparency and governance of Scarisbrick village hall and the decisions being made.

The Charity Commission has begun an investigation. Following the February AGM, the commission confirmed that concerns about the failure to comply with advice and the conduct of the meeting itself had been escalated to its regulatory compliance team. Further concerns, including concerns around social media activity and questions about the transparency and integrity of the AGM ballot, have been added to its case records. However, by June, the commission confirmed that the case remained ongoing and was progressing.

Last month, the commission advised that it had received a significant volume of further correspondence, including new concerns about the conduct of a trustee on social media. It also confirmed that it was continuing its investigation and planned to undertake a books and records inspection in the coming weeks. I appreciate that thorough investigations take time, particularly where there are complex governance issues to consider. However, this case illustrates the challenges of addressing concerns in a timely way, particularly where further issues and inappropriate conduct continue to emerge while an investigation is ongoing. Residents of Scarisbrick are concerned that the village hall will potentially be lost and its resources frittered away.

Those concerns have been compounded by further developments. Two companies associated with the management of the village hall, The Venue Scarisbrick Ltd and Community Inclusion Projects Ltd, have appeared on Companies House as having active proposals to strike off. That raises even more questions about corporate governance and the protection of charitable assets and community facilities. Given that this case has been ongoing since last summer and I have been raising concerns with the commission for a year, I ask the Minister to consider what more the Government can do to ensure the commission can investigate cases of this nature promptly.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I am staggered by the story of Scarisbrick village hall—what the hon. Lady is describing is terrifying. It seems to me that the Charity Commission does not have the resources it needs to do any of its work. I have a constituent who is starting a charity, HeritageTies, and he has been told that it is going to take 23 weeks to register his charity. During that time, he cannot get a bank account, fundraise, or start the job he is trying to do. I am told that 3,000 new church charities have been added, so does the hon. Lady agree that we need a root-and-branch investigation of whether the Charity Commission has the resources it needs to do its job?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. This is an ongoing issue, and she will be aware that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigations of the Charity Commission more widely has raised similar concerns. It also questions whether the commission shows sufficient boldness in exercising its existing powers, and whether it has the powers it needs to regulate the charitable sector effectively.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for referencing my Select Committee’s recent report. Will she join our Committee in calling on the Government or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to hold a thorough consultation on the commission’s powers, both to identify whether it needs further powers and whether it is making the best use of the powers it already has, and particularly whether the legal advice it is getting is too risk averse?

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and join him in that call.

I would welcome an update from the Minister on the Committee’s report and on the Government’s plans to take forward its recommendations, particularly its proposal for a wider consultation on the powers of the Charity Commission. Is the Minister satisfied that the commission’s existing powers and resources are adequate to enable it to intervene at an earlier stage where there are persistent governance concerns and potential risks to charitable assets? Are there opportunities to strengthen the regulatory framework so that the commission can take effective action without unnecessary delay? Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the Charity Commission has the resources, powers and support it needs to fulfil its responsibilities, protect charitable assets and maintain public confidence in the charitable sector.

Leisure Services: West Lancashire

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

I will call Ashley Dalton to move the motion and then I will call the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered leisure services in West Lancashire.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. Today, I will focus in particular on the future of swimming in West Lancashire, and I start by acknowledging the research by Swim England and Swimming Nature on swimming and communities.

Everyone has a relationship with swimming. Some people love swimming—they get to the beach and run for the sea, because they love water and being in it. That is just as natural to them as walking on solid ground. But other people’s relationship with water is far more complicated. For people who are not confident swimmers, like me, or for people who cannot swim at all—like me, sometimes—being in water can be scary and even panic-inducing. Swimming is far more than a hobby or something we watch at the Olympics every four years; it is a life skill.

Park Pool in Ormskirk and the Nye Bevan Swimming Pool in Skelmersdale have both served the communities in West Lancashire for over half a century. Over the decades, Ormskirk and Skelmersdale have boasted more than just swimming pools. The Park Pool and Nye Bevan Swimming Pool have taught thousands of children how to swim. They have been a place for friends to meet, as well as a place to meet new people, and they have also given older people places to remain active in retirement.

However, as the children who first learned to swim in West Lancashire’s pools now reach retirement age themselves, our swimming pools are also ageing. Park Pool and Nye Bevan Swimming Pool have both given so much to our community, but are reaching the end of their usable lifespan. They struggle to cope with modern demands and need major refurbishment or replacement. West Lancashire is not alone in this regard. Nearly two thirds of leisure centres in the UK need urgent investment, and there has been a growing fear that the industry could completely collapse in the coming years. Understanding the importance of our pools, in 2019, West Lancashire borough council announced detailed plans for new health and wellbeing hubs in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is outlining the issue that clearly exists and the critical need to improve swimming facilities. However, she has also talked about the importance of leisure, physical activity, social interaction and wellbeing. All those things are critical for her constituents, and my constituents have the same problems that hers clearly have, so when it comes to the improvement of pools, it is important that health and wellbeing are part of that.

[Ashley Dalton]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I agree that swimming pools and leisure facilities more broadly are crucial for the mental and physical health and wellbeing of all of our communities.

West Lancashire borough council recognises the importance of our pools, so it has issued plans that include replacing the leisure centres in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk, and relocating facilities while keeping the existing provision open during construction, to prevent any reduction in services for local people. However, since 2019, and the pandemic, the energy crisis and the huge rise in interest rates under the last Government, the project costs have risen by more than 30%, from £36.6 million to £49 million, and it is not just the costs of building new facilities that have increased. The cost of simply keeping the doors open at Nye Bevan Swimming Pool and Park Pool have also increased, not to mention the fact that both facilities continue to age.

All of this means that plans to replace our pools in West Lancashire are now at risk of failure. Although West Lancashire borough council remains committed to delivering new pools for the community, it also has to empty bins, provide housing support, and look after our parks and green spaces. Local government finances have been squeezed to the bone over the past 14 years. Councils were once able to undertake large capital projects, in order to invest in the future of their communities, but the rug has been pulled from under their feet. The council has been left with no choice but to open a public consultation on the future of our pools in Skelmersdale and Ormskirk. That consultation ends tomorrow.

Since 2010, more than 400 swimming pools have closed in Britain, with deprived areas taking more of a hit than affluent ones. The number of pools in local councils with the highest levels of health deprivation fell by 14% over the past 12 years, while those in the least health-deprived areas fell by 6%. Only 45% of children and young people attending school in the country’s most deprived areas can swim 25 metres, compared with 76% in the least deprived areas. Among year 6 children, 25% cannot swim 25 metres unaided, while that figure is almost 50% in low-income families.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I agree with the hon. Lady that swimming pools are important. Like her, I am not a very confident swimmer, although I would love to be. When I was leader of Wokingham borough council, we opened the Carnival Hub, a multimillion-pound leisure centre that is enjoyed by residents from across the constituency. I agree that leisure services promote better health outcomes and build a sense of community. Does she agree that the Government need to fund local government properly, so that we can keep those centres opening, and that they need to set out the impact of increases in the national minimum wage and employer national insurance contributions on our leisure centres?

[Ashley Dalton]

I agree that the mechanisms for local authority funding need to be—and are being—addressed by the Government. I am confident that we will see announcements on that in due course.

We all know the value of swimming, especially for children. Learning to swim shapes the relationship we have with water, which stays with us. That relationship can literally mean the difference between life and death, sink or swim. Our children understand the value of that relationship. The school council at Crawford Village Primary school in Skelmersdale wrote to me last month. They are desperate for the pools in West Lancashire to remain open to the public, because they know that access to swimming brings health, as well as social and educational benefits to the community, as the hon. Members for Wokingham (Clive Jones) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) have mentioned.

The alternative to council-run pools is costly private leisure facilities. The Bannatyne health club in Skelmersdale is the nearest private pool to Nye Bevan. I looked at its website to see how much membership would cost. It states that subscriptions start from “as little as” £42.99 a month. For a family of five, that would be more than £200 a month. The council currently charges £15.99 a month per person to access all its leisure facilities across three sites.

People might not need a monthly subscription, but just want to swim for a day or two a week. Anyone wanting to swim at the Park pool or Nye Bevan can do so for £4.70. At private facilities, such as Bannatyne clubs, an individual swimming session would require a day pass at £25. Many of the people responding to the council’s consultation will be simply unable to afford anything close to that. We know that when leisure facilities become less accessible for the community, those from low-income households literally pay the price.

Those living in affluent areas, classed as middle-income families, have a higher chance of being able to swim than those living in a deprived area. Even if someone cannot swim, they have a better chance of attending a school that can foot the bill for swimming costs, which have risen dramatically in recent years. I know that the Government are committed to opening opportunities to children of all backgrounds. Announcements of investment in our schools—an additional £1 billion for students with special educational needs and disability, and free breakfast clubs—are transformational and will make a huge difference in outcomes for children leaving school.

We also know that education is far more than what we learn in textbooks. It comes from interacting with the world outside the classroom and learning life skills, such as swimming. West Lancashire borough council wants our community to have access to swimming and leisure facilities. It wants our children to form a positive relationship with water. It wants to create a more social community, and it wants a more active community. However, its hands are tied behind its back. It tells me that it needs the Government to bring forward plans for councils to restructure local government finance, so that it can invest in the big capital projects that will support our communities. I appeal to the Government to do that, and to help us to unlock the funding that will give our community access to the facilities it needs.

I know that my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be working with the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to improve our communities’ access to leisure facilities. I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister what plans the Government have to support access to affordable swimming and leisure facilities for those communities that cannot access private centres.

Football Governance Bill

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

The Government are very conscious of the impact on clubs, which is why we are giving them time to prepare for the measures we are bringing into play.

On top of the new licensing system, the regulator will introduce a new strengthened owners and directors test to make sure that a club’s custodians are suitable, and to protect fans from irresponsible owners. This responds directly to growing concerns about financial mismanagement in football, particularly illicit finance, as well as to fans fighting back against owners at clubs like Blackpool and Charlton Athletic. The regulator will also bring in new, robust financial regulation to improve the financial resilience of clubs across the football pyramid.

As members of this House will be all too aware, a lack of financial resilience is one of the key risks to clubs’ futures. Giving the regulator powers to oversee financial plans and to step in to require clubs to beef up their financial resilience, where it has concerns, will prevent clubs from facing cliff-edge situations like we recently saw at Southend United. That will not mean that all clubs have to break even. We know that striving for success can come at a cost and that this ambition makes the game so exciting, so we welcome sustainable, sensible investment. What we cannot have is reckless overspending, irresponsible risk taking and inadequate funding. That is why the regulator will look at each club’s plans and how they are funded, and ensure that clubs have the resources to manage their risk taking. No longer can we have short-term actions jeopardising a club’s long-term sustainability.

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has mentioned fan engagement a couple of times. Fans increasingly feel as though they are not being listened to by their clubs. The fan-led review, which she has also referred to, made a series of recommendations in 2021 to give fans a real say in how their clubs are run. Will she be clear as to how the Bill will ensure that clubs are effectively and properly engaging with their fans and that fans’ voices are not being ignored?

[Lucy Frazer]

The Bill identifies a number of things that we know are important to fans, including heritage assets such as the colour of shirts, badges and the location of a club’s stadium. We know that those are the things fans care about. The Bill ensures a proportionate approach, because we know that engagement with different fans at different clubs, which have very different measures in place, will require us to take a proportionate, case-by-case approach. The regulator must ensure a level of engagement with fans, particularly on the issues that I am identifying, but we also want to ensure that it works for the clubs. Therefore, it will be for the regulator to ensure that a proportionate approach is taken.

I was about to go on to discuss that aspect, because we will be setting a minimum standard of fan engagement, and requiring clubs to seek the approval of their fans for changes to those things I mentioned in order to comply with the strong existing protection for club names. We know that most clubs have a strong relationship with their fans, consciously engaging them in decisions about the club’s heritage. However, there have been some notable exceptions, as we have seen at Cardiff City and Hull City, whose fans have had to battle to bring back or keep their club’s colours, badge and name.

As I said, the regulator will also protect fan interests with the requirement for clubs to seek its approval for any sale or relocation of their home ground. The stadium a club plays in is not only of significant value to fans; it can be the club’s most valuable asset, and it is only right that a club seeking to relocate has to demonstrate that such a move would not significantly harm the heritage of the club.

Budget Resolutions

Ashley Dalton Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel). I gave my maiden speech in the Budget debate this time last year, so I am feeling a little reflective and reminiscent, and I have found myself reflecting on the past year and on what has changed. In what state do we find the economy, a year on? Supermarket prices are still rising, living standards are falling, the tax burden is at record high, and there is still no real sign of interest rates coming down to where they were before the Tory mini-Budget tanked the economy. But one thing has changed: the Chancellor and the Prime Minister have managed to put the country into recession. At a time when every other economy in the G7 except one is growing, the Conservative party has fallen asleep at the wheel, and the UK economy is getting smaller as a result. Had the UK economy grown at the average rate of OECD nations over the past decade, it would be £140 billion larger today. That would have contributed an additional £50 billion in tax revenues to invest in our public services.

Let us be clear: the economic issues we face today are the result of 14 years of mismanagement of the country’s finances. The Government are out of ideas, and fast running out of time. The economic reality that we face in Britain today is a pale and weak imitation of the sunny uplands promised by the Conservative party at every election since 2010. Britain has always been a country where we are proud to pay our taxes. We understand that by contributing from what we earn, we fund the public services that we all rely on—roads, schools, the NHS. So with taxes at their highest since the war, Britain’s public services must be the envy of the world, right? Sadly not. They are creaking at the seams. Time and again, I hear from constituents how hard it is to get an appointment with a doctor or register with a dentist. School budgets have been stripped to the bone, and teachers are having to fund pens and pencils from their own pockets. Our roads are littered with potholes. Many routes in West Lancashire are bordering on dangerous, given the state they have been left in. Taxes are at record highs and public services are on their knees. The national debt has trebled since 2010.

The Government are giving working people a raw deal. The state of our economy is not an accident, but a choice. Conservative Chancellors chose to impose austerity on public services and to let the covid fraudsters get away with billions of taxpayers’ money. It was a Conservative Chancellor who rushed through the “kamikwasi” Budget, crashing the economy. Those were choices that the Conservative party made knowing that working people would foot the bill.

I am glad that the Chancellor decided to draw inspiration from the Labour Benches. Scrapping the non-dom status is a choice that we on this side can get behind, but why has it taken so long? The shadow Chancellor has been calling for non-doms to pay their fair share for two years. That is £6 billion that the Chancellor has left on the table—£6 billion that could have been funding our schools, hospitals and roads, and used to relieve the pressure on household bills. Faced with the worst poll ratings on record, the Chancellor is so desperate to cut national insurance that he has introduced a policy on non-doms that he has consistently argued against since getting his job. He has even promised to abolish national insurance altogether, but that leaves a £46 billion unfunded hole in the economy.

Working people are still worse off. For every £5 the Chancellor gives with one hand, he takes £10 with the other. The average family will be £870 worse off under his plans. It gets worse: someone with a mortgage in Tory Britain in 2024 will have hundreds of pounds added to their bill. This summer, we are set to see even more mortgages get even higher at the end of their terms. There is nothing in the Budget for parents, the elderly or first-time buyers; in fact, I am not sure what the Budget has for anyone. There is certainly nothing for the loan charge or infected blood scandals—not much at all, other than gimmicks and unfunded promises. Whether at by-elections or in the polling, it is the Labour party that voters are choosing to trust with the economy. It is about time the Government gave them a chance to decide. It is time for a general election.