Culture, Media And Sport

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee. I am conscious of time, so I will focus my remarks on the Select Committee’s “Game On” report, which looked at community and school sport, and the Government response published last week.

The evidence was unequivocal: an active nation underpins everything else—our health, our prosperity, our social cohesion. It is not a peripheral issue, but a strategic priority, yet it has too often been treated by Governments as a discretionary choice. We are at a critical juncture as the UK continues to invest significantly less in sport and physical activity than many of our European neighbours, despite the proven economic and social returns. Our Committee therefore called for a decisive generational shift, with a cross-Government movement for health strategy that recognises that physical activity is not simply a sport, but a central pillar of policy across health, education, planning and economic growth.

The Government response acknowledged much of this analysis, but when we look more closely, we recognise a theme that has gripped this Government from day one: plenty of words, but no action to back them up, or as some might say, “all mouth and no trousers”. Nowhere is that clearer than on funding. We recommended increasing the share of Government expenditure on sport and recreation over time, in recognition of the very clear evidence that investment in activity delivers long-term savings, reduces illness, supports people into work, prevents chronic conditions and strengthens local economies.

Following publication of the Committee’s report, the Government announced over £1 billion for school sport. It looked like a statement of the kind of ambition we would like to see across the sector, and we nearly patted ourselves on the back for influencing this remarkable investment. However, given a closer look, this glossy announcement is no gift at all. It is a cynical cut disguised as new funding. Yesterday, Schools Week published an article with the finding that 65% of schools in the north-east are expecting to make cuts to their coaching staff as a result. One reason for this cut is the reduction in the contribution from the Department of Health and Social Care and the replacement of the PE and sport premium with money that must now go to secondary schools as well as primary schools. I have a feeling that the Minister will attempt to say that schools are receiving more money for PE and sport when she responds to this debate, but that is simply not the case. It is smoke and mirrors.

We were pleased with the £400 million of grassroots funding, which we called for in our report, but we need a concerted effort to ensure that the funding achieves what it sets out to do. We also called for an audit of sport and physical activity facilities to make sure we are not losing them. This danger is real, especially as the Government have still not ruled out removing Sport England as a statutory consultee. Are the Government tracking the number of sports pitches and facilities, or do they have any plans to do so?

Another pillar of our recommendations was clarity—clarity of leadership, accountability and deliverability—because without a coherent national plan, even significant investment risks being fragmented and under-realised. That is why we called for a cross-Government strategy, backed by clear objectives, defined responsibilities and mechanisms to measure progress. The Government have told us that a national plan for physical activity is in development, but there is no firm deadline, no detailed governance model and no clear indication of how the Department will be held accountable—all words, no action. On issue after issue, the Government have agreed in principle to a number of our recommendations, but have declined to act decisively, as with the recommendation of a statutory duty on local authorities to provide sporting and leisure facilities and the recommendation on action to remove unnecessary “No ball games” signs. There are warm words, but zero grip.

In schools, where the case for action is perhaps clearest of all, we see the same pattern: the Government accept that provision is inconsistent and acknowledge the importance of high-quality PE and regular activity, but when presented with the opportunity to set out clear national expectations, they step back. There is no requirement for children to achieve 60 minutes of activity every day, only encouragement; there is no firm mandate guaranteeing two hours of PE each week, only an expectation that schools might protect time; and physical education itself will remain outside the core curriculum subjects, despite its central importance to children’s development. A truly transformative approach would embed movement throughout the school, throughout the curriculum, throughout the environment and throughout our culture, ensuring that all children, regardless of their background, have the opportunity to live active lives, because active children become active adults.

Outside school, the Secretary of State has made her national youth strategy the poster child of her tenure. She came to Parliament to tell us she was giving young people

“somewhere to go, something to do and someone who cares.”—[Official Report, 18 June 2026; Vol. 787, c. 971.]

The strategy is backed by £500 million, which again sounds like a hugely significant investment to me, but when we look at the detail, we see it is not the investment we think. It is the amalgamation of the scrapped youth investment fund and the scrapped National Citizen Service. Less money is going into the system. Although the National Citizen Service no doubt had its flaws, it was the most successful youth programme of the past few decades—over 1 million young people took part.

Funding streams used to be clear, but now there is a convoluted pick and mix of over nine different programmes. It is more difficult for civil society to navigate a fragmented selection of funding pots. Meanwhile, the speed of the closure of the National Citizen Service meant that some of the incredibly skilled and dedicated youth workers, on whom we rely and on whom the Government will rely when they finally decide what they are going to do for young people, have left the workforce. How many have left the sector due to delays and uncertainty in the delivery of the national youth strategy? Does the Minister know? Perhaps she can tell me.

Volunteering is an essential foundation of community sport. The Government recognise its importance, but they once again stop short of setting out a comprehensive national policy to support, incentivise and sustain the workforce—there is nothing there. The valued volunteer workforce is needed more than ever before, but it is under incredible pressure. People are dropping out due to the time priorities of coping with cost of living demands.

There is one further example that speaks volumes about the Government’s approach: the question of women’s football broadcasting. The Select Committee recommended an intervention to explore whether the 3 pm Saturday blackout could be adapted to support the women’s game. It would give a consistent time for showcasing the women’s game and inspire girls to get active. The Government’s response points to the technical complexities of UEFA article 48 and argues that any change would risk opening up the slot more widely, thereby undermining its current purpose—the response is, “It’s all too difficult. We just can’t be bothered.” Where is the ambition to work proactively with UEFA and the Football Association to pursue a targeted exemption for women’s football? While the 3 pm blackout continues, women’s football is shackled and with it the opportunity for more women and girls to see themselves participating in sport.

An active population is a healthier, more productive and more connected population. Increasing participation in sport and physical activity is one of the most powerful and cost-effective levers of Government. It delivers returns across multiple policy areas simultaneously, easing pressure on public services and improving quality of life. The question is not whether the Government recognise those investments—they plainly do. The question is whether they are prepared to act with any urgency or with the ambition that the evidence demands. Without ambition, we will continue to fall short of what is possible.

The Culture, Media and Sport Committee has set out a road map. It is quite easy for the Secretary of State, the Minister and the Department to follow it. What we need now is for the Government not simply to endorse this sense of direction, but to actually match their words with decisive action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I would be delighted to meet him. I was on a visit near his constituency recently. Leisure is a real challenge; I really want to do more on it. Of course, it is a responsibility of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, but we are absolutely aware how important this issue is for physical activity. That is why we are investing £400 million in sports facilities. That is alongside the £250 million of Exchequer and lottery funding for grassroots sports annually.

This financial year, we are delivering £85 million via the multi-sports grassroots facilities programme. It will build and upgrade vital pitches, changing rooms and clubhouses. Fifty per cent of the investment will be prioritised for the 30% most deprived areas in the UK, and at least 40% of projects will offer multi-sport access, benefiting rugby, cricket and basketball, alongside football. We have innovative projects, as the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham said, which I am happy to write to him about.

The projects will prioritise women and girls’ provision, doubling access, and I am committed to promoting women’s sport and tackling some of the challenges that it faces. That is why I established the women’s sports taskforce, and we had our most recent meeting in Southampton to coincide with the T20 world cup. We are working with local leaders, in a place-based approach, to deliver funding beyond this year, so that areas can have a greater say on the facilities that they need. I have seen this the length and breadth of the country.

This Government believe in the power of sport, not as a luxury, but as an essential driver of national health, wellbeing and economic productivity. It helps tackle so many issues, such as mental and physical health and loneliness. I think about Jed in Wombwell Main in my constituency, who took up walking football after his wife sadly passed away. That is the power of sport in this country.

I turn to school sport. Over £1 billion will be invested in school sport over the next three years. We are launching the new physical education and school sport partnership network. It intentionally replaces the old PE and sport premium, putting an end to the one-size-fits-all model that failed too many children for too long, while meeting the clear asks of leading voices in sports education.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Member is an excellent Minister, but can she please just answer this question? When we add it all up, does this equate to an increase or a cut in the total amount of school spending?

[Stephanie Peacock]

One billion pounds is going in over the next three years. Of course, that is capital and revenue, and it covers all schools. I do appreciate that there are some concerns. I will come on to address them, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady and, indeed, other Members.

I understand those concerns regarding the decision to replace the existing premium. However, despite sustained investment through the PE and sport premium for over a decade, fewer than half of children are getting the chief medical officer’s recommended 60 active minutes a day. Persistent inequalities remain for girls and people from disadvantaged backgrounds. It simply is not good enough, and we are determined to close the gaps in participation that this causes. That is why over £1 billion in funding for PE and school sport has been committed to over the next three years. This includes £580 million for a new PE and school sport partnership network, to replace the PE and sport premium, alongside investment for improvements to school sport facilities and transitional support for primary schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

A billion pounds is going in over the next three years. I have acknowledged that it is for secondary and primary. The current system simply is not working—kids are not getting as active. I know as a former teacher how important it is for kids to be active. We are reinventing the model, and we make no apologies for doing so. In the interests of time, I am very happy to meet Members to discuss that further.

I am being encouraged by the Chair to hurry up, so I will perhaps put some of my responses in writing. Of course, we have responded formally to the “Game On” report, but I will make a couple of points on that. I have talked about school sport. On the point about “no ball games” signs, we are fully supportive of the principle of removing them. I am due to meet my counterpart at MHCLG. This is in the gift of local authorities, but we want to do everything we can to address this issue.

I understand the arguments about the 3 pm slot. On the point that the Chair of the Select Committee made, the Government’s response did refer to the technical issues with such a change—that is true—and Karen Carney’s review did not recommend it for those reasons. Our football taskforce has led to direct improvements, such as insurance products for female athletes.

In the 30 seconds I have to wind up, I would like to briefly mention youth. We have the most connected but the most isolated generation of young people, and that is why we have announced our national youth strategy, with £500 million of funding. It is incredibly important that this issue be tackled across Government. I will conclude there, but I will ensure that I write to Members to follow up on the points I was not able to cover.

Question deferred (Standing Order No. 54).

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House a moment ago when she said that the quantum of school sports funding exceeded what it previously was. There have been cuts to school sports funding, and I would like to give her the opportunity to correct the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Lady will know that that is not a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that if the Minister wishes to correct the record, she will.

Media Green Paper

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Secretary of State knows as well as I do that the media landscape is changing so quickly that no sooner was the ink dry on the Media Act 2024 than it was almost obsolete. We know that for the first time YouTube has overtaken the BBC in audience reach, which is why the Green Paper is really welcome, but I wonder whether it is a first step towards a new and more extensive media Bill that reflects the nation’s viewing habits and reaches a definitive definition of television. The Green Paper talks about new television when talking about video-sharing platforms, YouTube and so on. We need a new definition of television to reflect technological change. Finally, the consultation refers to media literacy, but surely if we are really planning to future-proof that, we should be talking about AI literacy too—and not just for children.

[Lisa Nandy]

On legislation, we will of course keep that option open and will not hesitate to legislate should we need to do so. We deliberately drew the parameters and contours of the Green Paper very broadly so that we could have that very open discussion and work together to ensure that we then take the action we need to take.

On a slightly more reflective note, the point that the hon. Lady makes about the ink not being dry before the landscape had changed is particularly true in the online space. Rather than thinking about a piece of legislation, the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology and I have been reflecting on the probable need to legislate quite frequently to keep pace with change.

When it comes to media literacy, I agree with the hon. Lady about AI. I think there are two parts to the issue: first, ensuring that we have the right regulation so that people can trust what they see and that we do nothing in the AI space that prevents good-quality journalism from being able to thrive; and secondly, equipping and empowering the people of this country with the skills and ability to navigate AI.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know that the music and dance scheme supports so many talented young performers from lower-income backgrounds to access an arts education. She will also know that such specialist schools and conservatoires are now subject to VAT, because of changes brought in by her Government. In many cases, the bursaries do not even begin to cover the extreme costs, which are made up by family members, parents and everybody clubbing together to try to find the money. The VAT is still there, and it still makes a difference to whether they can afford it. What assessment has the Department made of the number of families paying VAT on the remaining fees, and how many talented young artists are now unable to attend as a result? I think I heard her right in saying that the bursaries will continue in the 2026-27 academic year, but could she please confirm that?

[Lisa Nandy]

I am very happy to confirm that the bursaries will continue in the 2026-27 academic year, and we have been able to increase the amount of funding available, which is a recognition of the cost pressures that families face. I very much agree with the hon. Member that bursaries are absolutely essential, which is why we have protected them even in these difficult financial circumstances. However, she will recognise the difficult circumstances we inherited from the previous Government. We have done our best to protect such things, and in the case of music and dance, we have been able to uplift the funding available.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 16th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Many of our Commonwealth hopefuls started their careers in community events like parkruns and local sports clubs, and yet the sport and recreation sector is in a state of utter confusion because of the Government’s chaotic roll-out of the new rules on medical provision. The Government have said that they do not want small events to be “overregulated”. What does that even mean? There is a wholesale lack of information from the Department of Health and Social Care and the Care Quality Commission about who will be impacted and what it will cost, and there has been no meaningful impact assessment. The Government have warm words about local sport provision, but their actions never stand up to the test. Can this Minister please give us a definitive answer?

Draft Grants to the Churches Conservation Trust Order 2026

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 General Committees

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. At the risk of dangerous levels of cross-party agreement breaking out, I echo what the Minister said about the important role that the Churches Conservation Trust plays in protecting some of our nation’s most significant historical churches. This debate is timely because the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, which I chair, is currently undertaking an inquiry into built heritage and how we protect it, examining the effectiveness of current heritage protections, funding structures and the current successes and challenges of organisations tasked with looking after our most important historical assets.

Evidence we received during our inquiry has shown clearly that the Churches Conservation Trust plays an invaluable role in preserving our heritage, but is increasingly struggling to meet the growing challenges placed upon it. Witnesses told us that funding from the Church of England has not kept pace with the rising costs of conservation. What was also particularly concerning was that around 50 to 60 churches, some unused and deteriorating for over two decades, remain in limbo. Additionally, DCMS funding, which forms less than a third of the trust’s income yet provides an essential foundation for its other fundraising events, has effectively been frozen, meaning the trust has continued to take on new churches without any corresponding uplift.

Although the Church of England has now agreed to increase its annual contribution, the combination of frozen DCMS funding and the loss of the listed places of worship grant scheme, which is worth more than £300,000 a year to the trust, means it is no better off in real terms.

The new places of worship renewal fund is welcome, but we still do not know how it will be distributed, and there is understandable concern about eligibility for it and about its overall adequacy, as we have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham. It is not clear how much the Churches Conservation Trust will receive from the new fund, or whether the new fund will make up for the money that it loses as a result of the old scheme’s being axed. The order before us will help the Churches Conservation Trust to continue carrying out the critical work of conserving and maintaining our shared historical assets, but it is essential that it can access new funding schemes and wider cultural support.

Does the Minister accept that, as the amounts paid to the Churches Conservation Trust are frozen, the money being made available through this instrument amounts to a real-terms cut in funding? When will we get more updates about how the new places of worship renewal fund will operate? Above all, we need certainty and predictability, so will the Minister guarantee that the Churches Conservation Trust will be able to access the new fund and that it will not lose out as a result of the old grant scheme’s being axed? Finally, what assessment have the Government made of the number of churches that will close as a result of the listed places of worship scheme’s ending?

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

We all know that actions speak louder than words. So far we have seen a reduction in the urban cricket domes that were committed to by the last Government, the scrapping of our National Citizen Service without anything to replace it and now, supposedly, an argument over who will be funding school sport. Social mobility depends on participation. Research by Sky found that girls who play after-school sport in the UK are 50% more likely to get professional roles as adults. What are the Government doing to address this, and can the Minister give us grassroots examples in our urban communities of where things are improving rather than getting worse?

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for all her work; it was a pleasure to meet her again yesterday. I do not recognise her representation of cricket domes. The previous Government simply did not fund them, but this Government has, announcing two new ones, alongside the £400 million of grassroots sports funding that the Secretary of State has referred to. On the National Citizen Service, we announced our national youth strategy, which was the first in over 10 years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

This is one of the most serious issues we have to deal with in this space. As a joint Minister in DSIT and the DCMS, I know this is something we are looking at, and we are very aware of all the concerns raised by creatives. We want to support rights holders in licensing their work in the digital age and to allow AI developers to benefit from access to creative material. In the UK, that will require a landing zone for both industries, and engagement, such as technical working groups, will be key in finding a solution that works for both sides. We will continue to engage with stakeholders in both sectors to further develop that approach, and that is the commitment from both Secretaries of State.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

When it comes to AI, as with so many other things, this Government are all smoke and mirrors. In response to the Grok AI outrage this week, the Secretary of State for Science and Tech announced with a flourish that she would be banning intimate image abuse with immediate effect. In reality, this meant triggering legislation that had to be forced through by Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge against the Government’s will and that received Royal Assent last summer. Imagine how many women could have had their trauma prevented if the Government had just got a grip. Every day, our creative industries are having their work scraped. Intellectual property is being stolen every day, and still the Government sit on their hands, promising the world and delivering nothing. When will we see the AI Bill promised in the last King’s Speech, and when is that legislation likely to be brought forward?

[Ian Murray]

As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan), there will be an update to Parliament on 18 March, as provided for by the Data (Use and Access) Act. This is an incredibly serious issue, but what we really need to do is make sure that the Online Safety Act 2023 is completely implemented. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology made it very clear from the Dispatch Box this week that the Government will have an absolutely no-tolerance approach to what has been happening with AI and Grok. Ofcom must do its job. It must do it quickly, it must do it soon, and it must take the greatest possible action it can against the perpetrators of the disgusting and abhorrent ways in which AI is operating on some platforms.

BBC Charter Renewal

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) on securing the debate. I cannot think of anyone more qualified to kick off this conversation. The Select Committee will almost certainly look closely at the charter review, but today I will pull out a couple of topics for discussion.

The Government have set out a number of lofty ambitions for the BBC in the Green Paper, but it is clear that it all hinges on a charter review that finds a long-term, sustainable funding future for the BBC. As we have seen, there are a number of challenges. The BBC provides so many different TV channels and radio stations, as we heard from my right hon. Friend. It does all that and more in an incredibly and more and more challenging commercial environment in which the licence fee looks increasingly like an anachronism. The extent to which the public no longer see live TV as the cornerstone of their viewing habits is reflected in the number of households not renewing their TV licence. We have heard that evasion is rising and is now at 12.5%. In real terms, the BBC lost over £1 billion of revenue in the decade from 2013.

I was disappointed to read that certain options regarding the BBC’s size, scale and funding are not even on the table in the charter review. On the licence fee, the Green Paper says the Government

“are not considering replacing it with alternative forms of public funding, such as a new tax on households”.

I would be interested to hear why the Government are not even considering some options, some of which are employed across Europe to fund public service media. There are obvious challenges around some of the options that are under consideration. We have already heard about the issue of advertising. The BBC chair told my Committee that

“we are absolutely clear that advertising and subscription is not the right approach. It goes back to universality and back to that old phrase, ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune.’ If subscribers are paying, they will call the tune on what we make. If it is advertising, it is advertisers.”

Will the Minister say more about why the Government have chosen to explore some funding models and take others off the table at this vital stage?

The BBC is the most trusted broadcaster both at home and abroad, but there is no doubt that, as our national broadcaster, we hold it to a higher standard. There has been a significant loss of confidence in the BBC over recent years. The Reuters Institute suggests that between 2018 and 2025, the proportion of people in the UK who trusted “most news most of the time” fell by 7%, but that over the same period trust in BBC news fell by 15%. We should therefore welcome the Green Paper’s commitment to discuss the provision of trusted news.

Finally, the Government said they want to consider how to uphold the BBC’s independence, which includes its being transparent when it gets things wrong, how it changes its services, how it is governed and what its board looks like. There are fundamental questions for the Green Paper to address: what is the Government’s future vision for the BBC? What role should a public service broadcaster play in the current age? How can we continue to ensure that our national broadcaster remains independent, trusted and valued in this increasingly unstable and divided world?

Membership-based Charity Organisations

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for membership-based charity organisations.

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.

Membership organisations play a central role in protecting and enhancing the things that we consider important to our national character. The great British countryside is maintained and safeguarded for future generations by conservation charities such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildlife Trusts and the Woodland Trust. The most iconic landscapes, sold around the world as the backdrop of British soft power—reminding visitors of the iconic settings for Jane Austen, Dickens and Harry Potter, as well as the paintings of Constable and Turner—are kept open to the public by membership charities such as the Youth Hostels Association and the Canal and River Trust.

Speaking of Turner and Constable, membership charities are the stewards of our country’s heritage. They look after the artefacts, artworks and architecture that make us proud to be British. Between them, charities such as the National Gallery, Tate, the National Trust and English Heritage have millions of members. If I were to ask everyone in this room and in this building whether they have ever been a member of one of these charities, I would be surprised if anyone could say truthfully that they had not. The National Trust, for example, has nearly 6 million members. English Heritage and the RSPB have 1.2 million each. Those are numbers that political parties can only dream of.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The hon. Member mentioned the National Trust and preserving our national heritage. West Dorset’s most famous feature is the Cerne Abbas giant. The National Trust, which looks after it, has just launched a fundraiser to raise £330,000 to buy the land around the Cerne Abbas giant to improve access. Does she agree that membership-based organisations and charities preserve such institutions?

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

The hon. Gentleman has done beautifully to put that on the record. He is absolutely right that these incredible membership charities preserve our national heritage.

If we were to ask people why they support such charities, I expect they would not say that they do so just to get access to some of the venues and the fantastic historic treasures they promote. They would probably say that they value the mission of those charities, whether conserving the countryside, protecting our heritage or serving the vulnerable. They want to support those missions; they are members because they value what those organisations do.

In doing those things, the charities provide significant benefits to the Government. All told, the voluntary sector delivers £14 billion of public services to the Government and directly contributes £70 billion to the UK economy. Much of that is delivered by membership organisations. All that is without mentioning the indirect benefits that many membership-based charities provide: for example the health benefits to the public of maintaining hundreds of thousands of hectares of land, the demonstrable mental health impact of engaging with arts and culture, and all the educational enrichment they offer.

But all that is under threat. Charities are under more strain than ever. It is a question of time and money. Telegraph readers were recently outraged that the National Trust, in order to save on costs, is replacing homemade scones—however one prefers to pronounce them—at some of its properties, but this is just the tip of the iceberg, or the jam on top of the cream, depending on which way one prefers one’s scones.

Billions of pounds of additional financial pressure has been put on charities at a time when the demand for their services is rising and income streams are drying up. The biggest impact, as we know, is through national insurance contribution changes, which have collectively added £1.4 billion to the charity sector’s bills, but our art institutions are set to see huge rises to their business rates as well, and many heritage organisations have seen the cost of maintenance far outstrip inflation.

Meanwhile, so many are seeing demand for their services skyrocketing. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, for example, tells me that rescues are operating at 120% of their capacity, and Cats Protection says that, in the last three years, it has seen a 71% increase in the number of cats being abandoned. The wider trend is clear. Around 83% of charities recorded an increase in demand for their services over the last 12 months, but even those pressures might be bearable were it not for the fact that the stability of the funding model itself is being called into question.

Fewer people are donating to charity, and while the average donation is increasing, this highlights the narrowing of the base from which membership charities can secure funds. Those donations are not coming from the places one might expect, such as the wealthy London constituencies of Kensington and Bayswater, Chelsea and Fulham or Holborn and St Pancras, all of which form the three least generous constituencies as a percentage of their income in the UK. In real terms, the amount donated by British businesses has declined as well, with the number of FTSE 100 companies donating more than 1% of their profits falling by 14%.

Money is not the only thing that charities rely on; they rely on people donating their time. However, long-term trends in hours spent volunteering are in decline as well—from 45% in 2013-14 to 28% in 2024-25. People put that down to a whole range of things, such as the bureaucracy and paperwork involved in volunteering and the cost of living pressures that people are under. I will not attempt to understate it: this is a full-blown crisis in the charity sector.

It is no wonder a majority of charity leaders say they would not be confident that they would be able to cope if they saw a decline in their income streams. However, and I know the Minister is aware of this, a decline in their income streams is exactly what we will discuss today, and it is why I asked for this debate.

Membership charities at the moment are able to claim gift aid on memberships that are currently deemed donations by the Government. That settlement is a direct expression of the way that charity members regard their relationship with charities. It is one of the supports that people can give to the aims and the work of the fantastic charities, many of which I have already discussed. They are not private services; their work supports the public good and, in many cases, saves a lot of money for the Government.

I know that the Government see it that way too and the Minister will tell me how much he values the work of membership charities and how much store the Government put into that value, but the truth is that the Government have been very slow to tweak well-meaning and necessary consumer protection legislation despite the imminent impact of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 on membership charities’ cashflows.

Fundamentally, the Act alters the way that membership charities process memberships and the benefits of them, leading to a potentially huge loss in revenues at a time when charities’ finances are already overstretched. The provisions of the Act move us away from a place where we view a charity membership as an expression of support. If, for the purposes of the DMCCA, refundable memberships are no longer considered to be donations due to the Government insisting on applying a 14-day cooling off period, the result is that gift aid can no longer be claimed.

Let me provide a bit of perspective on that: national insurance contributions added more than £10 million to the National Trust’s wage bill. That has been devastating. Gift aid is worth five times that for the National Trust. The story is the same for English Heritage, on which I must declare an interest as I am a member. While it has seen a £1.7 million cost increase due to national insurance contributions, the impact of losing gift aid on their memberships would be more than five times that—valued at around £10 million.

I am no fortune teller, but I have an idea of what the Minister might say. She might say the Government have issued guidance that means membership charities will continue to be able to claim gift aid. But the fact is, as things currently stand, that is not what the law says, and that is creating confusion not just for the big players but for the small ones as well, because charity practice is currently at odds with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 and at odds with consumer law. Due to the widespread confusion of three very conflicting pieces of legislation, the Chartered Institute of Fundraising has written to the Department for Business and Trade. I know that is not the Minister’s Department, but I hope that she will convey this message. The institute has written to the Department offering to draft legal advice for small charities so that the Government can just sign it off, but it has had no response to that letter. Will the Minister speak to her colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to chase that up, please, because small charities are very worried?

Perhaps the lack of response is because there is no clarity about who is affected. The CIF has told me that even it does not know the exact number of membership charities that could fall foul of the change. What is concerning is that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs believes that only primary legislation can really sort out the legal contradiction between current consumer law, charity practice and the provisions of the DMCCA. Again, I do not want to put words in the Minister’s mouth, but I expect she might tell me that the Government have committed to passing legislation about this in the future. However, we know that the wheels of Government can move quite slowly, so when she says that, she probably means establishing certainty for charities by 2027 at the earliest, but it needs to be sooner than that. So, working with colleagues across Government, can the Minister find a suitable legislative vehicle to provide the certainty that the Government say they want? I am not asking her to do anything the Government have not already articulated a need for. And that has to start with reconvening the roundtable of membership charities that was cancelled due to the reshuffle. I would welcome that being reconvened, and I know the sector would, too. Will the Minister commit to that today?

Membership charities have told me that the best possible solution lies in classifying charitable memberships as excluded contracts in secondary legislation. In recognition of their unique nature, their charitable membership should be placed in that category. It would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that today if she can. It is not unprecedented. Streaming subscription services, for example, have been given waivers from the 14-day cooling-off period. Membership charities should at least be able to expect the same support as users of streaming subscription services.

I will give an example of how this could work perversely for membership charities. Why should someone buy membership of something like the National Gallery? It has sell-out exhibitions such as the very popular Van Gogh exhibition. We could potentially buy ourselves membership, skip the queue, be able to get into sell-out exhibitions, receive a discount for the ticket while we are at it, and then cancel the membership once we have seen the exhibition and received an almost total refund.

The same could be said of the National Trust or English Heritage sites. As things stand, I could purchase membership, visit half a dozen sites for free over a week’s holiday, and then cancel my membership for almost a total refund. English Heritage told me that its membership works out at around 22p a day. Is that the rate at which the membership charity should reimburse a departing member? Will the Minister say on what basis she wants charities to offer proportionate refunds in such instances? If not, maybe she could commit to giving membership charities the freedom to calculate themselves what a proportional refund might look like.

The National Trust believes, for example, that based on current guidance alone, every 1% of its membership that takes advantage of the loophole will lose it £3 million. Even if a tiny number of its members takes advantage of the new loophole in the law, that is a huge and significant impact on its finances, and that means less money spent on its core mission, which is to conserve our heritage.

We expect our charities to do so much. They provide so much for our nation and they do it really well. But membership charities need a vote of support from the Government now. They need this albatross removed from around their necks. And in light of the billions of pounds of tax rises that charities have already seen, there is an incentive for the Government to provide legal clarity. I hope that that is what the Minister will be able to provide in her remarks today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Caroline Dinenage]

I am grateful to the Minister for her response. I am also grateful to her for advocating on my behalf, and on behalf of membership charities, with the Department for Business and Trade on the issue, which we have been wrestling with today, of trying to get clarity about the roundtable and the response to the letter.

The Minister talked about the Government carefully considering, but what the sector needs is action. It needs certainty and clarity, and it needs them fast. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act will start impacting them next year, and they cannot wait till 2027 for this to be solved. They are facing a perfect storm: the real unintended consequences of the national insurance rises, which are impacting charities and the amazing work they do, and now the impact of the Act.

The Government say that they care deeply about this issue, but they need to follow up those words with action. I am grateful to the Minister for helping to try to deliver that action. When she advocates for us with DBT, she needs to be in the room. The silos of Government and things falling between the stools are one of the biggest issues in trying to resolve these issues for charities, which our constituents and our country depend on.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Government support for membership-based charity organisations.

Independent Football Regulator

Caroline Dinenage Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

I want the independent regulator to succeed—not least because of clubs like mine, Portsmouth football club, whose fans had to step in and buy it after it had gone into administration twice—but we need transparency and trust in public appointments. The Secretary of State has said repeatedly that the Culture, Media and Sport Committee found Mr Kogan appointable, and that is correct; we did so under the remit with which we were asked to work. However, we did so taking the unprecedented step of including a recommendation for him to take

“concrete steps to reassure the football community”

of his neutrality, because it was Mr Kogan—not the Department, and not the Secretary of State—who told the Committee about the donations, at the very meeting that was held to decide whether or not he was appointable.

The commissioner’s report points to a wider issue relating to the Department’s public appointments process. All but one of the last 10 public appointments involving parliamentary scrutiny have featured problems with the candidate or the process at some point, which are undermining the organisations concerned and the people who are picked to lead them. Does the Secretary of State accept that the Department must do better when it comes to public appointments, and may I ask her what concrete steps it is taking to achieve that?

[Lisa Nandy]

I agree with the hon. Lady that it is essential for the public to be able to have confidence in the public appointments that we make, not least because of the many debacles that we saw under the last Government. That is why I personally requested that Mr Kogan make that information available to the Select Committee within hours of being notified of it myself. The hon. Lady is also right to say that the Committee made a recommendation to Mr Kogan that he must take steps to ensure that he was independent of Government. Although that was not a recommendation aimed at me as the Secretary of State, I heard it loud and clear, and it was one of the reasons why I was so quick to recuse myself from the process and take no further decisions in it.

The hon. Lady has indeed raised with me, and with the permanent secretary, the occasions on which the Department has fallen short. We take that very seriously, and we have committed to come back to her with a full list of concrete actions that we are taking. This is not to make excuses, because it is my responsibility to ensure that we get it right, but I might add that the DCMS is responsible for the vast majority of public appointments—I think that we make nearly 50% of all such appointments across Government—and that is even more reason for us to ensure that the proper processes are in place. We are looking at that at the moment, and will come back to the hon. Lady very quickly.

May I also take this opportunity to thank the hon. Lady’s constituents? I remember that when we were in trouble at Wigan Athletic, Portsmouth fans jumped on to a Zoom call with us at very short notice, and could not have been more supportive in giving us advice and guidance to help us to pull through a difficult time. I remember that time as if it were yesterday. I remember how much pain and anxiety we were going through. The footballing world was there for us, and my commitment to the hon. Lady’s constituents, and all our constituents, is that this Government will be there for them too.