Football Governance Bill [Lords]

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

As has been mentioned, only one Football League club is represented by a Conservative MP, and that is the mighty Bromley football club. My efforts to bring about a chant of “You’ve got the only Tory” across opposition stands in league two are ongoing, and I will keep the House informed of how well they proceed.

Hayes Lane, the club’s ground since 1938, stands proudly in my constituency. Bromley FC is a football fan’s dream. We have gone from strength to strength in recent years. Earning promotion to the conference south league in 2006, the club was crowned champion eight years later. We climbed the national league, reaching the FA trophy final in 2018 and earning promotion in 2021, but our rise did not stop there. Bromley faced Ryan Reynolds’s Wrexham at Wembley for a second shot at the FA trophy in 2022. It was an amazing day, and one that I remember well. While we may not have had “Deadpool”, we did have Michael Cheek—Cheeky, the Maradona of Bromley—who secured the silverware with the game’s only goal. I love Michael Cheek, and I congratulate him on being named league two player of the year last night; it is well deserved. Last year, a moment 132 years in the making arrived as Bromley was promoted to the English football league for the first time in its history.

Why is this story relevant? Bromley’s football dream was realised thanks to sound management, private investment and raw talent, not a state regulator, and I congratulate Robin Stanton-Gleaves, Mark Hammond—Hammo—and Andy “Woody” Woodman on all that they have done for the club. As a Ravens fan, when I look at Labour’s supposedly independent football regulator, I have to ask whether it would help Bromley FC or aspiring clubs like it, and in its current state, the answer is a resounding no. When the Bill was first proposed, it was proposed with the right intentions. It would protect cherished community clubs from bad owners, and would prevent a breakaway European super league. However, Labour’s regulator is morphing into a meddling, costly political deadweight for English football, because the regulator will be neither independent nor impartial. This is cronyism at its worst.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is a football fan. Does he recall hearing any fan group saying, “What we really need is a Labour donor crony regulating the beautiful game”?

[Peter Fortune]

What fans tell me is that they want the money to move more freely through the sport. I shall say more about that in a moment. The cronyism is what we are concerned about. With political leadership, the risk of mission creep is greater. More state intervention would threaten English football’s independence, and UEFA warns that without independence, English clubs could not compete in European leagues. The Government know that their Bill could torpedo English football, and I wonder whether that is why Ministers refuse to publish UEFA’s letter about it.

The regulator will also cost clubs a small fortune. The levy to pay for the new bureaucracy will cost them nearly £100 million, and the regulatory burden will cost them nearly £35 million more, hurting the smallest clubs, such as Bromley, that do not have the staff to handle yet more red tape. For clubs it means higher taxes, more paperwork, and staff working on state demands, rather than football. For fans it will inevitably mean higher ticket prices, especially in view of the new jobs tax that Labour has instigated, and employment red tape. We should be focusing on getting money to the league clubs, not tying their hands with bureaucracy. That is what the clubs need.

Football is about risks and aspirations. Teams win or lose, are promoted or relegated. This is not banking; it is football. While I recognise that smaller clubs need support, a partisan regulator is not the answer. English football’s independence is worth protecting.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

Let me begin by declaring my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I think most of us have agreed today that football has a governance problem. Just last Friday, I attended a meeting with Sheffield Members of Parliament and fans of Sheffield Wednesday—fans who are desperate for their owner to sell their club, so that we can share the lessons from Reading football club. We are well aware of the problems of bad ownership at Reading; its stadium is in my constituency. Our club is on the brink of expulsion from the English football league, after its absent owner was disqualified by the EFL more than a month ago. Reading and Sheffield Wednesday are the tip of the iceberg. As we have heard during the debate, and as we have seen over the last few years, there have been crises at Wigan, Derby, Portsmouth, Bury, Bolton, Macclesfield, Southend and beyond. Football definitely has a governance problem. I am heartened that this Labour Government are serious about fixing it, although sadly the same cannot be said for all parties in the House.

It is shameful that the Conservative party, which initially backed the Bill, has spent the past few months delaying its progress. In those months, many Members, including me, have spent our time fighting for the future of our local clubs. Every day is another day on which Reading fans are left in the dark, another day when Reading staff and local businesses are left waiting for late wage payments. I ask Conservative Members: how much longer would you like us to wait? The shadow Secretary of State likes to talk about business and the economic case. I ask him this: when the average club in the championship spends more than 100% of its revenues on wages, and when, according to the non-governmental organisation Fair Game, more than 50 of the top 86 clubs in the country are technically insolvent, with liabilities exceeding their assets, is this a successful market? Is it a functioning market? I would argue that that is not just unfair, but financially unsustainable. As we heard from the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), self-regulation has not worked, so we need to find a system that works.

[Joe Robertson]

Has the hon. Lady not received a payment of £8,000 from the man whom her own Government want to install as an independent chair of an independent regulator? Does she not accept that that is a major compromise of the independence of that chosen nominee?

[Yuan Yang]

I have already declared my interest, and I do not agree with that intervention. It is for us in this Chamber to decide whether we want a regulator, and whether we want the Bill to be passed. The Leader of the Opposition has said that she believes that any regulator would be a waste of resources. I presume that that means that her party believes that football does not need regulation. It is for the Select Committee—previously chaired by the hon. Member for Gosport, who, in her speech, seemed to support the idea of independent regulation—to scrutinise the appointment of regulators.

Reading is one of the oldest clubs in England. It once prided itself on good governance, and was known for “the Reading way”. Since the current owners took over, we have seen four winding-up petitions and five points deductions. Sadly, the EFL, which tries to support and intervene, has been unable to effect change for our club because it lacks sufficient regulatory powers. This is where the new ownership test, as well as the new licensing regime proposed in the Bill, would have been so helpful. Reading’s crisis was avoidable, and if we had a strong, independent football regulator, we could start to fix football’s governance problems.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

Football is more than a business; it is one of our country’s greatest exports and a pillar of local and national identity. Football would be nothing without its fans, and this strengthened Football Governance Bill will put fans firmly back at the centre of the game. For too long, financial instability has meant that loyal fans and whole communities have risked losing their cherished clubs as a result of mismanagement and reckless spending. The previous fan-led review was instigated following three trigger points: the collapse of Bury FC, the coronavirus pandemic, which suspended football, and the European super league. The fan-led review recommended in the light of those events and the structural issues in the pyramid that the Government should establish an independent regulator for football finances.

I am delighted that our Labour Government have reintroduced and improved this Bill without delay to deliver on our commitment to football fans. The Bill’s primary purpose is to ensure that English football is sustainable for the benefit of fans and the local communities that football clubs serve. It will improve the sustainability of club finances, prevent rogue owners and directors, and strengthen the voice of fans. This legislation will protect our football pyramid for future generations. The independent football regulator will have three main objectives: club financial soundness, systemic financial resilience and the safeguarding of club heritage. The proposed regulatory activities are pretty standard—it is a light-touch regulator.

The improvements that our Labour Government have made to the Bill include clubs providing effective engagement with their supporters on changes to ticket prices and any proposals to relocate their grounds. The regulator will be given a remit to include parachute payments to be considered through any backstop mechanism when considering finances across the game. The requirement to consider Government foreign and trade policy has been ditched, which is appropriate, and the regulator will ensure that clubs democratically elect fan representatives for the club to engage with, which is right. We must have that clear commitment to improve equality, diversity and inclusion within the game.

I was therefore gobsmacked when I heard the thoroughly disappointing and embarrassing amendment from the official Opposition in the name of the shadow Culture Secretary, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading. As a member of the Bill Committee, he well knows that there was genuine consensus on the Bill. It is fundamentally the same Bill with just a few changes, and I do not understand why he does not support them. As has been mentioned, the former Member for Chatham and Aylesford Dame Tracey Crouch worked so hard on the fan-led review.

[Joe Robertson]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rachel Hopkins]

No, I will not; I have only four minutes.

I remind the shadow Secretary of State what he said on that last day of Committee when unfortunately the previous Bill did not make it to wash-up. He said,

“I genuinely think that this is an excellent Bill”

and

“a good Bill to crack on with, because it is important for the future of football and, crucially, for the future of football fans”.––[Official Report, Football Governance Bill Public Bill Committee, 23 April 2024; c. 244.]

By declining to give the Bill a Second Reading, the Conservatives are now opposing greater financial sustainability across the football pyramid, the tackling of rogue owners, greater fan engagement and club heritage protections. It is a disgrace that they are not supporting the Bill, but I support it wholeheartedly.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephanie Peacock]

Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that a successful games supports lasting benefits for the city and the region. As I said, I met with the CEO and chair two weeks ago. I was in Edinburgh to meet with my counterpart in the Scottish Government to discuss the games. My team is in close contact with the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office and other delivery partners to understand the games’ ambitions for these wider benefits. The organising company has already confirmed that the games will include £6 million of investment in existing sporting venues, as well as 3,000 trained volunteers and a cultural programme.

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

The Minister will know the springboard that hosting international events is for the economy, grassroots participation and sporting facilities in the UK. Under the last Government, we secured and hosted a number of major events, with a pipeline of events. What steps are this Government taking to ensure we have that pipeline of major events in the future?

[Stephanie Peacock]

The hon. Member is right to pay tribute to the economic contribution and the huge inspiration of these events. We have a number of exciting events coming up, whether that be rugby or cricket, and the Government are hugely supportive of major events.

Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill

Joe Robertson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 24th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on this important matter. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) on bringing forward this Bill. She has spoken with passion and knowledge on an issue that she clearly knows and cares much about. I also thank her for supporting my Westminster Hall debate on a related issue that is particularly important for charities: the impact of this Government’s national insurance increases.

The simple and well-intentioned aim behind the Bill is to allow charities to raise more money to deliver on their charitable aims, and the hon. Lady seeks to do that by disposing of the limits imposed by the Gambling Act 2005. She has already referred to the People’s Postcode Lottery, and we have heard how much it does to support charities in our constituencies up and down the country, including in mine on the Isle of Wight. Who would not want to support charities such as the People’s Postcode Lottery?

The leading argument against restricting the cap on charity lotteries is that they might then compete with the national lottery, which is not subject to this cap. That is a legitimate concern. It is in all our interests that the national lottery continues to thrive, but research has been done on competition between charity lotteries and the national lottery. In 2017, the Gambling Commission found

“no statistically significant effect of Charity Lotteries affecting National Lottery sales.”

Indeed, it remarked that the national lottery and society lotteries have continued to grow side by side. Consequently, the previous Conservative Government partially liberalised charity lottery sales and prize limits in 2020. Two years later, the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee took evidence on the matter, and its subsequent report, “What next for the National Lottery?”, said:

“We do not consider that society lotteries pose a threat to the charitable giving of the National Lottery, in line with the views of the Gambling Commission and the Department.”

The Conservatives support the principle of allowing charities to raise more money, including from society lotteries, and reducing the regulatory burden placed upon them. The previous Government commissioned independent research, as the hon. Member has referred to, and she asked some questions of the Minister, which I endorse. Can the Minister say whether the research has been received at the Department, and will she give an indication of its summary?

Before finishing, I will briefly discuss the importance of charities’ work in delivering £17 billion of public services each year, without which the public sector could not do its work. This Government bear greater responsibility to support charities through additional fundraising than might otherwise have been the case, because they are taking an estimated £1.4 billion from charities through their increases to national insurance contributions in the Budget. The Government know that will damage the public services that charities deliver. That is why they exempted the NHS, but they provided no such exemption for charities delivering health and social care, charities supporting people who need housing, charities trying to lift people out of poverty, charities trying to cure disease, and charities supporting victims of violence against women and girls.

I urge the Government to act. They owe charities the support and they owe charities compensation for the money they are taking off them in extra tax. This Bill would just be a start. I thank the hon. Member once again for bringing this important issue before the House, and I wish her every success in realising the aims and objectives behind the Bill.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Joe Robertson Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to employers’ National Insurance contributions on the charity sector.

The background to this debate is the October Budget presented by the Government, and in particular the rise in national insurance contributions for employers. The rate was raised to 15% and the threshold at which national insurance contributions apply was brought down from £9,100 to £5,000, bringing in some part-time workers who previously had not caused their employers to be subject to national insurance contributions. Much has been said about the impact of the rise on the economy, but less has been said about the impact on charities.

Charities deliver almost £17 billion-worth of public services a year. Public services and civil society could not operate without charities. There is a tendency to overlook the important work they do. Particularly at the level of local government, charities are responsible through contracting for the delivery of a lot of the services that local governments are required to deliver.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. The Balsam Centre is a charity in Wincanton in my constituency that delivers some of the vital services that the hon. Member talks about, including maternal mental health support and youth counselling. The NI changes mean that it will have to find an extra £40,000 for its salary costs next year, cancel any pay increases and operate at a reduced capacity from April. Its work relieves pressure on the NHS and on local government, so does the hon. Member agree that the Government must rethink the national insurance changes?

[Joe Robertson]

I of course agree with the hon. Member that the Government must rethink the changes. I will go on to use examples from my own constituency, and I thank her for doing so with hers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Joe Robertson]

I will make a little progress and then I will be happy to give way.

The National Council for Voluntary Organisations estimates that the overall cost of the money taken from charities and transferred into the Treasury will be £1.4 billion. That is money being taken from charitable sources and transferred into the Treasury. Sarah Elliott, the chief executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, said:

“This is the biggest shock to the sector since pandemic. Charities already juggling rising demand, escalating costs, and the falling funding cannot absorb an additional £1.4 billion in costs without drastic service cuts...This additional cost, for which there is no headroom in budgets to cover, will be devastating.”

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the hon. Member for securing this debate. In Northern Ireland, the effect on charities will range from £5,000 per year to £200,000 per year. The costs are extreme and incredibly worrying. Does the hon. Member agree that charities are the backbone of many local communities across the UK, as he said earlier in his speech, and that as such they deserve even more support? Does he feel, as I feel on behalf of charities in my constituency, that the change could ultimately be the straw that breaks the camel’s back, and that charities could well disappear?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with both those points. Charities tell us that the change will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back for many. I know that because, immediately before entering Parliament, I worked for a nursing charity supporting dementia carers.

The Government know the pressure created by the national insurance contribution rise. They exempted the NHS because they knew the impact it would have on healthcare, but they ignored or failed to understand the contribution that charities make to health and social care.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend for securing this debate. The Midlands Air Ambulance Charity, which serves my constituents, receives no Government funding whatsoever for its daily missions. It does not burden the NHS financially, yet it adds immense value to the healthcare sector. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is time the Treasury considered giving organisations and charities such as air ambulances the same exemption they are giving to NHS trusts, hospital trusts and NHS bodies?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree. Ultimately, the Government should exempt all charities from national insurance contribution rises. Another possibility, which would be much less beneficial, would be to target the exemption at health and social care provider charities, without which the NHS could not function, but I ask the Minister to expand the exemption to all charities, not just those in health and social care.

[Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)]

Shooting Star and Demelza House are two children’s cancer hospice charities that make a significant contribution to the national health service. Is it not absolutely ludicrous that money given for charitable purposes should effectively be siphoned off to the Treasury instead of being used to provide the support to children and their families for which it is intended?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree: of course it is ludicrous. This is charitable money—most of it is charitable donations—that is given to charities to provide valuable work, and the Treasury is taking it and putting it into the Government’s coffers. Some of these charities, such as those in my right hon. Friend’s constituency, are small charities doing valuable work and are the least able to afford to give money over to the national Government. It is therefore unsurprising that 7,000 charities have signed an open letter to the Chancellor. This is about not just the increase in national insurance contributions but the timing of it and the combination of factors.

[John Milne (Horsham) (LD)]

rose—

[Joe Robertson]

I will make a little progress and then come back to the hon. Gentleman.

Most charities are suffering as they try to raise charitable funds, yet the Government have decided to take some of those charitable funds for themselves. For charities that support older people, such as Age UK, the simultaneous impact of the withdrawal of winter fuel payments has meant that more people are using their services, and at the same time the Government are taking money off them.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Joe Robertson]

I give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart).

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. We can see from the attendance on one side of the Chamber how important charities are to Opposition parties of all sorts. We are united in opposing the change, not least because those who are the most vulnerable, such as users of Citizens Advice, are likely to see services cut. There is an £88,000 impact just on the Citizens Advice service in Hull and East Riding. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Minister needs to go back to her colleagues and change direction? No one voted for a Labour Government to attack charities and the most vulnerable.

[Joe Robertson]

I agree that the Minister needs to go back and do that. That is why I secured the debate.

The chief executive of Crisis said:

“Increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions will have a dreadful impact on charities at a time when we are seeing unprecedented demand for our services.”

Some 75% of charities are reducing or considering withdrawing from public service delivery. Who will pick up that shortfall? In the worst case, no one will pick up where charities withdraw, or the Government and the public sector will have to, and I am fairly sure it will cost them more than £1.4 billion to do so. I prefer to put my trust in charities with experience in what they do, rather than the Government having to put emergency measures in place because charities are forced to withdraw. Some 61% of them are likely to cut staff.

The Government’s stated aim is not backed by their tax policy in three areas in particular: in health and social care, which we have already spoken much about; in poverty and homelessness; and for vulnerable groups.

[John Milne]

On the hon. Member’s earlier point about Age UK, it estimates that just in my Horsham constituency it will cost £150,000 per year to cope with the changes and the extra charge. Age UK is not a business and cannot raise its prices; it can only cut its service. Does the hon. Member agree that when one in five pensioners are adjudged to be living in poverty, this is the wrong time for such a measure?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree with the hon. Member. Broadly speaking, Age UK operates as small charities in individual communities. Age UK in the Isle of Wight, where my constituency is, also faces paying tens of thousands of pounds. On a national scale, that might not seem like much money, but it makes a huge difference at the local level and leads inevitably either to service cuts or to staff cuts. I agree with the hon. Member that no good can come of it.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) about the additional costs hitting Age UK, in West Sussex and Brighton and Hove the change has had an astonishing impact which, combined with the increase in the real living wage, is going to double Age UK’s fundraising target for this year, which it cannot bear. Combined with the cost of the cuts to the winter fuel payment, that goes against the very sentiment of the Budget, which was to try to prioritise the NHS. More elderly people will be, and are presenting, in A&E. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government need to rethink?

[Joe Robertson]

I do agree. It looks like the Government do not understand that healthcare is delivered not only by the NHS, so when they chose to exempt the NHS from the damaging rises, they either did not understand or had disregard for all the other healthcare providers, without which the NHS could not function properly.

[Helen Grant (Maidstone and Malling) (Con)]

rose—

[Joe Robertson]

I will give some examples before I give way to my hon. Friend.

The change will cost Marie Curie almost £3 million a year, and it says that without further support critical services for the terminally ill may be scaled back. Hospices throughout the country will pay between £30 million and £50 million a year. For the Mountbatten hospice in my constituency it will cost £338,000—just for one hospice. Just before Christmas, the Government announced £100 million of investment in hospices over two years—so £50 million a year—which is merely giving back, broadly, what they have already taken. That money is targeted at capital spending, when hospices tell me their main pressure is revenue. Are the Government taking revenue from them and giving it back provided they spend it on capital? Clearly, they are not going to give money to all hospices, but they are going to take money from all hospices—that seems inevitable.

[Helen Grant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Heart of Kent hospice in my constituency does amazing work caring for families at a time of crisis, but the Government changes to NICs and the national living wage will cost the charity more than £200,000 per annum. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s approach is undermining many hospices, damaging the vital services they provide, and ultimately putting more pressure on the NHS?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree. Putting pressure on other health providers and social care providers inevitably leads to pressure on the NHS. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head in her comments and I thank her for them.

For Carers Trust the cost of this rise is £3 million—that is not its tax bill; that is just the bill from this rise in the Budget. For Stroke Association it is £2.1 million over two years, and for Teenage Cancer Trust it is £300,000. It is not just about health and social care charities, but charities tackling poverty and homelessness. The Labour Government say it is their aim, and it was in their manifesto that they would develop a new cross-party strategy

“to put Britain back on track to ending homelessness”.

What good is a strategy when it is stripping £60 million from charities trying to do what the Government want them to do? The homelessness charity Crisis says the rise will cost an additional £750,000 and—here is the point—with little or no time to prepare. That announcement was made just a few months before the effects will kick in, and Crisis says it is likely to lead to a reduction in frontline services.

I will mention a few other charities. The changes will cost Single Homeless Project £650,000. Rick Henderson, the CEO of Homeless Link, says—his words, not mine—that they are “desperately worried” about closures of homelessness services, leaving thousands without support, and that this NI increase

“could be the final nail in the coffin.”

Those are not my words, or the words of politicians, but the words of charity leaders up and down the United Kingdom.

The change affects charities supporting other vulnerable people, as well as charities supporting women and girls. Labour pledged in its manifesto to halve violence against women and girls, but chief executives of seven charities, including Victim Support and Rape Crisis, have warned the rise could result in their losing staff, closing waiting lists and ultimately closing the doors to some vulnerable victims of crime. That is the result of this Budget national insurance rise.

[Sorcha Eastwood (Lagan Valley) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing forward this issue. I agree with him completely in so far as violence against women and girls in Northern Ireland is at crisis levels. It is one of the most dangerous places in Europe to be a woman, and we have women and girls who have lost their lives already this year to violence. Would the hon. Member agree that if the Government are serious—as I believe they are—about tackling violence against women and girls, surely this increase flies in the face of everything we are trying to achieve in terms of ending violence against women and girls?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, and would like to share the hon. Member’s optimism that the Government do intend to make improvements in this area. This debate is a second chance for them to go away, then come back and provide relief to all charities, but particularly those that are operating in what might be called emergency services, because nobody else is doing what those charities are doing. Earlier today I spoke to a journalist who was involved in reporting the criminality and repulsive scandal in Rotherham. He said that when he went there, it was charities that were providing those emergency services—no one else was doing it—yet those are the groups that are having money taken off them in order to fund the Government.

Women’s Aid is a conglomerate representing 175 member organisations across England. It says that the national insurance contribution rises will effectively negate gift aid. The Government are giving a tax relief through gift aid and then taking it back through the Budget NIC rises.

[Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing the debate. I think we can all suggest what the Government are going to say today, and they are not going to change their mind, so surely we should ensure that they do other things to support charities. Does the hon. Member agree that one thing the Government could do is to support my private Member’s Bill, the Gambling Act 2005 (Monetary Limits for Lotteries) Bill, which would remove the charity lotteries cap and allow charities to raise more money at no cost to the taxpayer?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, although I am perhaps a little more optimistic than the hon. Member. The Government might not make the promise today, but they have an opportunity to go away and provide financial relief to all charities, even if they might not want to admit that in black and white. I congratulate the hon. Member on her Bill.

I am grateful to Members who have come to this debate to talk about their constituencies. In my constituency, the local charity Aspire is currently building, for the first time on the Isle of Wight, accommodation specifically for vulnerable women—and now the Government want £27,000 from it. Community Action does amazing things on the Isle of Wight, and provides a lot of contracted services for the Isle of Wight council; the Government want £45,000 from it. The employment allowance will offset £5,000 of that. The Government will tell us that is what they are giving back, but those are very small returns on the money they are taking.

I could say much more about other charities that operate in sports, the arts, live music and culture, but clearly there are time constraints. This debate is not just about charities in the sectors that I have talked about, although broadly speaking they are the ones doing things at the coalface that the public sector tends not to be able to do itself directly—otherwise, frankly, these charities would not exist.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The hon. Member was exactly right to draw particular attention to hospices, given that the House will shortly be debating the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. I have heard from constituents that if we are to introduce that Bill, they would like to see also proper investment in palliative care. Does he agree that that is another reason why national insurance needs to be prioritised for hospices?

[Joe Robertson]

I agree, and the hon. Member perfectly illustrates the point that the Government’s stated aims are not backed up by their tax decisions. If the Government want better palliative care—I hope that they do—they should not be taking money away from hospices, or from charities, such as Marie Curie, that operate end-of-life care. He makes that point well; I thank him for it.

Before finishing, I will again quote the interim CEO of Refuge. She has said that the violence against women and girls sector

“is already under immense financial pressure”,

and that not only did the Budget

“fail to include detail about how much funding has been set aside to tackle violence against women and girls, the Government’s plans to increase National Insurance contributions for employers could have dire repercussions for charities.”

My ask of the Government is to extend to charities the exemption that they have given the NHS and public bodies. It is not difficult; there is no lack of clarity about what a charity is. Nobody will wish to beat the Government for making a sensible decision for charities. There are some alternative options, but that is plainly the only ask that will really deal with the problem. The alternative options are to provide some other form of relief, but that relief should be felt by all charities. If the Government cannot go as far as to relieve all charities, they should target relief to specific sectors. We have heard in this debate about those sectors, such as those operating in poverty and homelessness, and in health and social care, and those tackling violence against women and girls. At the very least, they should do an impact assessment. No impact assessment has been carried out of the impact of this tax increase on the charity sector. That must be the most basic ask: there can be no good reason not to have an impact assessment. Finally, the Government must go back and rethink their whole approach to taxation on charities, to help to deliver—not hinder—their stated aims.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Hon. Members can see the time now and we have to take wind-ups from about 5.8 pm. A number of people have put their names down to speak, so could Members stand if they want to speak and then we can work out timings?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Robertson]

I thank the Minister for coming here to address the arguments that have been made, particularly as they were about a set of decisions that were not made by her personally or by her Department. I thank her for assuring Members in this debate that she will go back and make strong representations to her colleagues. There is probably no option other than to do so, given the strength of feeling she has heard today, particularly from Opposition Members. This is not her fault, butthere is no compelling argument that money had to be taken from charities to deliver the Government’s objectives. I urge her to say to the Chancellor, “Please give charities their money back. This is their money—give it back.”

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of changes to employers’ National Insurance contributions on the charity sector.