Membership-based Charity Organisations

Edward Morello 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.

Local Media

Edward Morello Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for securing this important debate. I want to start by paying tribute to the brilliant work being done in my constituency by news outlets such as the Frome Times, The Midsomer Norton, Radstock & District Journal and The Somerset Leveller. Publications like these hold power to account. They inform people on issues that matter locally, and they keep our communities engaged. They are exemplars of what local journalism should be. Many of us in this House would not be as connected to our local community without local papers, often thanks to columns in our local papers that reach people who might not otherwise be following politics or who may not have access to the internet.

However, local news is facing many challenges. As we know, audiences are migrating from print and television to online sources. Advertising revenues have fallen dramatically. Online intermediaries dominate the news value chain, and local publishers face fierce competition for attention from audiences who are increasingly unwilling to pay for news. Perhaps most worryingly of all, a growing number of people are disengaging from news entirely.

News providers have responded with innovation—for example, exploring AI, developing podcasts and implementing paywalls and subscription models—but conditions remain extremely tough, and that has led to a huge variation in local news provision across the UK. Some communities are well served, while others face local news deserts, and this postcode lottery of democratic accountability should concern us all.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

The constant consolidation of local newspapers into large news corporations risks a difficult balance between their need to make money and the audience size. We have lost papers in Lyme Regis, and Sherborne is now covered by Somerset’s Western Gazette as almost an afterthought. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we understand the need for these companies to make profit, recognising the need of local people is equally important?

[Anna Sabine]

I do agree, and I will come on to talk about the community impact of how we support local news.

The Frome Times—which, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill might like to know, does slide through letterboxes for free every fortnight and employs a band of teenagers to do newspaper rounds—is an example of a local newspaper that is serving communities. A recent survey by the town council found that the newspaper is the way that most people in Frome find out what is happening locally. The editor of the Frome Times told me:

“For many years, successive governments have discussed local journalism, including the 2023 report on the Sustainability of Local Journalism. Yet, from the coal face, little has changed. The most meaningful support the industry could receive is a genuine ‘levelling of the playing field’. For too long, dominance has rested with three corporate publishers, whose sales are declining and whose journalism is increasingly distant from local communities. Yet, government bodies (via Omnicom) and local authorities continue to rely on them for advertising spend. Decisions about which parts of the industry to support must ask one simple question: does this actually serve the community it claims to represent?”

I would be grateful if the Minister would commit to reviewing how local councils and Government Departments procure their advertising spend and ensuring that some account is taken of the community impact of that spending.

The DCMS’s BBC mid-term review published in January 2024 made 39 recommendations for the BBC and Ofcom. Ofcom’s subsequent review of local media examined how we maintain widespread availability of local news, communicate its importance, provide easy access to reliable news online and secure genuine audience engagement. Its proposals deserve serious consideration: an innovation fund for local news providers, a public interest news institute to support sustainability and develop a talent pipeline, and news vouchers, allowing citizens to directly support their local outlets.

It is frustrating that the Government have recently taken steps that will make funding for local journalism less sustainable. The Liberal Democrats tabled an amendment to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that would ensure that when public notices are printed, at least one must appear in a local newspaper. Public notices are worth £32 million a year to local journalism. We cannot pull the rug from underneath the sector while business costs are skyrocketing.

Liberal Democrats also support the expansion of the BBC’s local democracy reporting service. That scheme has been a lifeline, placing dedicated reporters in local newsrooms to cover councils, courts and public bodies, although we recognise the challenges that the online content can pose to local news outlets. The scheme thrives, but only if it is provided with sustainable funding. Has the Minister spoken to colleagues in the BBC about future funding for the scheme?

In a time of fake news and misinformation, we increasingly recognise the importance of an independent and free press in our society. It is not a luxury; it is essential to a healthy democracy. My party has consistently defended public service broadcasters such as the BBC and Channel 4. We need to ensure that we protect their independence and impartiality. That is why we want the BBC to remain universally available, properly resourced and free at the point of use, and why we will continue to champion high-quality independent journalism at both local and national level. If we are serious about protecting our democracy, we must ensure that local news is properly supported, fairly funded and given the tools it needs to continue informing, empowering and connecting the communities it serves.

English Rugby Union: Governance

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate. He speaks with great passion and knowledge, and I commend his recommendations.

Nothing can beat rugby as a gladiatorial spectacle, from the high-scoring, ping-pong, side-to-side and end-to-end champagne rugby played in the sunshine, to the grinding, no-tries, mud-fest battles for the purists only. The genius playmaker, able to see and exploit a gap for a game-changing individual try. The 16 phases of pick-and-go forwards grinding out the inches—or doing the hard yards, as I would describe it. The last-minute drop goal that wins or loses a match. Rugby is a game of wonder and joy. It is a sport built on discipline, respect and unity, which defines the game at every level, from local grassroots clubs to the highest of international competitions.

While I would love to spend some time lauding my own playing abilities, I am afraid there is too much evidence to the contrary. As a lifelong fan, I watch as many matches as my new schedule allows. And every weekend I take my son to play at one of our brilliant clubs in West Dorset, because it is not just a game but a community, and it is enjoyed by thousands up and down the country every weekend.

Rugby union, which according to legend was born in 1823 when William Webb Ellis picked up a ball at Rugby school, is one of Britain’s finest exports, and it is important to so many, not just in the UK but around the world. In the English premiership, we have one of the best and most competitive leagues in the world, and if the Chair will allow me a moment of self-indulgence, it is great to see my club, Bath, back at the top of the league, where it belongs. If the Chair will allow me a further moment of indulgence, I will annoy my political researcher by saying it is great to see Northampton so far down the league.

This year, we are proud to host the women’s rugby world cup, which will be a fantastic celebration of sport and an opportunity to see the Red Roses hopefully triumph. The growth of the women’s game is an extraordinary success story, with record-breaking attendance and a surge of participation. The Red Roses’ domination on the international stage, with their groundbreaking winning streak, has inspired a new generation of players and showcased the strength of women’s rugby. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Impact ’25 funds from the Government, with £28 million of investment to support England hosting the 2025 rugby world cup, including £14 million of legacy funding, which is needed to grow the women’s grassroots game.

However, while there is much to celebrate on the pitch, English rugby also faces a governance crisis off it. The financial state of the game is deeply troubling. Since rugby in England turned professional in 1995, the business model has remained unsustainable. Many premiership clubs operate at a loss, dependent on wealthy owners who can withdraw their funding at any moment, leaving clubs in financial ruin. In 2023, we saw the historic and legendary clubs of Wasps and London Irish collapse, as well as Worcester. The consequences have been devastating. Players and staff lost their livelihoods, and fans lost their beloved teams. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee at the time called it

“a stain on the reputation of the RFU”.

Despite these failings, successive Governments have taken a hands-off approach, hiding behind the excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body and allowing financial mismanagement to continue unchecked. The RFU receives significant public funding. Since 2020, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has provided loans through the sports survival package amounting to more than £123 million for premiership and championship clubs, with little oversight of how that money is used. Worcester received the largest loan, borrowing £15.7 million, but its administrators repaid just £9.8 million. Wasps’ administrators returned just £300,000 of its £14.1 million loan, and London Irish is yet to repay any of the £11.8 million that it received. Across the English game, we know that a staggering £30 million of these loans remains uncovered, with a further £11 million in unpaid interest. The RFU itself posted a record operating loss of more than £40 million last year and made more than 40 staff redundant while, as has already been mentioned, its executives awarded themselves £1.3 million in bonuses. How do the Government justify such recklessness when clubs are struggling to survive?

Premiership clubs collectively lost £30.5 million in 2022-23, and have net debts in excess of £300 million. Despite some financial reforms and a new £3.3 million per club funding deal, concerns over clubs’ sustainability persist. Seven out of 10 clubs are financially insolvent, surviving only on owner handouts. Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it was only a matter of time until another premiership club goes bust.

[Dr Luke Evans]

The hon. Member is making a fantastic speech about the financial impact, but with all these clubs it is about the fans and the jobs that go out into the community. Does he agree that when we saw this situation in football, we had the fan-led review? Would it not therefore be wise for the Government to consider doing something similar in rugby? By having a look, they could lift the stones, pull the cover back and see what is actually going on with the state of rugby union in England.

[Edward Morello]

I 100% agree with the hon. Member. It is incredibly important that the Government step in and start looking at the governance of the game, otherwise there will not be a game to govern.

Only this week, the administrators that oversaw London Irish’s insolvency warned that it is only a matter of time before another premiership club goes bust. That is an appalling state of affairs for a sport that should be thriving, and it has been confirmed that London Irish will seek a place in the United Rugby Championship. A team’s decision to prioritise the URC over the premiership serves as a damning indictment of the mismanagement within the premiership and the broader state of our amazing sport. If a normal business operated in that way, it would have been restructured years ago.

I have received responses from the Government stating that the governance of rugby union is a matter for the RFU, referring to the RFU and Sport England as their arm’s length bodies. Yet, despite the substantial public funding it receives, the RFU appears to operate with little oversight or accountability to the Government. If a private business was in receipt of that much taxpayers’ money, there would be demands for a public inquiry.

We have also seen injustices in the league system, as has been outlined. The championship contains strong clubs such as Ealing Trailfinders, which have proved their quality by excelling in the premiership cup. Yet, due to outdated capacity rules, they are denied promotion, while some premiership clubs fail to sell out their stadiums week after week. The entire system must be reformed to reward financial prudence and on-field performance rather than the entrenched and unfair status quo.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) has already outlined the alarming fact that rugby’s biggest stars are leaving for more lucrative contracts abroad. The loss of players such as Courtney Lawes to the French second division is a damning indictment of our commercial model. The RFU must do more to retain our talent and create a financially competitive environment.

At the same time, we face the threat of losing the Six Nations from free-to-air television. The proposed £100 million deal to move the tournament behind a paywall would be disastrous for the sport and net the competition just £10 million more than the existing deal. A TNT Sports subscription costs up to £30 a month, pricing out many fans and reducing viewership. The Government must ensure that the Six Nations remains free to air, to inspire the next generation of players and supporters.

Despite these challenges, rugby’s future can be bright. The upcoming women’s rugby world cup will showcase the extraordinary growth of the women’s game, with record-breaking ticket sales at Twickenham. Research in Scotland has shown that grassroots rugby delivers an economic benefit of at least £159 million a year, with a social return of £7.71 for every £1 spent. Investing in grassroots is not just morally right, but economically sound, yet funding cuts, declining participation and referee shortages have led to nearly 300 match walkovers in a single season.

The RFU must do more to support community clubs, which are the bedrock of the sport. The RFU’s leadership has lost the confidence of both grassroots and professional rugby stakeholders due to financial mismanagement and a lack of transparency. The Liberal Democrats call for an independent review of the RFU’s governance, with structural reforms to improve financial oversight and club representation. A more democratic system, or even an external regulatory body, would restore trust and stability to the game. It is time for the Government to step in. The governance of English rugby is at a crossroads. The RFU must address the concerns of clubs and stakeholders to ensure the sport’s long-term sustainability. The Government must ensure that public money is spent wisely and intervene when financial mismanagement threatens the integrity of the game.

The travesty of this mismanagement of the game is not just its current state; it is the missed opportunity—the failure to realise the premiership as a premium global product, create superstars of our best players, fill stadiums, grow participation and monetise the game. Rugby is a national asset. We cannot allow it to be undermined by poor governance. The passion of players, coaches and fans remains unwavering. However, unless decisive action is taken, we risk further financial crisis and erosion of the game we love. The excuse that the RFU is an arm’s length body cannot be sanctioned any longer. We can argue over whether the RFU deserves a red or a yellow card, but I hope we can all agree that it is time for an off-field review.

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and Hayle for securing this important debate.

Both rugby union and rugby league are games with proud traditions in this country. They bring together communities, inspire young athletes and represent the best of our national sporting spirit. I had the personal pleasure of playing both codes of rugby as a teenager and getting my coaching badges, and today I am proud to represent Old Bexley and Sidcup, which has two flourishing rugby clubs, Sidcup and the Dartfordians. Each club represents what rugby is really about: community, friendship and playing sport in the spirit of healthy competition, open to all, regardless of background, with thriving teams across all age groups. I look forward to wearing my half-and-half scarf next month, when the battle of Bexley takes place between the two senior first teams of my local clubs. I also look forward to continuing to work with the Mizen Foundation to promote schools rugby in my community.

Yet as we all know, the national game is at a crossroads, with major headwinds, including competition from other sports, club finances, as we have heard, and player welfare. Performances and results on the pitch have thankfully improved, with the men’s team having a strong Six Nations—sorry, fans of Wales and Scotland—and the Red Roses continuing to inspire girls and women across the country ahead of this year’s world cup, but the governance of English rugby union has been brought into the spotlight in recent months.

I want to be clear from the outset—I am sure Members across the House will agree—that this is not a criticism of the players or fans, or of hard-working individuals in clubs and the wider rugby community. It is about how we improve the governance structure of English rugby to ensure the long-term sustainability of the game, from the grassroots to the elite level. With the Six Nations under way, it is a good time to look at reforming the governance of the Rugby Football Union to ensure accountability, transparency and a long-term strategic vision for the sport.

Critics have argued that the governance structure of English rugby union has failed to keep pace with the evolving nature of the international game and, as a result, the game is beginning to suffer. Sir Bill Beaumont and the RFU board have come in for a fair amount of criticism in recent months, but I am pleased that they have been out meeting clubs across the country and engaging on a range of concerns ahead of their special general meeting on 27 March. As a result of roadshow feedback, the RFU is planning to take action in the following areas: governance reforms, financial sustainability, continued growth of the community game, reducing administrative burdens, simplifying and modernising competition structures, investing in community club infrastructure and improving communications. It is ultimately up to union members to vote on proposals, but I believe that those are the right areas of focus and hope that the game will tackle these important issues in the months and years ahead.

First and foremost, we must ensure that the RFU is accessible and accountable and operates transparently. The days of a top-down approach to the governance of rugby are over. Rugby is a community game and its leadership structure must reflect that. We need a range of voices at the decision-making table, including people from the grassroots who understand the challenges faced by our local clubs and understand the game itself. I am sure that Members in this place and members of local clubs are pleased to hear that the RFU has promised more control over our community game. I appreciate that that is an olive branch from the RFU in the wake of a chorus of criticism from the game, but it should be welcomed none the less, alongside the £120 million of investment in community rugby promised over the next four years.

The RFU is beginning with a review of how the community game is run, which it expects will encourage

“a shift to a regional structure where more decisions can be made locally, with greater flexibility achieved in competition management and devolved funding to help local decisions to be made to drive participation growth, aid player retention and support club sustainability.”

I think Members here and fans across the country will welcome that.

We must also continue to ensure that financial decisions are made with the long-term health of the game in mind. We must not continue to see short-sighted financial choices that damage the sport’s infrastructure and leave our clubs struggling. There have been many media reports about the RFU’s record-breaking loss last year, and it has been mentioned during the debate, but what has not been reported on is the four-year financial cycle in which the RFU operates, which follows the fixture list. During half of the cycle, the RFU makes a profit; in one year it breaks even; and one year results in a loss. It announced a record-breaking loss last year, but the loss was actually less than it had planned. Having looked into the details and met the RFU, it is clear to me that there is a financial plan in place, but it is not always sufficiently headline-grabbing to be made clear to the public.

[Edward Morello]

I have also heard the RFU explain its four-year business plan. It is nearly impossible to imagine a business running on a four-year plan under which it makes a loss three years out of four. Given how long the RFU has been in charge of the game, I find it staggering that it has not found a way to create a business plan with a more even distribution of income and outgoings. If it is ever going to get on to a sustainable footing and provide cash to the game, it needs to find a way to be profitable in every single year.

[Mr French]

I agree. The commercial elements of the game and its growth are vital. In conversations with the RFU—I suspect I will have many more—that is one area that we must try to continue growing. I have also met Six Nations, which represents all the different unions in this space, and looked at some of its media options, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I think they are worth tracking in the weeks and months ahead.

Financial stability at the grassroots is just as important as financial success at the top of the game. Let us be in no doubt: many clubs that were only just recovering from the pandemic are now facing significant headwinds from Labour’s Budget, whether because of high utility bills or staffing costs. I urge the Government again not to lose sight of what it means for communities across the country when clubs are put at risk of closure.

The way the RFU operates allows it to invest in the game’s grassroots, including by funding school rugby managers, who are tasked with making contact with local clubs to ensure that there is a relationship between the schools that they look after and the local rugby club. That is an important way to ensure there is a pathway from that first game of rugby in a PE lesson that can lead any child to a future at the elite level if their talent allows.

The development of our next generation of rugby players is arguably the most important function of the rugby pyramid and those who govern it. Talent must be nurtured from the earliest age, and pathways to community or professional rugby should be clear, fair and accessible to all. We need to empower our coaches, clubs and schools to provide the best environment for young talent to flourish.

The RFU is making good progress on achieving that already, but I know that it can and wants to go further. Data from Sport England’s active lives survey shows that participation in the men’s game is up to 183,000 players from 157,000 in 2021-22. Age grade rugby is also growing, with over 178,000 players registered by the end of last season and over 171,000 so far this season. With the challenge of players’ time commitments, however, it is a wise move for the RFU to be looking closely at having more Friday night fixtures, for example. I look forward to tracking the progress of T1 rugby, which is currently being rolled out in schools, and the growth of the women’s game following this year’s world cup.

From my conversations with stakeholders, the RFU is restoring some faith and good will within the rugby community, and it must continue to do so and listen to the many concerns that have been raised in today’s debate. If it can get that right, and create a governance structure that is more transparent, accountable and inclusive, the future of rugby in England will be brighter than ever. The RFU must do that collaboratively, however, in conjunction with all the sport’s stakeholders. Rugby is a sport of passion, and we cannot afford to lose that.

I will push the Minister on some areas of the sport and the Government’s policies on it. The financial insecurity of many clubs, and the collapse of others in recent years, to the detriment of local communities and fans, raises an important question for the Government: why are they planning to regulate football, and making a lot of noise about it, but not rugby? To be clear, I am not advocating that they should. My personal view is that rugby has enough challenges to deal with and that, as with most things in life, more Government intervention is not the answer, but there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to sport that I hope the Minister will address.

Linked to that, can the Minister tell us what the Government are doing to help to ensure the financial sustainability of rugby clubs, and to encourage and develop the governance and the accountability for the taxpayers’ money that is being used, as has been raised already? In the light of recent reports, how will the Government manage the expiry of covid loans, which helped to keep clubs afloat during the pandemic? If more clubs go bust, taxpayers’ money will be lost forever. Will the Department take a more pragmatic approach to those loans, perhaps with extended payment dates and flexibility?

What impact assessment has the Minister made of the combined impact of raising national insurance and employment costs on the game at an elite and community level? Will the Government ensure that rugby continues to be part of the school curriculum? What assessment has she made of the effect on participation in rugby of Labour’s school tax, given the prevalence of links with rugby union among public schools? Finally, does the Minister share my concerns that playing fields will be lost due to the Government’s planning changes, as announced this week?

Six Nations Rugby Championship: Viewing Access

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention, and the debate is very timely, given what I am about to say. I am also grateful for her contribution, given her role in Parliament as regards rugby and her previous role in the sport as well. I am very aware that income from broadcast deals is vital to the home nations’ rugby unions, but I would caution against a dash to the highest bidder. This should be a case not of maximising income but of optimising it so that the sport continues to have a broad reach, which in turn creates more fans.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I think the decision would run counter to the aim of increasing engagement in the sport. The hon. Member will know that the Rugby Football Union receives £28 million of taxpayers’ money to not only deliver the women’s rugby world cup but improve engagement in the women’s game. However, is he aware that the joint venture between the rugby world cup and the RFU to deliver the tournament awarded the contract to provide the equipment to Rhino Rugby, a long-term RFU sponsor, which was paid £800,000 and selected ahead of Aramis Rugby, which offered to deliver all the equipment for free? I would question that. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should do more to monitor how taxpayers’ money is spent and whether that is being done in the interest of growing the game?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I think we can all agree that we are looking forward to the women’s world cup. I am not aware of the detail of the situation to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, but I am sure it is something the Minister will take an interest. I hope they can both meet to discuss it further.

Viewing figures for matches that involve the home nations and that are shown free to air during the Six Nations have significantly outperformed viewing figures for, for example, the autumn internationals on subscription services showing the same countries. If rugby risks its broader fanbase, it will become harder to attract other sponsors, and that will become counterproductive in the long term. These are, of course, commercial decisions for private organisations, but Parliament does have a say through the listed sporting events. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has powers, using the Broadcasting Act 1996, to draw up a list of sporting events of national interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephanie Peacock]

I am incredibly grateful to my hon. Friend for her contribution, and I pay tribute to her for her work. We have talked about this issue many times. She is absolutely right about the span of rugby throughout the year. I was really lucky to be cheering on the Red Roses at Twickenham a few months ago with my former boss Sylvia Heal, a former Member of this House; I look forward to doing so again in the coming months. I will come on in a moment to some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.

I am aware of reports relating to the broadcasting of the Six Nations from 2026 onwards, which is obviously why the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds secured this timely debate. It should be emphasised that this is a live issue, and it would not be appropriate to comment on every single stage of ongoing commercial negotiations, as I am sure Members will appreciate. However, I recently met Six Nations Rugby to discuss the issue further. It was clear to me that Six Nations Rugby understands the strength of feeling among rugby fans on this issue and appreciates the significant cultural and financial contribution that the Six Nations makes to each nation’s rugby union’s governing body, including the RFU. The Government recognise the importance of broadcasting sporting events such as the Six Nations to attract significant audience interest.

The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds proposed changes to the so-called listed events regime that, in his view, would protect free-to-air coverage of the Six Nations. As he outlined, the Broadcasting Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State the power to draw up a list of sporting events of national interest. The broadcast rights to such events must be offered to the main free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on “fair and reasonable terms”. The current listed events regime is designed to ensure that sporting events of national significance are available to as wide an audience as possible, by prohibiting the exclusive broadcasting of the event without the prior consent of Ofcom.

As colleagues will know, the Six Nations is listed under the Act as a group B protected event, which means that although highlights must be offered to free-to-air broadcasters, full live coverage does not need to be made available to them. Listing does not guarantee that an event will be broadcast live or on a free-to-air channel. Rights holders are not required to sell rights for listed events, and free-to-air broadcasters are not obliged to purchase them. Conversely, the example of the Six Nations demonstrates that putting an event in group B does not prevent a rights holder from selling full live coverage rights to a free-to-air broadcaster or broadcasters.

The Government believe that the current list of events works well and strikes an appropriate balance between access to sporting events and allowing sports to maximise broadcasting revenue. We therefore have no plans to review the list at this time. When discussing the Six Nations, it is important to consider that broadcasting income is a significant revenue stream for rugby union and is important to the financial sustainability of all home nations unions. The current Six Nations broadcasting rights are said to be worth £90 million a year—a significant revenue stream for the six rugby governing bodies.

The previous Government loaned premiership clubs £124 million as part of the sport survival package to keep elite-level rugby union alive during the pandemic, and championship clubs were loaned £5 million. We are supporting rugby union authorities to improve the financial sustainability of the sport. Indeed, I recently met the RFU to discuss the future of rugby union.

[Edward Morello]

The Minister makes valid points about the contribution that the Government have made. However, the RFU has lost £30 million and overseen three premiership clubs going bust, so I question whether the Government are doing enough to scrutinise the governing bodies of the game in England.

[Stephanie Peacock]

That is, of course, a matter for the RFU. I took note of the hon. Gentleman’s earlier intervention; if it is helpful, I am happy to write to him about the specific points that he raised.

I welcome the recent progress that the game has made on funding distribution and other issues. We will continue to work with the RFU, with representatives of premiership and championship clubs and with the wider sport sector to support the ongoing sustainability of elite and community-level rugby. More broadly, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport provides the majority of direct support for grassroots sport through our arm’s length body Sport England, which invests over £250 million of national lottery and Government money annually. Sport England has awarded £30,859,000 to the RFU—one of its long-term system partners—for the 2022-2027 period, to support men’s and women’s grassroots rugby union. DCMS has also provided over £28 million of investment to support England’s hosting of the 2025 women’s rugby world cup, including £14.5 million to support the legacy of that tournament through improvements to facilities and greater opportunities for women and girls at all levels.

Despite that support, the RFU is independent of Government and is responsible for the regulation of rugby union at all levels. Given the financial difficulties facing rugby union, it is right that the RFU and the Six Nations consider the trade-offs between visibility, access to games, maximising revenue and protecting our cultural heritage.

Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Edward Morello Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this debate. I want to highlight the impact of the national insurance rise on just two West Dorset charities. Weldmar Hospicecare already subsidises 60% of its NHS-commissioned care through fundraising. It will have to raise an additional £600,000 next year. Julia’s House, which provides end-of-life care to sick children, gets just 8% of its income from state funding. It will have to raise nearly £250,000 next year as a result of these changes. Charities such as Weldmar and Julia’s House play a critical role in alleviating pressure on the NHS. They provide care in the community, reduce avoidable hospital admissions and support families in their darkest hours. Their work aligns with the Government’s priorities of shifting care out of hospitals into community settings, yet this policy actively undermines their abilities to do so. Weldmar and Julia embody selflessness and service. By exempting hospices from national insurance rises, we can protect their critical work and ensure they continue to provide comfort.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Last but not least, I call Tom Gordon.