Employer National Insurance Contributions: Charities

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[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?

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I am reliably informed that each person will have one minute in which to speak; I am afraid that I will have to stop people after one minute. Obviously, this is the debate of the Member in charge and therefore he could take as long as he liked; he also took quite a few interventions.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I will be really quick, Madam Chair.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing such an important debate. I am absolutely astonished that so few Government Members have attended. It was not so long ago that they were community champions seeking election.

In Mid Bedfordshire, our charities do absolutely fantastic work to help keep our area the special place that it is. In particular, I will talk about The Greensand Trust. I was pleased to visit the trust recently. It does some absolutely fantastic work in the community and in supporting environmental improvements within Mid Bedfordshire. However, I was deeply concerned to hear about the impact that this Government’s job tax will have on the trust. There will be £100,000 extra on its staffing costs next year. With no efficiencies that it can find and no extra income that it can raise, that means that next year the trust will have to cut staff to make ends meet, which means a reduced service for everyone, and a huge loss to our local environment and our green spaces—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I am really sorry, but I have to stop you. Could Members bob each time, in between speeches, so that we can get a clearer idea of how many Members wish to speak?

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Chair, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing today’s debate.

As the former chief executive of a community regeneration organisation, I speak from direct experience of working with charities on the ground. Although it is nice that today the Conservatives care about charities, that was not the case previously. The cuts started right at the beginning of the Conservatives’ time in office, with their “big society” policy, which in my experience was just an underhand means of implementing cuts. I know that because, like many organisations, the charity that I worked for spent year after year managing cuts after cuts. Vital local community services were forced to close or to reduce in size.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to resetting the relationship with the third sector and to rebuilding a new partnership through the civil society covenant. I am also pleased that the Government’s policy statement on local government finances will provide a multi-year financial settlement and adjust the funding formula to local Government to rebalance funding where it is most needed. These measures will be welcomed by charities.

However, I am concerned about the impact of the national insurance increase on organisations—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I am really sorry; we are done.

[Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing this really important topic to this place. It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Ms Vaz.

We are very short of time, so I will just highlight a couple of facts about charities that serve my constituency of Chelmsford. We have Farleigh hospice, which does what its name suggests. It does incredible work, but it has to fundraise most of its money, and it will need to cover an extra £250,000 in addition to the current deficit budget that it is operating under. That equates to the cost of five registered nurses or the direct running costs of its children’s bereavement service. I wonder which one the Government would prefer it to cut.

I could go on about loads of different charities. However, I have just 20 seconds left, so I will just say that I am so incredibly disappointed by the Government about this policy, because they must have known the impact that it was going to have on the charity sector, and to choose to ignore the sector and to implement the policy without any compensation and without talking to the sector first is just disgraceful. And I really want to know what the Government are going to do to—

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. I call Patrick Hurley to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for bringing this debate forward. I want to mention two charities that I have interacted with in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough. The first provides support to unpaid carers, who are now facing £90,000 in additional employer national insurance contributions. That will completely pull the rug out from underneath them and have a massive impact on people providing those services to their loved ones.

Secondly, Harrogate is home to one of the two police treatment centres in the UK. They help to rehabilitate police who have been injured in the course of their duties, and we know that every pound spent saves the taxpayer £3.80 in rehabilitation and mental health and wellbeing provision. Obviously, the impact of NICs on them is going to be huge—£160,000 of employer NICs will be passed on to them. It is really clear that, although the Government are hoping to raise some tax in the process, the additional costs are going to end up costing them a lot more in the long run. They need to rethink this.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I think we can squeeze one more Back-Bench speaker in. I call Clive Jones.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) for securing the debate. A number of charities in my constituency of Wokingham, including The Cowshed, First Days and Citizens Advice, have been really disadvantaged by these national insurance charges, one of them by up to £16,000 a year. The Government could have been bold by taxing banks, online gambling and social media giants to raise more money.

Can the Minister answer this simple question? Is she content with putting bankers’ bonuses first instead of debt advisers and support for people facing evictions, homelessness and genuine need?

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

I thank hon. Members. Everyone who wanted to speak has done. I now call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Daisy Cooper.

[Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) on securing this important debate. I believe I have up to five minutes to make some remarks, which feels positively luxurious in the context of the canter we have just had. I will kick back as I think about what to say.

I have been struck by the examples colleagues have given. We have heard a number of charities named from different constituencies: Age UK branches, charities that support survivors of domestic violence, those supporting women and children, ambulances, Mencap, Mind, physical rehabilitation and various volunteer and advice centres. But the one type of charity that has been mentioned more than any other has been hospices. Almost every hon. Member who spoke or made an intervention referred to a hospice in their area. That should surely send a strong message to the Government about the amount of cross-party support in this House for the hospice sector, and why we want to see more from the Government in that regard.

As the MP for St Albans, I have heard, as others have, about charities in my area. One hospice, Rennie Grove, says that the changes will potentially increase costs by around £250,000. A doctor working in palliative care in another hospice that serves my constituents says that the decision not to exempt hospices is “nothing short of devastating.” A trustee from a local mental health charity says that the cuts that need to be made may result in an increase in demand for NHS services. National Age UK has also said that this will put an intolerable strain on its organisation.

We know the Government have a terrible inheritance from the previous Government, but different choices could have been made. The Government say that the national insurance hike will result in additional tax revenue of around £25 billion per year, but the Office for Budget Responsibility clearly states that, after allowing for behaviour changes in response to the tax, such as reducing pay, and once public sector employers are compensated, it will only raise revenue closer to £10 billion.

Instead of raising national insurance contributions on small businesses, health and care providers and charities, the Government could have raised that same amount of money through much fairer tax changes. For example, the Liberal Democrats have proposed reversing the Conservative cuts handed to the big banks; increasing the digital services tax to 6%; doubling the rate of remote gaming duty paid by online gambling companies; and introducing a fairer reform of capital gains tax, so that the 0.1% of ultra-wealthy individuals would pay their fair share, while keeping things the same or cutting tax for other capital gains tax payers. Those other choices could have been made.

Like other hon. Members in this debate, I urge the Government to think again about what they can do to restrict the impact on our charity sector. The national insurance contribution rise is unnecessary when alternative tax-raising avenues are available, as I have just set out. It is self-defeating, because in many cases it will put more pressure on the NHS, and it is fundamentally unfair. It will hit charities that are supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society. Those charities are the glue that hold our societies together and, unfortunately, we are going to see their services slashed.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. We are expecting a vote but I will call the Opposition spokesperson, Saqib Bhatti.

Football Governance Bill

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because those David and Goliath fixtures are part of the magic of football. I know that replays have been a welcome source of income for smaller clubs throughout the years. I spoke to the FA about this issue at Wembley on Saturday, but as he will know, these are decisions for the football authorities. This Bill will ensure that we have appropriate financial regulation in place.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I am not going to mention my local football clubs—oh, all right, I will: Walsall football club and Darlaston Town 1874 FC, which is celebrating its 150th anniversary. The shape of the Bill at the minute is due to the Minister sitting next to the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who has engaged with all Members. I pay tribute to him for including all of us. It is a pity that the Secretary of State is looking at the Bill in a party political way, because the Government have been in power for the last 14 years. Let us all pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Pudsey, who has done a fantastic job.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Frazer]

We looked closely at precedents elsewhere, particularly in regulatory fields, when forming the basis of the Bill. We have always been conscious that we are regulating in a commercial space, and that football clubs are businesses. The premier league is world leading. We are regulating because football clubs have failed to solve these issues themselves. What we do not want to do through this Bill is over-regulate, including in areas in which we would not be regulating but for this Bill. We are trying to strike the right balance. That is why the Bill, notwithstanding questions that have been put to me in this House, focuses on financial regulation. Importantly, it does not interfere with the game, or with how players are looked after. The leagues have a role to play, and they should be primarily responsible for running the game.

[Valerie Vaz]

Do the regulators have sufficient power to intervene if some of the owners are servicing debts in other areas of their company?

[Lucy Frazer]

The regulator will have strong powers to look at owners and directors tests, and at financial plans. They will have powers that are designed to ensure the financial sustainability of football. The question that would arise, I suspect, in the right hon. Member’s case is whether that issue was interfering with a particular football club.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)]

May I start by saying how good it is to see the Bill receive its Second Reading? Many people have been campaigning for it for many years, and as the Secretary of State has acknowledged, it has strong cross-party support. A lot of people—both inside and outside the Chamber—have put in a lot of work. Sadly, weeks, months and, I am afraid, Secretaries of State have gone by, but I am glad to see it here at last.

Since I was given the honour of serving in this role, I have met fans, clubs, representative leagues, governing bodies and special interest groups, and I want to thank them all for their time and expertise. I know that they are following our proceedings closely. I also thank the civil servants at the Department, who I know will have put in painstaking work to get us to this point. They deserve our appreciation, and I hear that same point being made by those on the Government Benches.

This new law will not fix all of football’s problems, nor is it designed to. I believe that it can be transformative, if things are done right both during its passage through Parliament and in the crucial implementation phase. The prize could be greater financial sustainability across the whole football pyramid, and, crucially, fans having a greater say in how their clubs are run. It could be those things, but it is up to us to make sure that it is. That is what fans deserve, and what Labour has called for in our last three election manifestos. We Opposition Members are therefore absolutely committed to passing this Bill into law, and to making it work. It is a once-in-a-generation chance to change the game that this country loves for the better. We must all realise the responsibility that we have to make a success of it.

Football is part of what it means to be British. It reaches across borders. It is part of our global brand. It brings us together. Yes, it sometimes brings crushing disappointment, but it also brings us joy. We watch with our families and friends at the local, in the stands or in our living room. We cheer and chant with strangers in stadiums, and together, we sit on the edge of our seat with nervousness. Labour will never take the magic of football for granted. It deserves our attention and our hard work.

Football is also an economic powerhouse. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition has clearly set out, Labour’s No. 1 mission is to go for growth. The premier league and its clubs contributed more than £4.2 billion in tax in 2021-22 and supported more than 90,000 jobs. The English Football League clubs contribute so much to our country’s finances, to jobs, and also to joy. The next Labour Government want to invest—in hospitals, in schools, in repairing the damage done by the last 14 years, and in making sure that every child gets a great experience of sport and physical activity at school. That is why football’s contribution to public funds is so important to us, and it is why we will focus on economic growth. Labour will support football up and down the pyramid to grow sustainably, and to create even more jobs, as well as joy. I say “sustainably”, because Labour believes it is important that the whole football pyramid shares in the success of the game.

England leads the world in its system for football. The English pyramid is built on competition. The fans’ love of the game was never more clearly demonstrated than when they overwhelmingly rejected the close competition model of the proposed European super league. That set in train the fan-led review by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch) and led to where we are today, but there is so much more work to do.

[Valerie Vaz]

My hon. Friend mentioned the fan-led review. Does she agree with me that the women’s game, which is out of scope of the Bill, is growing exponentially, and that there is scope for the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Dame Tracey Crouch), in a new role, to look at the women’s game and see whether we could have some regulation there?

[Thangam Debbonaire]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. She rightly pays tribute to the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, although Karen Carney has also made a substantial contribution in leading the Carney review. I read the review with interest—it was great—and I believe my right hon. Friend may be aware of it. It is certainly worth Members giving it a detailed read; it deserves all of our attention. I am really proud of the fact that the English women’s game is growing so strongly and so well, and that it is inspiring so many women and girls to get active and get fit. The work of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford, combined with the Carney review, sets in train exactly what my right hon. Friend is looking for: strength in our women’s game, which deserves it and deserves our admiration. It is bringing in new audiences all the time, which I think is fantastic.

Thirty years ago, English Football League revenues were 75% of the Premier League’s; today they are just 6%. The gap then was £11 million; it is now £3 billion. It is not that that income is not distributed from the Premier League—it is. It is because increasing amounts are spent on parachute payments, which are made to clubs relegated from the premier league for up to three seasons. I respectfully remind the ministerial team that it was the Government’s own White Paper that recognised the scale of these payments and that they can have unintended consequences.

Channel 4

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

We will be working hand in glove with the independent sector to ensure that we put in place specific safeguards, especially for the most innovative, small and new independent sector producers. We will give an update shortly on that, but we are listening to them at all stages.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Happy new year, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Secretary of State: why did right hon. and hon. Members only hear about this U-turn on “Channel 4 News” and why has she not put the package before the House?

[Michelle Donelan]

We are laying a written ministerial statement today.

BBC Local Radio: Proposed Reduction in Provision

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

The BBC is a public service broadcaster and it is there to deal with types of journalism that are not covered adequately by the market. That is why the BBC has support. If it is not delivering that kind of distinct local and regional content, we have to ask some very serious questions.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Local radio was brilliant when it questioned the previous Prime Minister. Can the Minister reassure the House that this is not a done deal, and can she update the House on her discussions with the director-general?

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the right hon. Lady for raising those interviews with the previous Prime Minister. That has since led to a regular section on the Radio 4 “Today” programme where local radio stations are making a specific contribution to what is a national broadcasting programme, allowing us to get a much better flavour of what is going on across the country, and of the different opinions that regional and local news providers have on those national stories. That is where the value of the BBC really comes into play, and I really hope that that does not wither on the vine.

BBC Funding

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Monday 17th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Ms Dorries]

S4C plays a vital role supporting the Welsh economy, culture and society. The funding will support S4C in reaching more Welsh language speakers, including younger audiences. I am sure S4C heard what my right hon. Friend just said, and I shall certainly take his points back.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Let us talk about value for money. Does the Secretary of State agree that 43p a day is value for money for BBC iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the BBC World Service?

[Ms Dorries]

It is billions of pounds, and I do not believe that any family receiving repeated letters, or a bailiff knocking on their door, or a request to appear at a magistrates court would think it is value for money, because it is money they cannot afford. The issue is that working families and people who are hard pressed in the current situation of rising inflationary pressures think it is difficult to pay £159 a year out of their income, which is why we are freezing the licence fee for the next two years and not allowing it to rise.

Oral Answers to Questions

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Thursday 16th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney General]

It has been an enormous pleasure to appear opposite the hon. Gentleman. He is a distinguished historian, a distinguished politician and an experienced barrister.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Flattery won’t help you.

[The Attorney General]

Of course it will.

The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) knows I will not be drawn into commenting on individual cases, but what I can say is that there are widespread concerns throughout our society and throughout this House as to whether judicial review is sometimes being used in a manner, often through frivolous applications, that needs better focus and care in its procedures and tests. We will have a look at that to see whether the elements of judicial review could be better designed to serve its purpose of holding the Government to account for their administrative decisions.