English Rugby

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Edward Morello will move the motion and the Minister will respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention in a 30-minute debate, the Member in charge will not have an opportunity to wind up.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Government support for English rugby.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Although I confess it is tempting to use this 30 minutes to talk about the disastrous result at the weekend, I will instead stick to the topic. I am a rugby romantic. For me and so many others, the game is about something far deeper than the scoreline. It is of course about solo tries, rolling mauls and high-pressure drop goals that win world cups, but it is also about the burgers from the clubhouse kitchen; standing on the sidelines in the rain, snow, wind and, very occasionally, glorious sunshine; the professional players having their signed shirts on the walls of their childhood club; and tying the laces of my son’s boots on a Sunday morning when he turns out for the under-sevens. That reminds me that rugby is not just a sport, but a community, and at the heart of that community is grassroots rugby.

Local clubs are far more than places where games are played. They are community assets. They are where children, parents, supporters, coaches and volunteers come together. Yes, we go there to play and watch rugby, but they are also where fitness classes, community events and social gatherings are held. They are places where friendships are made and where people feel part of something bigger than themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

You leave me in something of a quandary because I deliberately chose Government support for English rugby, rather than using the debate as an opportunity to beat up the RFU—although I certainly have my criticisms of it, and I will come on to some of those points. The Government repeatedly say that the RFU is an arm’s length body, but the reality is that the RFU is in receipt of millions of taxpayers’ money. Therefore, it is absolutely justifiable for parliamentarians to hold it to account, and my personal view is that right now, not enough money is getting to the lower parts of the rugby pyramid.

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. Through the Chair, please.

[Edward Morello]

Apologies, Ms Vaz. We will come back to that topic in another debate.

There are signs of growth and optimism in Prem rugby. The quality of rugby is among the best in the world. We are producing world-class talent that—the Six Nations aside—usually excels on the world stage. Attendance is growing, with several rounds of Prem rugby seeing sold-out fixtures and stadium occupancy reaching record levels.

Broadcast audiences are also increasing, with round nine in January attracting more than 1.2 million viewers. The Premiership final last year, which as a Bath supporter I am legally obliged to mention—come on Bath!—drew in nearly 1 million viewers in addition to a live crowd of 82,000 at Twickenham. Following the final, social engagement interactions across Premiership rugby channels rose by 24%. TV figures are up 35% since 2022. Those figures show that when the game is accessible, exciting and well promoted, fans are eager to watch, attend and engage. The professional game also provides a platform not only to showcase elite rugby, but to inspire the next generation and increase participation. But we must translate that success into players that are playing at a grassroots level, something that I worry we are failing to do.

Government have a role in English rugby, not by running the sport, but by ensuring transparency, oversight and responsible use of public money. When taxpayers are funding sports facilities, development programmes or covid loans, Parliament has a duty to ensure that that money is used effectively. Through Sport England, the Government have invested £72 million into rugby union since 2016—most recently £16.9 million in the RFU across the 2022 to 2027 funding cycle. We have a right and a duty to make sure that public money is well spent in the right places and on the right things.

Government can also actively take an interest in promoting and growing all parts of our game, from using our athletes as ambassadors for our country to directly supporting community rugby groups who reach out to those schools that we cannot reach. That brings me back to local communities and grassroots, because without grassroots rugby, none of the rest exists. The volunteers who mark the pitches, cook the food, coach the children and wash the kit are the true foundation of the sport. They deserve our recognition, our support and, most of all, our thanks. If we support grassroots rugby properly, if we bring the sport into more schools, if we invest in deprived communities, if we strengthen the women’s game and if we stabilise the professional leagues, then we will have a game that we love and that we can see flourish.

BBC Charter Renewal

Valerie Vaz Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I completely understand that. The Green Paper contains quite a lot about the BBC’s involvement in providing coverage in the nations of the United Kingdom, and indeed in the languages of the United Kingdom. If the hon. Gentleman believes, as I do, that one of the principal purposes of the BBC is to provide content that otherwise would not be available, then that is a good example of where it is absolutely right that the BBC should continue to invest.

There are some things, however, that the BBC does not necessarily need to continue doing, because there is such choice available. As I say, I regret the fact that that does not seem to be part of the debate within the Green Paper. It seems to suggest that the BBC should go on doing everything it does now, but that then begs an even harder question: if the BBC is to go on spending as much as it does today, how will we pay for it at a time when the willingness to pay the licence fee is declining year on year?

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s views, as he is a former Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. Does he agree that 47p a day represents value for money for nine television stations, 17 radio stations, iPlayer, BBC Sounds and the BBC World Service?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

Whether or not it is value for money is a debate that the BBC has advanced for as long as I have been debating the BBC. The question is: what do we compare it with? Is 25p value for money, or is £1.50 value for money? Unless it is decided what the BBC should be doing, we cannot determine that.

The other big factor is that paying the licence fee is not a choice. People do not have the opportunity not to pay; if they want the BBC, and indeed live television at all, they are required by law to pay the licence fee. Saying, “Oh, it’s fantastic value for money,” is very difficult when nobody has ever been given the opportunity to demonstrate whether they think it is value for money by choosing whether to pay for it.

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.