Joe Robertson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 28 Jan 2026 · Youth Unemployment · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand, although I do not agree with, the argument the Minister is making on amending “may” to “must”—he says it would be unenforceable—but he seems, unless I have misunderstood, to have conflated that argument with his point about amendment 122, which seeks not to make a discretionary provision a mandatory one but to expand the considerations. The explanatory statement says: “This amendment would require the Secretary of State to set the objective for…increasing passenger and freight journeys.” Perhaps I have misunderstood.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As my hon. Friend describes the growing size of the Department for Transport and Great British Railways, I am slightly reminded of the Department of Health and Social Care, and NHS England. The Government talk of doubling up and so are winding back by abolishing NHS England, but here they are doubling up in the Department for Transport over Great British Railways. I wonder whether he has any reflections on that analogy.

• 27 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Fifth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. My right hon. and hon. Friends have already spoken at length and I agree with them, but I will add just a couple of short points to place my disappointment on the record that not even a draft of the licence has been presented. It is good that the Minister has clarified that it will be coming forward sooner than he suggested previously, but the reality is that it is already too late, as we heard from stakeholders last week during evidence. I urge him not to delay any further. Even an outline draft of the licence as soon as possible, rather than a more detailed one, would be clearly better than nothing. He should also bring forward the other 19 documents identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon—again, in draft form as appropriate—as soon as possible. As I say, it is already too late for this Committee today, as we debate this very clause and schedule. I wish to place that on the record.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In the best case, as mayors, would you like to see more powers in the Bill? I get that you support the Bill, but in the best world, would you like to see more powers for mayors to integrate in it? Andy Burnham: I think there should be a presumption in favour of integration; you are absolutely right. Other countries, such as the Netherlands, have had that as their guiding star, but we went down a fragmentation route in public transport, and have suffered as a country as a result. Integration is the way to think. People are not just loyal to one mode; they want to use transport in as convenient a way as possible. The railways have not had an imperative to think that way for a long time, but you are absolutely right to think of integration as the watchword.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have a question about GBR’s licence. What can we glean from the provisions for that licence in the Railways Bill, without having seen a draft of the document? John Thomas: It is really difficult. As I said earlier, all we can glean is that, given the reduced powers that ORR will have, it will be a slimmed-down licence; ORR will not have the power that it currently has to enforce business performance. Until we see it, we cannot really comment on it. I am a bit surprised that we have not seen a draft of the licence yet. We have seen the access and use policy discussion document, but not a draft of the licence. It has been a long time in the making, so I am surprised that we have not seen it yet. I was told that we might not see it for some time. It is a key part of the overall framework, so until we see it, we cannot really comment on that framework. We are having to—we are having to comment on the Bill—but until we see the licence it is difficult to determine what our position will be.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q In previous questions today, I have asked about the integration of railways and other public transport, which the Government say they want to improve. When I have talked about my constituency and the example of connecting rail and ferries, given that our ferry companies are unregulated, privatised and controlled by private equity, the answer has come back that mayoral combined authorities will have powers to improve connectivity and timetabling issues. Notwithstanding the fact that the Isle of Wight does not have a mayoral combined authority yet, I want to ask you as mayors how that can work in practice. Does the Bill give you any extra powers, particularly on integrating modes of transport, where you have little or no regulatory powers at the moment? Andy Burnham: It is important to say that we are doing that without the Bill at the moment. Again, we thank the Department for coming with us on the Bee Network journey. We will bring the first two rail lines into that this year; and over the next three years, eight rail lines will come into the Bee Network system. It is complex, because some of the lines begin outside of our borders, such as in Glossop and Buxton in Derbyshire, or in Southport in the Liverpool city region, but because those lines are GM commuter lines, so are not going to Liverpool, it is right for them to be in the Bee Network. We have made that argument and the Government have supported us. We have already created an integrated ticketing system for tram and bus travel in Greater Manchester: you can tap in on both now, and there is a London-style cap. We want to add rail to that as soon as possible. When the first lines come into the Bee Network in December, people will be able to buy a paper ticket that covers tram, train and bus, but in time we want that to be integrated. There is absolutely no reason at all why you could not have that over train and ferry travel—I know that the Mayor of Liverpool wants Mersey Ferries to be a part of his integrated system. It is complicated, but it is absolutely possible. The Department has already shown a willingness to do it, and is putting the technology into the rail industry to support that.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q What role would industry expect to play in the production of that licence? John Thomas: As a minimum, we want to be consulted and to help to shape the licence. Our ability to do that will be affected by what will ultimately be in the Act, but we certainly want to be consulted and help to shape the licence.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T2. President Trump’s new version of the board of peace will apparently cost $1 billion to join, Trump will chair it for life and Putin will be invited to join and offer his views on peace making. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is still having conversations about it, but has she managed to identify a single good reason for the UK to join?

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question relates to the interconnectivity of rail services and other public transport. We have heard evidence today about the Bill supposedly offering potential for integrating rail-to-rail connections. Let me give an example: a rail ticket from London Waterloo through to Ryde Pier Head can be bought through National Rail—one ticket, one payment—but the train that leaves Waterloo at, say, 3.30 pm will get into Portsmouth Harbour five minutes after the ferry departs for Ryde Pier Head to complete that journey. This Bill gives no powers over, for example, Isle of Wight ferry companies, which are privatised and unregulated. Is there anything in the Bill that might help to deal with that? I use ferries as an example, but clearly buses and other travel providers are relevant elsewhere. Is there anything in the Bill that can deal with that sort of timetabling issue, so that it becomes a thing of the past? If not, do you see an opportunity to bring in some provisions in this Bill, and perhaps you could identify what that would look like? Ben Plowden: As we heard in the previous panel, the provisions in the Bill for GBR to engage with and to take account of the strategies and interests of communities in the regions and localities are very important, because understanding of anomalies is likely to be much greater closer to where they occur. Whether the Bill could require the list of people that GBR is required to engage with to be extended—for example, to ferry operators—to make sure that services, including the planning of timetabling and fares or ticketing, were more properly integrated, is an interesting question. I do not know how you would do that in the Bill, but certainly the involvement of mayoral combined authorities and local authorities in this process will help. It is an interesting question whether the Bill could make specific provision for the additional transport providers and operators that GBR would need to engage with to achieve that integration. Emma Vogelmann: At Transport for All, we very much look at every journey as multimodal—exactly what you were describing. We have found through our research that interchanges, specifically those between modes of transport, are one of the most significant barriers that disabled people experience on any journey. Where in the Bill this could be dealt with is a really interesting question, but as well as integration with other transport modes, such as ferries and so on, we also need to look at the immediate surroundings of stations, where I do think this Bill could have some influence. We know that disabled people may not use a particular station because, although it is step-free, there is no blue badge parking around the station, meaning that there is no way for them to get safely to it, or there no dropped kerb to allow them to use that station. If we are going to look at journeys as multimodal, we really need to see this as an opportunity, potentially in this Bill, to look at the areas surrounding railway stations themselves. Alex Robertson: I do not know what could be changed within the scope of the Bill to directly address your issue. It is partly a question of how effectively local transport is integrated, and then how that integrates with national transport. I did want to mention that we are passenger watchdog not just for rail, but for buses and the strategic road network, and we look at it through the lens that has already been talked about. Emma particularly highlighted that the perspective we would bring is to ensure that, when decisions are made and priorities are set, they are thought about in the round—how they affect people in their door-to-door journeys—and not narrowly in terms of rail.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Can I just check that you do not have any oversight of ferries? Alex Robertson: We do not. Michael Roberts: Your question prompts a slightly different line of thought from me. I apologise, because my focus is very much on travel in and around the capital, rather than the Isle of Wight, as important as it is. I have a concern about the extent to which the provisions in the Bill about fair and open access to GBR’s assets—the future of its track and signalling systems, for example—may compromise the degree to which effective integration can happen in the capital. I say that because TfL runs a significant number of services over GBR assets today. The busiest line in the country—the Elizabeth line—is a GBR asset that is run by an operator that is mandated by TfL. The London Overground runs over GBR assets, and so do parts of the London underground; if you are a user of the District line or the Bakerloo line, you are using GBR assets. The ability of TfL and the operators under its oversight to have fair and open access to those assets is extremely important to the travelling public, in whom I am particularly interested. I know that open access is a broader issue, rather than a London-specific one, but, for the Committee’s deliberations around that, I would flag that it is not immediately clear from a London perspective that the provisions are strong enough to give TfL, for example, the comfort that it will have the degree of access that it wants, to continue providing those services effectively.

• 20 Jan 2026 · Railways Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q This question is directed at the chief executive of DFTO. You talk about the benefits of uniting track and train in terms of management and not having too many organisations. Transport for London obviously goes further, by working across buses, trains, cycle and tube. Is there anything in the Bill that improves the connectivity of rail with other forms of transport? I am thinking not just of my Isle of Wight constituency’s connectivity with privatised, unregulated ferry companies, but of probably every constituency with buses under different ownership models. Does anything in the Bill help to the improve connections between rail and other forms of public transport? Alex Hynes: The answer to that question is yes. GBR will be required to take into account places’ local transport plans, and there is a process by which partnerships exist, particularly with mayoral strategic authorities—that obviously does not include everywhere, but does include some places. There is also a right to request mechanism, by which people can request further devolution from GBR to their area. There is very much a place-based focus on devolution, because the whole philosophy of GBR is that, other things being equal, decisions made closer to where rail services are delivered will be better than those made hundreds of miles away. I also think that the combination of the creation of Great British Railways—a unified, publicly owned railway for the nation—with the Government’s intention to publish an integrated national transport strategy and the changes that are happening in the bus market will very much enable us to join up transport modes in places, so that we can deliver a better service to customers.

• 19 Jan 2026 · Local Elections: Cancellation · Hansard source

  More

  I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Isle of Wight councillor. Local government reorganisation in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight is a mess. Meanwhile, the Government propose to cut £13 million of funding from Isle of Wight council. We are due to have elections in just three and a half months’ time. Our council wants those elections to go ahead and wants to prepare for them. Will the Minister confirm that we can do that, and that those elections will go ahead on the Isle of Wight in May?

• 15 Jan 2026 · Improving Outcomes for Young People · Hansard source

  More

  The best thing the Government can do to support young people is to ensure they have jobs, but in the three months to October last year, unemployment for 18 to 24-year-olds rose by 85,000. What does the Secretary of State have to say to the Chancellor, who is over-taxing jobs, including for young people?

• 13 Jan 2026 · NHS 10-year Workforce Plan · Hansard source

  More

  A study by the Health Foundation has found that the cost to the NHS of staff sickness and staff turnover is of the order of £12 billion a year. Will the Government’s new workforce plan cover the issue of excessive cost through the entirely avoidable turnover of staff?

• 8 Jan 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The Government talk about affordable transport for passengers in the UK, but on the Isle of Wight we are at the mercy of privatised, unregulated ferry companies that charge extortionate prices for unreliable services. If those companies refuse to lower prices and improve services, will the Minister intervene, given that he would not accept that for any other community in the United Kingdom?

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this important debate, and to the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for bringing it forward. Before I turn to some of the specifics of the case she made, I remind the House that the vast majority of people who gamble do so responsibly, safely and without risk of harm. Indeed, some of our annual events in this country are associated with gambling and form part of our national identity. I am thinking in particular of the grand national. Indeed, the first time I ever placed a bet was on a horse called Party Politics. It probably led to an interest in something different from gambling, but that is another matter. The Government’s own figures show that problem gambling affects around 0.4% of adults. That figure has remained broadly stable for many years. Meanwhile, 22 million people gamble every month without harm. Gambling harms exist, of course, and I sat through oral evidence on that issue in the Health and Social Care Committee in April last year. We have heard some of the most powerful testimony from the hon. Member about real lives that have been harmed because of gambling. Problem gambling can ruin relationships, destroy mental and physical health and, in the worst cases, end lives. The number of gambling-related deaths is far outnumbered by alcohol-specific deaths or alcohol-related deaths, but any life lost and any life destroyed is a tragedy. We must do more to support people with gambling addictions and crack down on illegal gambling and lawbreaking. However, policy must be based on evidence. Betting shops are among the most heavily regulated retail premises. They have strict age verification requirements, limits on gaming machines, trained staff and formal self-exclusion schemes. Those protections only apply when people gamble in licensed premises. They do not exist in the same way at home and not at all on the black market. We should not assume that further reducing the number of high street betting shops will reduce problem gambling. When it comes to high street betting shops, research by ESA Retail found that 89% of betting shop customers combine their visit with trips to other local businesses, thereby supporting the high street. Betting shops support around 46,000 jobs, contributing nearly £1 billion a year in direct tax to the Treasury and a further £60 million in business rates to local councils. We have heard how betting shops have spread uncontrollably in some areas, but nationally betting shops are closing. Since 2019, the number of licensed betting shops has fallen by 30%, from more than 8,000 to fewer than 6,000. Thousands of jobs have already been lost as a result, and many more are now at risk following the tax rises announced in the Budget.

• 8 Jan 2026 · High Street Gambling Reform · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Member himself agrees that this is not about stopping people gambling. The point I am making is that high street premises represent some of the safer environments for gambling, and some of the riskier forms of gambling are far less visible than the high street shops we have heard about today. I am certainly not minimising in any way the effects of problem gambling and some of those involved in the industry, particularly on the black market. While the Budget did not directly target betting shops, many operators run integrated online and retail businesses. With online gambling duty doubling and sports betting duty rising by nearly 70%, the UK will have one of the highest tax rates on gambling in the world. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Brent East for talking about local empowerment. I think her key point—the heart of her argument—was about empowering local communities and local councils to be able to exercise greater control over high street premises. I want to raise a specific issue that shows how confused the system has become, and which is related to her argument. Recently, Chesterfield borough council allowed an adult gaming centre to introduce betting facilities without a formal change of planning use, on the basis that betting was considered ancillary. This shows that the council was effectively able to bypass planning laws, and to create confusion and inconsistency in how planning and gambling laws are applied, which is deeply worrying. Betting shops and adult gaming centres are fundamentally different types of premises; they are regulated differently and treated separately in planning law, for good reason. Allowing betting facilities to be introduced into adult gaming centres without proper scrutiny risks creating a back-door route for betting operations to open without local consent or oversight. We support the sentiment behind the argument made by the hon. Member for Brent East: local communities and local councils should be better empowered to make decisions for their high streets. I want to finish by asking the Minister four questions. First, will the Government act to close the planning loophole that allows adult gaming centres to introduce betting facilities without a proper change of use? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the impact of recent tax rises on high street betting shops, including closures, job losses and empty units, and will it be published? Thirdly, what concrete action is being taken to tackle illegal gambling, and particularly operators that target people who have self-excluded from licensed betting shops? Finally, the Government wrote to the Health and Social Care Committee on 12 June last year and said that they would look to complement local authorities’ existing powers in relation to the licensing of gambling premises. Does the Minister have an update?

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend, and thank her for raising that point. The Government are also destroying many rural areas with a clamour for house building in the wrong places. We can all agree that we need more houses for future generations; the argument is about where we build them, and I am surprised to hear Labour Members say that they speak to farming communities and rural communities who are “yes in my back yard”—who want building. People do not want the wrong type of houses built for people who do not live in their area and have no desire to live there. Most services are available in cities. That is where the majority of building should be taking place, and this Government should look again at the whole way in which house building and planning works in this country. Until they understand the damage they are doing to rural Britain, they will continue to haemorrhage votes.

• 7 Jan 2026 · Rural Communities · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on supporting rural communities, although to the casual observer who may have been here at the beginning to hear the Minister’s opening speech, it may have appeared that this was a general rambling debate about covid. Later on, if they were here when we heard from the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), they might have felt that they were in a general debate on the NHS. I understand why Labour Members do not want to talk about rural communities. Despite their protestations, they know that they have lost the trust of rural Britain. It is little wonder, given the family farm tax—what could be more damaging? It has taken them more than a year, from the first Budget when they introduced the tax, to finally U-turn on the majority of it. But before that point, they voted four times against Conservative proposals to scrap it: on four occasions they had the opportunity to say, “Enough is enough.” We will continue to campaign on scrapping the family farm tax in its entirety, until it has gone completely, but for rural and coastal communities such as mine on the Isle of Wight, it is not just farmers who have the worst possible deal from this Government; it is the fishing communities too. Just two decades ago, there were 30 fully crewed fishing boats in my constituency; there are now three. This Government rubbed the fishing community’s face in it when they renegotiated with the EU, folded and gave away our fishing rights for 12 years. [ Interruption. ] Those reading this in Hansard in the future should know that there seem to be smirks, expressions of laughter and jeering from those on the Labour Benches. This is a party and a Government who fundamentally misunderstand the damage they are doing to rural Britain. The Conservative party has always been and will always be the party of rural Britain.

• 7 Jan 2026 · UK Town of Culture · Hansard source

  More

  I am happy to join the hon. Member in congratulating the local authority in Bradford on its bid. She illustrates very well the point that I am trying to make: there is a financial risk in undertaking the process and, indeed, the risk of not being successful. For smaller towns with less financial might, that could become a considerable issue, so will the Minister commit to supporting local authorities—in particular, smaller ones—in their capacity to bid and succeed in a separate towns competition? Further to that, a long-standing challenge of the scheme has been the uncertainty about funding, with prize money neither guaranteed nor clearly set out at the point of launch. Although we welcome the approach taken under the previous Government, which enabled runners-up to receive £125,000, the current Government have not yet extended that commitment to the town of culture competition. In the past, even unsuccessful bidders, such as Sunderland, received support that helped to strengthen local partnerships and build capacity in their communities. If the Government introduce a separate towns competition, they must clarify whether funding will be guaranteed immediately for winners and runners-up, particularly for towns that may have less capacity to absorb financial uncertainty. For many towns that are unsuccessful and receive little or no funding, cultural institutions remain at risk. Much of our cultural infrastructure depends on local authority funding, and discretionary spending on culture is often the first casualty when councils face financial pressure. If we are serious about supporting towns through culture, local authorities must be given the financial tools and flexibility to protect cultural and heritage assets. This initiative must also be understood in the wider context of the pressures facing our cultural, creative and heritage sectors. Towns’ unique characters are driven by their high streets and small businesses, ranging from historic pubs and craft workshops to independent creative venues and local cultural organisations. Yet this Government’s punitive tax regime places increasing burdens on these organisations. Higher employer national insurance contributions, reduced business rates relief and rising wage costs all fall heaviest on small businesses, which have the least capacity to absorb these costs. We have already seen too many local businesses close over the past year, so how will the Government ensure that the very organisations that we rely on to deliver cultural programmes—indeed, they form the cultural fabric of this nation—are not priced out of existence, thereby reducing investment into the local area? Thanks to the previous Government’s £2 billion culture recovery fund, many arts and heritage organisations were finally back on their feet, yet this Government’s job tax has hit them hard. I welcome the continuation of tax relief for theatres, museums and galleries, but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s resource budget remains flat in cash terms, which of course represents a real-terms cut. At a time when 98% of adults agree that museums are important to UK culture, it is deeply concerning that the Government continue to fail to commit funding to major levelling-up cultural projects, despite announcing a UK town of culture competition, which we welcome.

• 7 Jan 2026 · UK Town of Culture · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) on securing this important debate on the UK town of culture competition. Let me begin by welcoming the announcement of the UK town of culture programme. The UK city of culture initiative, first launched in 2009, is now in its fifth iteration and has supported places such as Derry/Londonderry, Hull, Coventry and most recently Bradford. In each case, the investment has proved to drive regeneration, attracting investment and visitors, all while showcasing the unique character, heritage and creativity of those places. Hull’s year as city of culture generated an estimated £300 million for the local economy, attracted millions of visitors and created thousands of jobs, apprenticeships and freelance opportunities. Coventry saw renewed confidence and investment, while in Bradford, more than 5,000 events took place during the year, with around 51 million spent. Within the first six months of Bradford 2025, more than 11,000 schoolchildren benefited from the education programme, and 40,000 local people participated in cultural events. My colleagues visited Bradford during that year to join in one of 5,000 events that took place. The success of this scheme shows how well-funded support can have a transformative impact. The UK town of culture rightly recognises that smaller and medium-sized settlements have powerful cultural stories to tell—we have heard a great variety of those today—and a vital role to play in our national life. Market towns such as Shrewsbury have long acted as bridges between rural and urban communities, serving as hubs for seasonal celebrations, sport, county dance and local trade. In my constituency on the Isle of Wight, our island’s towns are increasingly recognised as destinations for film and the creative industries. We have vibrant organisations, including Ventnor Exchange, Monkton Arts and the new Department venue in Ryde, plus of course Brading Roman Villa. Shanklin theatre, a historic building, survives only through the tireless volunteer efforts of local people. I enjoyed the local pantomime “Dick Whittington” there only last week with my children. Building on the success of the city of culture programme, the ambition to break down barriers to opportunity, drive local economic growth and create jobs is one that we strongly support. However, the last iteration of the city of culture competition demonstrated that the scheme could be open to places beyond cities, with examples including Wrexham, which bid as a town, and County Durham, which submitted a bid covering the entire county. Wrexham even became a city midway through its bid. This shows that the programme could already accommodate a broader range of places, without necessarily creating a town of culture competition separately. It raises the question: is it necessary to establish a separate competition when towns were allowed to bid in the last round? Experience from the previous city of culture competition shows that the places that performed best were those with strong local authority leadership and capacity. The most recent competition, with 20 entrants, was the largest ever. Although expertise is spreading across local government, not every council starts from the same place.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Puberty Suppressants Trial · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said earlier that there is an extremely high bar for him stepping in and stopping these tests using puberty blockers. What bar could be higher than a Government protecting children from being tested on with drugs specifically to stop or alter their sexual development? There is not a unified clinical view on this. It is his choice; he is the Secretary of State. These tests are on him.

• 17 Dec 2025 · Membership-based Charity Organisations · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. It is also a pleasure to take part in this important debate on Government support for membership-based charity organisation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) for securing such an important debate and for her opening remarks. It was apparent on hearing my hon. Friend speak just how important some of our national treasures are, what it is to be British, and how those treasures are entrusted to—and very often in the care of—membership-based charities. As someone who used to work for a charity for six years before entering this place, I know the amazing work they do in all aspects of life. Many charities, particularly those in the cultural and heritage sectors, continue to be some of the largest membership-based organisations in the UK. Museums, galleries and libraries also contributed over £1.1 billion in gross value added to the UK economy in 2023 and employed nearly 100,000 people in 2024, while civil society contributed £18.5 billion and employed nearly 1 million people. However, many membership-based charities are now facing growing financial challenges because of impending regulatory changes, the knock-on effect of Government cuts to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s budget and the continued effect of Labour’s increases to employer’s national insurance contributions. One of the most immediate challenges facing membership-based charity organisations is the impending changes to subscription contracts as a result of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—as we have heard—and the Government’s failure so far to close a loophole that was identified when that Act was taken through Parliament. The introduction of a 14-day cooling-off period jeopardises the future value of membership as a sustainable income as it will create a loophole allowing people to gain access to venues, exhibitions or creative content and then cancel their membership after enjoying all the benefits within the first 14 days. My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport articulated that problem perfectly. Those cancelled memberships also mean that charities will lose their ability to claim gift aid on membership income. As I said, that problem was identified when the Act was going through Parliament and the last Conservative Government committed to solve it by introducing regulations to close that loophole. Multiple times throughout the year, Ministers in the current Government have announced their intention to amend Gift Aid rules to ensure that charities can continue to claim it on membership subscriptions after the DMCCA comes into force. However, it is disappointing that legislation to that effect is still yet to materialise a year and a half after the change of Government. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether new legislation will in fact be necessary? If so, when we can expect to see it? In July, some of the UK’s most prominent charities and cultural organisations, including the National Trust, the Tate, the Victoria and Albert Museum, Historic Royal Palaces, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts, wrote to the Prime Minister to highlight the impact of the problem on their valuable work. Has the Prime Minister replied to the letter, and what action have the Government outlined to remedy the issue? Although the Government have consulted on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime, the consultation closed almost a year ago and those who contributed are still waiting for a response. The uncertainty for charities and cultural organisations, which need to set their budgets and make plans for next year and beyond, is having a chilling effect on some of the most cherished organisations in our country. Can the Minister therefore confirm whether the Government intend to waive the cooling-off period for cancelling a subscription for membership-based charities? When will they introduce legislation to do that if they consider it necessary? Shortly before the Chancellor’s jobs tax took effect—which the National Council for Voluntary Organisations warned would cost charities £1.4 billion—we in the Opposition warned about the crushing effect of these new taxes. It is disappointing that the Government chose to press on with them, which has forced charities to reduce their staff numbers and scale back their services. Ministers have so far declined to outline what assessment, if any, the Government have made of the effect of their tax increases insofar as they affect the charity sector. I urge the Minister to use this opportunity to provide much-needed and long-overdue certainty for membership-based charities on how the Government will support them and ensure they are not taken advantage of as a result of the new subscription rules. I endorse all the questions put to the Minister by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport.

• 16 Dec 2025 · Grassroots Cricket Clubs · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) on securing this important debate. His timing is excellent, because I am confident that tonight we shall witness the start of a resurgence by the England men’s cricket team, as they begin their Ashes comeback in Adelaide. Although the first two tests have not exactly gone to plan, it was fantastic to see Joe Root finally score his first test century in Australia, taking his grand total to 40. Around 2.5 million people play cricket each year, which includes 1.4 million under-16s. In 2025, 43,000 teams competed in 216,000 fixtures—passing the 200,000 mark for the first time. This popularity is reflected in the England and Wales Cricket Board’s All Stars and Dynamos youth programmes, with over 105,000 children signing up, including a record proportion of girls. The girls and women’s game is growing fastest, with the number of women’s teams up 18% and girls’ teams up 13% in 2025 compared with 2024. It is against that success and momentum that we must consider how the Government can provide support to build on the progress made. In the last four years, the ECB has awarded £55 million in grants, invested £32.2 million in 6,638 awards for recreational game projects, invested £22.8 million to create more welcoming and inclusive stadiums, invested £12.7 million in women and girls’ cricket, and invested £4.9 million in improving equality, diversity and inclusion in professional cricket. The previous Government committed £35 million to grassroots cricket in state schools, aiming to reach 930,000 young people, including 80,000 with special educational needs. That included £14 million for accessible cricket, 2,500 new pieces of cricket equipment and 16 cricket domes in cities due to host the women’s T20 world cup and the men’s T20 world cup. That investment was allocated and it sought to make a substantial impact for those who are currently underserved. The Government may say that the funding was not allocated, but that is simply not true. Will the Minister commit to reviewing the short-sighted decision to reallocate the funds elsewhere, especially given the vast benefits that cricket brings, not just to our communities but also by supporting a healthier population? The decision to backtrack is a disappointment. If all the Government can offer is warm words, that is plainly not enough. The Government must work alongside the ECB, as they still finance the hubs programme. Has the Minister considered how much further and faster the programme could go if it is delivered with the Government rather than despite the Government? We know that clubs are desperate for support. The Cash4Clubs initiative, which gives away £2,000 to 250 clubs for community sport and to drive participation, saw 1,400 applications this year, with recent cricket club winners including the Young Lions. It had hoped to double the pot this year, but the Budget and gambling tax have haltered that progress. Cricket is the only major sport that does not receive any direct funding for tournament or legacy delivery because of hosting major cricket events. Will the Minister commit to review that ahead of the 2026 and 2030 T20 competitions to be hosted here? The average age of a cricket pavilion in England and Wales is more than 70 years. Although clubs are already struggling due to rising maintenance costs, including energy, lighting and other upkeep, the Chancellor has further burdened them with increased business rates bills. Many clubs also seek to contribute to their local communities by employing locally. The increase in national insurance contributions has prohibited that. In my constituency, Ventnor cricket club is the island’s largest and highest performing club. It runs senior men’s, women’s and girls’ teams, junior disability cricket and over-50s walking cricket. The club’s facilities include a main building valued at just under £1 million, incorporating a three-lane indoor net and sports hall. Despite that success, the club faces significant challenges. The Government are failing to address the growing accessibility problems facing cricket pitches, as local authorities, particularly in urban areas, deprioritise maintenance to make savings, offloading responsibility, leading to a managed decline of sports facilities. Does the Minister not recognise that if clubs are forced to make significant savings, that will impact the positive action they take, which contributes to the communities they serve? Furthermore, the proposal to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee is deeply concerning. In the past five years, 90% of applications it reviewed resulted in pitches being improved or protected. Without its expertise, and amid local authority budget and capacity pressures, safe and sustainable cricket facilities are put at risk. I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield about Sport England and its role as a statutory consultee. Although the Minster may claim that local authorities will upskill, does she not share my concern that they may face challenges in prioritisation, budget constraints and lack of sport expertise? Does she agree that facilities planning must include schools and public leisure facilities? Before building new developments, the Government should assess the reasons why existing assets are not accessible, such as high hire costs, and should consider solutions such as local subsidised hiring. It is disappointing that the opening schools facilities fund, which aimed to do exactly that, was scrapped. Finally, the outlook is concerning and Government support must be provided at the earliest opportunity, not years down the line when the opportunities may have passed. I urge the Minister to consider what more could be done to reduce bureaucracy and get on with delivery. Sports bodies, including the ECB, are ready to provide support, as we all want the best for our communities.