§ Lords amendment No. 18
§ Phil HopeI beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Government have always supported the important role that sports clubs play in promoting health and well-being and encouraging social cohesion. We believe that sports clubs would have benefited from the small business rate relief. With the additional assistance of local authority discretionary relief, it would have provided a generous package for sports clubs.
We have also promoted the opportunity that has existed for sports clubs to register as charities to obtain mandatory 80 per cent. relief. However, we accept the widely held belief that that route can be onerous for small, voluntary sports clubs. The amendment offers a simple route for registered community amateur sports clubs to qualify for the mandatory 80 per cent. relief.
§ Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome)I wholeheartedly welcome the Government's acceptance of the argument, which hon. Members of all parties, including my noble Friend, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, presented. However, does the Under-Secretary accept that amateur sports club officials became frustrated by the charity route, found that they were increasingly hitting a wall of bureaucracy and that now it is important that the message gets through to them that there is an easier route that will greatly benefit the relevant clubs?
§ Phil HopeI thank the hon. Gentleman for those comments. The onerous nature of the transition to charitable status was one of the reasons for the amendment and the change.
§ Mr. Edward DaveyFollowing my hon. Friend's point, what steps will the Government take to ensure that sports clubs know that they are eligible for the relief? Will the Under-Secretary write to every sports 653 club on the register and use various bodies and foundations to promote it? How can we ensure maximum benefit from the new relief?
§ Phil HopeThe hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Since the amendment became public, the widespread response from sporting associations suggests comprehensive take-up. However, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will handle most of the marketing of the new relief.
§ Mr. Andy Reed (Loughborough)As my hon. Friend knows, people were slow to take up the tax exemptions under the Finance Act 2002. He will be pleased to know that Sport England, among other agencies, has been undertaking regional roadshows to ensure that sports clubs are aware of them. Since then, the take-up of additional benefits through the tax exemptions has increased. I hope that he will use his influence to ensure that the same happens with the relief that we are considering. However, as my hon. Friend said, sports clubs know that the relief is coming and have been waiting for it for years.
§ Phil HopeMy hon. Friend makes an excellent point about Sport England's work to promote a range of reliefs that we are establishing to help local sports clubs. I want to put on record my thanks to Members of Parliament such as my hon. Friend for not only their work in raising the issue and pressing hard during the Bill's passage but their work with their community amateur sports clubs. That applies especially to my hon. Friend, who does such work not only in his constituency but throughout the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. Malcolm Moss: (North-East Cambridgeshire)Conservative Members obviously welcome the rate relief, which we have requested for many years. Does not the Under-Secretary believe that perhaps its advantages will be nullified by the decision of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport not to give any relief to sports clubs for the licensing fees that the Licensing Act 2003 will introduce, despite the assurance that the then Minister gave me in Committee that he would take a positive view of the amendments that we tabled?
§ Phil HopeHaving stood beside the hon. Gentleman on a tennis court—regrettably not very successfully—;in another kind of amateur sports club, I am very pleased to hear his enthusiasm for this measure today. It is a matter of regret, of course, that the previous Conservative Administration did not see fit to offer these rate reliefs to community amateur sports clubs.
In terms of the holistic picture of community amateur sports clubs having greater flexibility and more resources, and being able to grow as a result of this measure, I am confident that the complete package—which will include this rate relief and others—will provide a huge incentive for local clubs to develop, to recruit and to provide better sporting facilities for people of all ages in the community. I am not persuaded by the case briefly put by the hon. Gentleman today that 654 other measures might hinder that. There is an across-the-board position in government to promote community amateur sports clubs effectively because of the wider benefits that they bring, not just in terms of sport and of raising performance and participation, but in terms of what that means for the community and for the health of the individuals who get involved.
Amendment No. 18 would amend the Local Government Finance Act 1988 and provide mandatory rate relief at both the occupied and unoccupied rates for registered community amateur sports clubs, under schedule 18 to the Finance Act 2002. Registered community amateur sports clubs can also have this relief increased at the discretion of local authorities. Sports clubs that do not meet the requirements for community amateur sports club registration—and, therefore, for mandatory rate relief—will still remain eligible for discretionary rate relief. Of course, the decisions on the award of discretionary rate relief are, and will remain, a matter for individual local authorities.
I hope that this provision demonstrates to hon. Members that we have listened carefully to the representations of the many people, both inside and outside the House, who support this important measure. I am very pleased to announce that we are introducing this relief. It represents a great opportunity for small community sports clubs, which I know that my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have strongly welcomed. It has also been widely welcomed by the sports bodies and, in particular, by the Central Council of Physical Recreation, which has, along with many other bodies, sought support for this measure for some time.
§ Mr. HammondI, too, am delighted to welcome the extension of the rating relief enjoyed by charities to community amateur sports clubs, so that those that are unable or unwilling to adopt charitable status because of the burdens mentioned by the Minister can benefit none the less. The issue of rate relief was most recently raised in relation to the Finance Act 2002, when other taxation reliefs were extended to the newly defined community amateur sports clubs. There was all-party consensus on the matter at that time.
The matter was also raised at the Committee stage of this Bill in the Commons by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), a Labour Back Bencher. His initiative at that time received support from the official Opposition and from the Liberal Front-Bench team. When the same issue was raised in the other place by Lord Phillips of Sudbury, it was again supported by all sides, and Lord Phillips aptly described the measure as an amendment "with no enemies"—[Interruption. The Minister mentions the Treasury, and I shall come to that issue in a moment.
When the hon. Member for South Ribble raised the issue in Committee, it will surprise no one who has attended the earlier parts of these debates that it was the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) who had to stand up robustly to resist the suggestion that the Government might extend business rate relief to community amateur sports clubs. He basically told the Committee that the reliefs provided in the Finance Act 2002 would do the trick for sports clubs, if only they were given a chance. He must be feeling a little sheepish now about having so 655 slavishly read out what was obviously a pretty dud brief. Lord Rooker was a little quicker to ad lib his total support for the measure when he sensed the mood in the other place, before reverting to reading out his brief explaining why he could not accept it. He then had the pleasure of collecting the plaudits for introducing it on Third Reading in the Lords. It might be thought that a matter effectively dealing with taxation such as this would have been better introduced and dealt with in the House of Commons. We are all glad that it has got here in the end, but it would have been preferable had it been inserted into the Bill initially in this place.
I do not doubt for a moment that, behind the smooth consensus, there have been detailed discussions with the Treasury, and I have two questions for the Minister on this issue. In the House of Lords, the question of who would actually pay for the relief was raised almost as an aside. Those who regularly go into the other place to be entertained when Lord Rooker is speaking will know that he is not the most slavish adherent to the conventions of parliamentary procedure and language and his reply to that question was, "Who cares?" Once he had recovered his composure slightly, however, he said that it would be the Treasury. That issue was not probed further in the other place, but I would be keen to learn from the Minister the mechanism by which the Treasury will pay, because there remains a lurking concern that, while the Treasury claims credit for providing the largesse, it will be other business rate payers—albeit spread very thinly across the board—who will pick up the tab. Perhaps the Minister could explain the mechanism by which a specific grant from the Treasury will fill the gap.
Secondly, will the Minister confirm that we are now left with a somewhat anomalous position in Northern Ireland? Ironically, sports clubs there have enjoyed mandatory relief at 80 per cent. for some time. They will continue to do so, but there is no provision in this measure to give local authorities there the discretion, which will exist in England, to extend 100 per cent. discretionary relief to sports clubs. Do the Government have any plans to address that anomaly? This issue was raised during the Lords debate last week, and I would be interested to know what the Government intend to do about it.
I do not want to dwell on technicalities. This is a tremendous victory for the will of Parliament over the instinctive parsimony of the Treasury, and congratulations are due to Members on both sides of this House and the other place who have fought for this new clause, and to the Ministers, who have no doubt had to fight long and hard behind the scenes against the Treasury to achieve such an excellent result. I know that amateur sports clubs throughout the country—I think it is safe to say in every single constituency represented in the House—will be extremely grateful for the effort that everyone involved has made.
§ Mr. ReedI rise to welcome the measure as one who introduced a ten-minute Bill three or four years ago to define community amateur sports clubs. Its purpose was to allow the tax reliefs to be brought in, and I always envisaged that, when we talked about tax relief, it would include not only the package in the Finance Act 2002 but rate relief as well. When the Minister informed me a couple of weeks ago that this measure was to be 656 introduced, I thought that there would be a big hole in my life. Community amateur sports clubs seem to have been a part of everything that I have done in this place over the past three or four years, so I am not quite sure what I shall do with my winter evenings now that I no longer need to discuss the benefits of tax relief for those clubs. However, it is a hole that I am very happy to accept into my life.
When we were talking about tax relief for community amateur sports clubs as part of the Finance Act, those of us who were lobbying behind the scenes were not expecting a package to come forward. Even the evening before the Budget, we had no indication whatever. I wish that the Treasury and the Department would ensure that we did not have such cliffhangers. In this instance, the will of Parliament was well known in plenty of time. People had been discussing this measure for a long time, and it had cross-party support.
I do not want to be churlish, but I noted that Opposition Members made the point that this proposal has been around a long time. It was not introduced by the Conservative Government, and it is a shame that it has taken so long to get this far. However, I do not want to sound like a Liberal Democrat whinger—they always want a bit more and argue that something should have been done sooner. To be fair to those in the Chamber and outside, there has been genuine cross-party support for this measure. We always joke about such things, but it is worth noting that, although the cost to the Treasury could be small, the benefit to community amateur sports clubs, especially those that are currently struggling, could be enormous. According to research carried out by the Central Council of Physical Recreation and Sport England, it could be the difference between clubs going under or staying afloat.
I declare a sort of interest. I played for my rugby club, Birstall, on Saturday, and within the first five minutes of the first part of the season I managed to dislocate my little finger. We do not have our own premises, so we will not necessarily benefit from this measure, but the clubs that we play against across the county will benefit from the tax reliefs. I know that currently they struggle from week to week with a reduced numbers of players in individual clubs. I hope that this measure will allow them to invest and turn around the steady decline in participation rates at community amateur sports club level, which is what it is all about.
Money has gone into the elite sports. In Loughborough, almost £35 million has gone into the English Institute of Sport. The elite athletes have fantastic facilities, but insufficient numbers of people have participated at community amateur sports club level. In the recent world athletics championships, Sweden did particularly well. The participation rate of the Swedes is more than 60 per cent., whereas in this country it is between 30 and 40 per cent., and there is a strong decline in that figure as the age profile increases, especially among women. This measure is to be welcomed.
I want to thank the individuals who have played an important part in introducing this measure. It is a fitting retirement present for Nigel Hook of the CCPR, who has been battling to achieve this for about 20 years. As hon. Members know, he retired in September, so perhaps this was a thank you present for all his hard 657 work in supporting Members and community amateur sports clubs up and down the country. If it is, it is a fitting tribute to his hard work.
In the past three or four years, I have had the pleasure of working with Lord Phillips of Sudbury. He has brought a sense of urgency, a sense of purpose and the single-mindedness that has helped to drive this measure through in the other place.
What encouragement will there be for local authorities to go even further than the 80 per cent.? There is a discretionary level, but local authorities always argue that they never have enough resources, so I suspect that 80 per cent. will become the norm. Will the Minister ensure that there is some incentive for local authorities to go that extra mile. That leads on to the question put by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond). Who pays? It is important to know where the money is to come from, so that we know that it is for the long term and not just a short-term fix. I am sure that it is not, but it would be reassuring to know that.
This is a welcome change of mind. I never mind when people climb down or do U-turns—call it what you like. As long as we get the right result, I care not what has happened over the past three or four years. This campaign has been worth fighting. It has been carried out in the best of humour, and those of us who believed that the arguments were right were confident that the Government would listen. They have, and that deserves a big thank you.
§ Mr. Edward DaveyMembers have already mentioned that many people from across the parties have been involved in this long campaign, not least the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed). Despite his comments about the Liberal Democrats, I congratulate him. I also congratulate Liberal Democrat peers, most notably my noble Friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who moved the amendment in the other place. He got the Government worried that the House of Lords was going to push this amendment. Although we had the amendment from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), we could not persuade the Government. However, there was the will to push the issue in the other place, and the Government had to face up to that. My noble Friend deserves great credit for getting that coalition together and, given that votes do not always go the Executive's way, ensuring that pressure was put on the Government.
We should also pay tribute to Ministers. They have had to argue long and hard for this measure. Whether it was the Minister or his predecessor who pushed it—I am sure that it was the hon. Member for Corby (Phil Hope) who really pushed it—they have done their job, and that is welcome. The Treasury is a difficult animal to move. I am surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not issued a press release. He is not modest about coming forward to take credit for such measures. In the press release for the Finance Bill 2002, when the initial steps were taken, he suggested that that was all that was needed: it was such a generous relief that everyone would flock to this new creation and shift over, so the 658 problem was solved. The Liberal Democrats and, I am sure, the Conservatives and probably some Labour Back Benchers said that we did not think that that was right. The situation created by the Chancellor was not powerful enough to persuade people to shift. They had the difficult choice between the bureaucracy of the charity route, which many people did not want, as was shown by the figures, or the community amateur sports club route, which was a nice new creation, but did not provide sufficient incentive for people to move. With this amendment, we have the critical mass of a meaningful incentive. If there is encouragement from the Government and organisations such as Sport England, there will be a major shift.
I hope that the Minister will reassure the House that he will talk to his colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ensure that they play a positive part, with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in ensuring that this measure becomes well known and that there is a quick shift.
This is a significant measure. The amounts of money involved for the Exchequer are small, but the difference that it will make to small sports clubs is huge. It is disproportionate to the cost to the central purse. That has been one of the strong arguments used by campaigners. I am sure that, when Members go round their constituencies, they see the typed up accounts of the local cricket, rugby or football club. Those accounts are often done by an elderly member on a typewriter not a word processor, and show the rates as a significant amount on the expenditure side. With that cost gone, those clubs will use the money entrepreneurially and encourage youngsters and new activities. They could use it to lower the fees that they have to charge, and thus ensure greater access to the sporting facility. It is a good measure for social inclusion.
This important measure will have a benefit way above the actual cost. I hope that the Minister will answer the questions posed by the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) and for Loughborough about where the money is to come from, because it is important for the House to dwell on that. We should also dwell on the benefits, which will be huge.
§ Mr. David Borrow (South Ribble)It is not often that we move an amendment in Committee, back down to the Government on it and accept that no action could be taken, but find several months later that the Government have moved on the issue. The fact that the Government have changed their view on a measure that involves the Treasury in a major way is a sign that Parliament is working. When the amendment was debated in Committee months ago, if Government Back Benchers had accepted that that was the will of the Government and that it could not change, nothing would have happened. We constantly lobby behind the scenes in the hope that eventually the will of Parliament will prevail on the Treasury and other Departments. That is what seems to have happened in this case. It did not happen overnight, and the amendment that I tabled in Committee did not emerge from thin air; the idea had been discussed for years before I had the privilege. A number of people in Parliament and outside worked for a long time to achieve that.
§ Mr. HammondI am sure the hon. Gentleman is right, but does he agree that the bit of Parliament that has been 659 shown to be working in this instance is the cross-party consensus in the House of Lords—the one thing in this place that is guaranteed to put Governments in fear?
§ Mr. BorrowI am certain that if the Treasury had not wanted to make the money available, it would have continued to block it, and would have prevailed over the House of Lords in the end. The hon. Gentleman is right about the cross-party consensus in this case. The result. that we have secured is, I think, due to the fact that there has been no battle on a purely party issue: members of all parties, and those who belong to no party, have worked and lobbied together for many months and years.
I have only one question to ask my right hon. Friend. Is he certain that all the clubs in the country that could have access to this assistance will be able to do so, and will every measure to secure that be taken? What will he and his Department do to ensure a 100 per cent. take up?
§ Phil HopeI am pleased to learn that Members on both sides of the House welcome the amendment. My grateful thanks are due to, among others, my hon Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). who pushed the case for it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned the number of clubs that would benefit. I know from my constituency experience that during a weekend in Corby up to 2,000 young people may be out on football pitches with their mums and dads helping out, acting as referees, washing the kit and so on. All that excellent community activity will be reinforced by the 80 per cent. relief for qualifying clubs.
§ Mr. ReedMy hon. Friend is right, but when it comes to the role of amateur sports clubs, it never seems to be realised that some 27 per cent. of volunteers support them. We often forget that when we talk about the voluntary sector. A wealth of talent is involved: some 1.5 million people give up their time freely to help clubs throughout the country.
§ Phil HopeMy hon. Friend is right to mention that important statistic. We use jargon about building social capital, and ensuring that communities flourish, thrive and are successful and inclusive. Sport plays a critical role in that, and I hope that the measure will contribute to the wider agenda of community and civic renewal and urban regeneration for which so many of us are working so hard.
A number of speakers asked who would pay. Inevitably, there is a degree of uncertainty about the cost, because it depends on the take-up that Members want to see. The Treasury has been mentioned. Support for the idea that clubs should qualify for 80 per cent. relief has already been agreed. What we are doing is changing the mechanism to make it less onerous, allowing community amateur sports clubs to qualify without having to become registered charities. The Government, of course, will pay for the relief, and both Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will know that we are one Government. I can give an assurance that there is no intention of imposing additional costs on ratepayers; this resource, like others, will come from the centre. 660 The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) raised an interesting point about Northern Ireland, which I will draw to the attention of my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.
We have experienced a bit of a cliffhanger in order to arrive at this point, but I think that in this case it has been better to arrive than to travel. We now have an excellent new measure that will widen the base of the pyramid of participation and support, thus raising levels of achievement. That is important to a nation such as ours, which is so aspirational when it comes to sport. As I said earlier, the amendment will have huge implications not just for the healthy lives of the many people who become involved in community sport, but for community development and regeneration as a whole.
§ Lords amendment agreed to.