Red tape ‘will cripple museums and galleries', Starmer warned
A loophole in new legislation will allow visitors free access to any paid exhibition by giving them the right to take out memberships, use them and get them refunded.
The heads of the National Trust, Tate and Victoria and Albert Museum, among others, have warned that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 'creates onerous new burdens'.
The new law, which received royal assent under the Conservatives last year, will give consumers a 'two-week cooling-off period' in which they can cancel any subscription and receive a full refund.
But museums and galleries have told the Prime Minister that the change will leave them 'crippled'.
Among the exhibitions that could be affected are the V&A's Cartier show, on until Nov 16, and the Tate's display of work by Australian artist Emily Kam Kngwarray, on until Jan 11.
In the July 31 letter, first reported by The Times, the figures asked to be made exempt so that visitors would not be able to access their attractions for free.
Under the law, members of the public would be able to buy an annual membership, use it to enter an attraction and then receive a full refund – so long as they claimed it within two weeks of taking out the membership.
'Not only has it put at risk our ability to claim gift aid on memberships, but it creates onerous new burdens,' the signatories, led by Hilary McGrady, the National Trust's director-general, said.
'The proposed cooling-off period would create a loophole that could allow people to join charities as members and enjoy benefits, such as free entry to sites, for a two-week period before claiming substantial refunds for the rest of the year.
'This threatens to cripple the very future value of membership itself as a functional model of income generation for charities with visitor models – currently worth hundreds of millions [of pounds] to charities across the UK every year.'
Other signatories included the Woodland Trust, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts.
The letter added: 'The public benefit we deliver as a result of the relationship between us as charities and our members has long been reflected in law and by HMRC, differentiating between charitable memberships and subscriptions for commercial services such as gym memberships, and acknowledging their status as charitable donations, not subscriptions to goods or services.'
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act was introduced by the former government and is being implemented by Labour.
The cooling-off period is designed to stop consumers being 'misled' by free or discounted trials that automatically turn into full-price subscriptions.
A government spokesman said: 'We are engaging with charities on this issue. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act does not change the definition of what constitutes a consumer contract.
'Our plans to protect consumers from rip-off subscriptions will not unfairly affect charities, and we continue to engage closely with them to understand their concerns.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
a few seconds ago
- The Independent
Warning Labour's rewilding plans could trigger surge in UK wildfires
Gamekeepers have warned that the government 's rewilding proposals could trigger an increase in wildfires across the UK. Labour has plans to ban winter burning from over half of England's peatland. The changes are claimed to help 're-wet' the country's peat bogs, as well as reduce the chances of wildfires and decrease carbon emissions. Environmentalists argue that peat bogs must be preserved as they soak up huge amounts of carbon, while landowners and gamekeepers say burning restrictions will, in fact, enable wildfires to break out that will be 'too large to fight'. Winter burning is a controlled traditional upland management technique whereby firebreaks in upland areas are established by creating strips of less flammable foliage. It is used to decrease the amount of fuel for possible wildfires and slow the speed at which blazes can spread. However, in conservation areas of 'deep peat', of a depth of 40cm or deeper, the burns were banned in 2021, covering 222,000 hectares of land. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) is now looking into lowering the threshold for 'deep peat' to 30cm, which would extend the restrictions to 368,000 hectares. It says wetter peat will decrease the likelihood of wildfires, while gamekeepers argue the plans would leave Britain's moors and heaths more vulnerable. Andrew Gilruth, chief executive of the Moorland Association, told The Telegraph: 'This is our worst-ever year for wildfires. Britain is burning because of the religion of rewilding. 'It is obvious to everyone bar Natural England that, with climate change making vegetation tinder-dry, increasing this fuel load through rewilding is a really stupid idea. It makes for bigger, more intense blazes which can move at frightening speed.' 'I think the whole thing is very concerning – not just from a loss-of-habitat point of view, but also putting firefighters and land managers in real danger from the inevitable wildfires. 'The whole thing is becoming a massive tinderbox and a bomb that is going off. At the moment, re-wetting is increasing the fuel level on the moors and that is a real concern. Prescribed burning will not stop wildfires, but it reduces the length of flames and allows fires to be contained quicker.' More proposals include removing an exemption to current restrictions, which would allow burns to continue on 'inaccessible' land. Adrian Blackmore, the director of shooting at the Countryside Alliance, described Defra's plans as 'staggering'. He told The Telegraph: 'They are showing a staggering lack of understanding or knowledge. Burns reduce the fire load, encourage young growth for the birds to eat and encourage the growth of sphagnum moss, which is the peat-forming moss. 'So if you don't remove the canopy, you can't encourage sphagnum moss, because it's not going to grow underneath it. And sphagnum moss is the be-all and end-all, making moors wetter.' A Defra spokesperson told The Independent: 'Our peatlands are home to Britain's most precious wildlife, while also storing carbon and reducing flooding risk. With 13 per cent of the world's blanket bog in the UK, we've consulted on ways to ensure these rare habitats are better protected. We will set out our response in due course.' Heatwaves and consistent dry weather have seen the London Fire Brigade tackle more wildfires this summer than in the whole of 2024. A senior firefighter said that crews were experiencing a 'busy summer' and that they were working under 'very challenging conditions' to bring the blazes under control. Wildfires have even been raging in Scotland this summer, a place that rarely sees blazes break out. The Scottish Gamekeepers Association warned the fires were limiting the ability of 'stretched' firefighters to respond to other emergencies, so they were 'becoming a danger to human life'. Land managers can apply for licences to burn for the purpose of wildfire management, which are regulated and issued by Defra. The Defra spokesperson said repeated burning risks permanently altering the species composition and hydrology of peatland habitats. They added that peat that is wet is less likely to burn during a wildfire, builds new peat and loses less carbon through oxidation, protecting the stored carbon of old peat and ensuring that the habitat persists.
Daily Mail
a minute ago
- Daily Mail
Good Morning Britain viewers outraged as 'hateful' guest insists St George's Flag 'represents racism, not patriotism' and should be CHANGED
Good Morning Britain viewers were left outraged by a guest who proposed removing the St George's flag from England on Tuesday. The segment comes after an increased number of people have used the flag and the Union Jack to oppose immigration into the UK in recent weeks. Many have brought the St George's Cross to protests outside of hotels being used by the government to house asylum seekers - such as the Britannia International in Canary Wharf, where several demonstrations have been held. Kehinde Andrews, Professor of Black Studies at Birmingham City University, told hosts Adil Ray and Kate Garraway that the history of the flag has always been problematic. Andrews said: 'It's not that the far-right has co-opted the flag. It's that we don't understand what this country is and the history of both of these symbols. 'Both of these flags are the flags that were flown on ships that enslaved my ancestors; those are the flags that the British Army marched into places like Pakistan, India, Bengal, Africa, and colonised 25 percent of the world.' However, Dr Rakib Ehsan took the opposing view and argued that there is absolutely nothing wrong with people displaying the St George's Flag and the Union Jack. Ehsan said: 'In my view, there are many reasons why we should be proud of British identity. We should celebrate expressions of English pride. 'If I just speak from a personal perspective, I think that Britain has a rich tradition of religious freedom. 'I also think that, compared to other European countries, it fares much better in terms of anti-discrimination laws against its minorities.' While Ehsan acknowledged why some people are now viewing the flags differently, he believes that they can be a symbol of unity. He went on: 'But I actually think when I see ethnic minority people expressing pride in their Britishness, celebrating their sense of belonging in England, I think that's the perfect antidote, a great counter-challenge to far-right activity and those groups that ultimately want to take ownership of those flags.' However, Andrews insisted that the flag simply cannot be used in this way. Andrews later added: 'These flags, these symbols, they represent white supremacy. You're never going to get a large majority who will never look at that flag and never see anything but intimidation.' Reactions to the segment online were mixed, with many arguing that there is nothing 'hateful' about the flags, fuming: 'This is England, the English will fly their flag as and when they want to, WHEREVER they want to.' Reactions to the segment online were mixed, with many arguing that there is nothing 'hateful' about the flags, fuming: 'This is England, the English will fly their flag as and when they want to, WHEREVER they want to' While Ehsan acknowledged why some people are now viewing the flags differently, he believes that they can be a symbol of unity Others agreed: 'Why are we arguing about the British flag?! We are in Britain! In Greece they have their flag everywhere so do Italy Spain all over Europe.'; 'This is the exact reason the country is on its a**e. Idiots like this saying a country's flag is a symbol of hate when actually it's the wokeness of the country which has made it that way, and the way authorities force things down your throat.' But there were viewers who agreed that the flag has been latched onto by the far right, making its usage now problematic. They wrote: 'It's not being patriotic though is it? We all know why it's happening.' 'Interesting debate. Unfortunately though there is no doubt that the St George's flag especially has been latched onto by far right fake patriot groups and used as their banner to spread hate. 'I'd love the country to reclaim its flag from those people.'; 'In this instance they're being flown as a deliberately act of racist provocation by the far right, who sadly have claimed the flag as theirs. 'Why is a national flag required at a protest about migrant hotels? Doesn't mean though flags are inherently racist & cant ever be flown [sic].'
Reuters
a minute ago
- Reuters
UK faces more protests and legal action after asylum seekers hotel injunction
LONDON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The British government policy of housing thousands of asylum seekers in hotels was facing severe pressure on Wednesday, as opponents leapt on a court ruling to call for protests and legal action to have them all evicted. According to a regular tracker of voters' concerns, immigration has overtaken the economy as the biggest issue amid anger over record numbers of asylum seekers arriving in small boats across the Channel, including more than 27,000 this year. On Tuesday, the High Court in London granted a temporary injunction to stop asylum seekers from being housed in the Bell Hotel in Epping, about 20 miles (32 km) northeast of London in the county of Essex. The hotel had become a focal point for regular protests after a resident was charged with sexual assault, a crime he denies, with large numbers of police separating anti-immigration protesters and pro-immigration groups. The injunction in the Epping case centred around a specific planning issue and could be reversed when the case is heard in full later this year. But other councils said they would also urgently seek legal advice on evicting asylum seekers from hotels in their areas. Nigel Farage, the leader of the populist Reform Party which is leading in opinion polls, said all the 12 local authorities his party controlled would do everything in their power to do so. "Let's hold peaceful protests outside the migrant hotels, and put pressure on local councils to go to court to try and get the illegal immigrants out; we now know that together we can win," Farage wrote in the Daily Telegraph newspaper. "No doubt we will be attacked as 'far Right' provocateurs for daring to suggest that people follow the lead of Epping's parents and residents by protesting peacefully." Britain currently houses about 30,000 asylum seekers who are awaiting decisions on their claims in more than 200 hotels across the country and, although the government has said it intended to close all of these by 2029, it now faces a major headache if others are able to follow Epping's lead. In the court hearing, the Home Office (interior ministry) said the injunction would have a "substantial impact" on the government's ability to comply with its legal duty to provide accommodation, and security minister Dan Jarvis said they would look closely at the decision and whether to appeal it. "The big challenge remains, which is, we need to process asylum claims much more speedily and much more effectively than was the case previously," Jarvis told BBC TV. Critics say that housing asylum seekers in hotels, often young men who are not allowed to work, puts the local community at risk, and point to recent incidents such as in Epping and other locations where some migrants have been accused of serious crimes including the rape and sexual assault of young girls. They also contrast the facilities provided to migrants in hotels with the difficulties many in Britain are facing with rising living costs and shortages of affordable housing. However, pro-migrant groups say far-right groups and opportunistic politicians are deliberately seeking to exploit and enflame tensions for their own ends. Across Europe governments have struggled with how to house asylum seekers, with far-right and anti-migrant groups in France also leading protests against dedicated centres in recent years. During riots in Britain last year, hotels containing migrants were attacked when unrest involving some far-right supporters erupted after misinformation that the murderer of three girls in Southport was a radical Islamist migrant.
