Gambling Advertising

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered gambling advertising.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris, particularly as you have taken such an interest in gambling harm over many years. I am grateful to be able to open this debate on gambling advertising and its impact across the United Kingdom, and to be joined by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), who is co-sponsoring the debate and who, like me, is a member of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform.

The interest in the debate reflects the growing concern in Parliament and beyond about the scale, reach and consequences of gambling advertising in the UK and about its growing impact on children and young people. This debate comes at an important moment. This week, the APPG and Peers for Gambling Reform released their report on gambling advertising, which brings together academic evidence, lived experience and policy analysis to make the case that our current system is not working.

Gambling advertising is everywhere: on our television screens, in our football stadiums, on local radio, on social media, where it is promoted by influencers, and on video games played by children. It is also increasingly sophisticated, targeted and personalised. Our APPG report shows that the industry now spends £2 billion a year on gambling advertising and marketing, in a deliberate and sustained effort to drive engagement, normalise gambling and grow the market, including by creating future generations of gamblers.

We must be honest about what that means: greater exposure leads to greater participation, and greater participation leads to more gambling harm. We have heard repeatedly—through research, from clinicians and, most importantly, from those with lived experience—that gambling advertising acts as a trigger. For those trying to stop gambling, it undermines their recovery.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

The Government’s own gambling White Paper said there was no evidence of a causal link between gambling advertising and an increase in problem gambling. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that that is set out in the White Paper quite clearly?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will not accept that. Having met lots of people with lived experience of gambling and having seen the evidence in our report, I know there is a clear link between gambling advertising and halting the recovery of people with gambling addictions.

An argument often used by the industry is that more evidence is needed, but I will come later in my speech to why that is not a problem—it was not a barrier, for example, when we introduced restrictions on tobacco advertising several years ago.

For children and young people, the situation is even more concerning, because gambling advertising normalises gambling long before they are legally able to gamble. Our report highlights data from the Gambling Commission’s “Young People and Gambling” report, which found that 79% of children had seen gambling adverts or—64% of them on television, and 74% online. That is four out of five children in the country exposed to gambling advertising, which is more than the proportion of children who read for pleasure.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have already apologised to you, Mrs Harris, to the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and to the Minister for the fact that, because of the strikes, I need to take a taxi to catch my plane, so I cannot, unfortunately, be here for the whole debate. However, I spoke to the hon. Member for Halesowen before the debate about Northern Ireland’s gambling laws, and although I think he is already aware of this, I would like to put on record that those laws predate the internet, meaning that remote or online gambling is completely unregulated in Northern Ireland. Gambling operators can advertise in Northern Ireland if they hold a licence from the Gambling Commission. However, it is notable that the Gambling Commission does not have jurisdiction in Northern Ireland, meaning that the Advertising Standards Authority cannot refer operators that commit multiple breaches of its codes there to the Gambling Commission. Does the hon. Member agree that that lack of regulation must be rectified urgently? I suppose that that is also a question for the Minister to respond to at the end.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member is completely right: gambling regulation is devolved in Northern Ireland, and the problem there is similar to the one we have in the rest of the country; in fact, the scale of gambling harm is even higher than it is in Great Britain. Members of the APPG have been talking to colleagues in Stormont in a similar all-party group, and they face similar challenges in calling for greater regulation. I completely agree with the hon. Member’s comments, and I am glad he has put them on the record.

Gambling advertising is all over spaces that children spend time in, and unfortunately our regulations have completely failed to keep pace. We rely far too much on self-regulation and voluntary codes that deliver only partial measures, even as evidence mounts that children continue to be widely exposed. The evidence presented in our report is unequivocal: these measures have not worked.

The so-called whistle-to-whistle ban is a case in point. It was introduced with the intention of protecting children from exposure during live sports, yet research shows that thousands of gambling messages still appear during matches through pitch-side advertising, sponsorship and branding that falls entirely outside the scope of the ban. It is similar online, where regulators have struggled to respond to the rise of content marketing and influencer promotion. Those forms of advertising are often not recognised as advertising at all by younger audiences, who are less equipped to identify and critically assess what is being advertised to them.

The UK is also falling behind other jurisdictions. Countries such as Italy, Spain, Australia, the Netherlands and Belgium have recognised the risks to young people and have introduced meaningful restrictions on gambling advertising, sponsorship and promotions. By contrast, the UK is delaying action, with a demand for ever more evidence. However, as our report makes clear, that sets an impossible standard. We do not apply that standard to other areas of public health, especially where children are concerned. We did not wait until the evidence became overwhelming before restricting tobacco or junk food advertising to children. Instead, we acted based on credible evidence of harm and a duty to protect the public, especially children and young people.

[Jim Shannon]

I spoke to the hon. Member about this beforehand, but problem gambling is a critical issue for us in Northern Ireland, where rate is 3%, compared with 2.7% here on the mainland. A recent survey found that 65% of adults in Northern Ireland felt there were “too many gambling advertisements”, 71% supported a watershed for gambling advertising and 42% said gambling advertising should be banned altogether. Does the hon. Member not agree that this House can and must work with the Northern Ireland Assembly back home to ensure that immediate protections are enshrined in law?

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member raises the scale of public interest in this issue in Northern Ireland, and the number of people who are fed up and have had too much of gambling adverts, particularly those that are bombarding our children. I am glad he raises the situation in Northern Ireland, and we should be working together more to tackle this issue.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

Moving on slightly from Northern Ireland to Kilburn, in my constituency, there are a lot of gambling shops and casinos on Kilburn High Road. A constituent recently told me she had entered into the Gambling Commission’s self-exclusion agreement. Her regular casino knew that, but still allowed her in, and she subsequently lost thousands of pounds. My hon. Friend is talking about advertising, but is he aware of the shortcomings of the Gambling Commission’s self-exclusion agreement? It seems to be failing my constituents in Kilburn, who are exposed to so many gambling shops every time they leave their house.

[Alex Ballinger]

I am terribly sorry to hear my hon. Friend’s story about her constituent. It does sound like another failure of the self-exclusion system. We have heard similar stories in other places; I met one person with lived experience in Portsmouth, who signed up to self-exclusion but was able to gamble away his life savings in several shops that were not enforcing the rules properly.

The principle of credible evidence being shown—as it was with the tobacco industry and the junk food industry—should also be applied to our restrictions on gambling advertising. That is why our report calls for a significant intervention and a step change in how gambling advertising is regulated in this country, with protections for children and young people at its core. As shown in Northern Ireland, that is an approach that the UK public strongly support. According to polling, 65% of the public want stricter regulation of the gambling industry, and 68% say that under-18s should not see gambling advertising at all.

Let me highlight some of the key recommendations from our report. We recommend an end to gambling advertising before the 9 pm watershed, as part of a broader effort to reduce children’s exposure across TV and radio. We recommend an end to gambling sponsorship in sports, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing. Research by the University of Bristol in 2025 found that football fans were exposed to more than 27,000 gambling messages during the opening weekend of that year’s premier league—nearly triple the number in 2023. We recommend an end to content marketing and influencer-led promotion, where gambling is embedded in entertainment formats, making it particularly difficult for children and young people to recognise when they are being advertised to. Finally, we call for stronger enforcement, particularly of unlicensed operators, alongside greater transparency across digital advertising, including the introduction of “know your customer” requirements.

The current system has allowed commercial interests to outweigh sensible protections for children and young people, and we have a duty to change that. We have a duty to ensure that children are not routinely exposed to advertising for an activity that carries well-evidenced risks. We have a duty to support those experiencing harm, rather than allowing a system that can actively undermine recovery. And we have a duty to ensure that regulation keeps pace with the reality of the modern advertising landscape. This is not about being anti-gambling; it is about being proportionate, responsible and evidence-led. It is about recognising that when an industry invests billions in marketing, there are consequences, and those consequences are felt most clearly by children and young people.

This issue can be resolved now. The evidence is already there. The public concern is enormous. As the APPG report sets out, the Government have many of the powers they require to act; the question now is whether we are prepared to use them. I hope the Minister—she is not the Minister for gambling, so I appreciate her coming here today—will reflect carefully on our findings and share them with the Minister for gambling. I also hope Ministers will reflect on the case the report makes for a more precautionary public health-led approach that places the protection of children and young people at its heart.

I would be grateful if the Minister could tell us in her response what assessment the Government have made of the cumulative impact of gambling advertising exposure, particularly on children and young people; whether further action is being considered to reduce that exposure across sport, broadcast and online environments; and how the Government intend that regulation to keep pace with emerging forms of advertising, including content marketing and influencer promotion.

This is an opportunity to take a more coherent and forward-looking approach that reflects both the evidence and the expectations of the public.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

I have listened with great interest, but is it not true that the hon. Gentleman has been written to on numerous occasions by the Gambling Commission for a misuse of their figures? Although I agree with some of the things he says, I am rather concerned that if that is the case, some of the figures he is citing here in Parliament, which will be reported in Hansard, are also not correct.

[Alex Ballinger]

I am afraid that is not correct. The Gambling Commission has not written to me challenging my figures. Members of the gambling industry have written to the all-party group challenging some of the figures in other reports, but our figures are from the Gambling Commission’s own survey on children and young people. The statistics I have pulled out today are directly from that survey, and no one is challenging those statistics.

[Esther McVey]

Three times they have written to you.

[Alex Ballinger]

They have not written to me.

We need to properly safeguard the next generation from gambling advertising that aims to normalise an activity that has been proven to be extremely harmful, and something that the Government have the power to act on today.

[Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) on securing this important debate.

Sport is one of the UK’s soft power superpowers. Formula 1 is worth over £12 billion a year to our economy, supporting more than 6,000 jobs. Horseracing supports more than 85,000 British jobs and contributes over £4 billion to the economy. The Premier League adds a further £9.8 billion to the economy and supports over 100,000 jobs, those jobs contribute over £4 billion in tax annually. Sky Sports recently signed a £125 million five-year contract with the Professional Darts Corporation —double the previous contract—and we have seen a huge boost in that sport in the last decade or so, all underpinned by sponsorship from companies.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member talks about Formula 1, as well as other sports, but does he remember the rules that changed the tobacco sponsorship of Formula 1 and the strong resistance of that industry to those changes because of the arguments he is making right now? Does he also recognise that Formula 1 has become more successful after those changes?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Over the decades, Formula 1 has always been a great British success story. The banning of tobacco ads in such a global sport was not necessarily such a problem, because its reach and ability to bring in advertising revenue from other industries was more than it was for, say, snooker or darts. The ban almost destroyed snooker, which had become heavily reliant on tobacco sponsorship. It took a number of years for it to increase those revenues again.

I will come on to the unregulated gambling market, because that is playing a part in some of these sports and it is really important that we cover that. We need to recognise that there is a particularly close link—a symbiotic relationship—between gambling and, for example, horseracing, particularly for the regulated sector and those British companies that we all know and see on our high street, so we must be careful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I think the industry is making good progress on this. It has certainly made a massive difference in recent decades, from where we have come to where we are now. As I said, and as I will go on to discuss further, there is a difference between the regulated market and the unregulated market. There are those companies that fall within the laws of this country and that are working hard to address some of these problems, and there are those that are not based in this country, over which we have no control. That is a serious problem.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member is making his point very well. He is talking about the unregulated market, which we also have real concerns about. Does he share my concern that some unregulated market advertising is being mixed with the regulated market advertising? Right now, we have premier league football clubs with unregulated front-of-shirt sponsors, and that should not be allowed.

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I could not agree with the hon. Member more. As a big football fan, this has been shocking for me. Growing up back in the ’90s, when Leeds United FC was last successful, what I would see on the front of a football shirt was a well-known brand, possibly British and possibly not. Looking at football shirts now, I often have no idea what the company is until I find out that it is, of course, an unregulated, foreign gambling site that is paying big money to the industry—I will share some figures on that in a minute. The Premier League has taken the right approach in banning those advertising deals from next season.

As I say, there is much we can do to work with the gambling sector in this country, but we also need to make sure that unregulated and illegal gambling firms do not have the ability to advertise to and target residents of this nation, because they are not regulated as they would be under UK law. We must also recognise the importance of preventing aggressive advertising towards vulnerable people and particularly children, as the hon. Member said in his opening remarks.

The balanced and evidence-led reforms made by the previous Government helped to strengthen protections, but there may be more to do. We can supplement the already-robust rules to ensure that we do more, but it is important that we do our very best to prevent children from being exposed in the way they might be at the moment. The hon. Member made an excellent point about the ways in which companies can dodge regulations, particularly those relating to football, where there has been a problem. The Premier League at least has recognised that and taken voluntary action to end it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Absolutely; I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. We have seen that trend not just in gambling but in tobacco. Taxation levels have become so high that they have created an enormous black market, which I believe has led to the Treasury losing about £6 billion in revenue. Any sector that is over-taxed or over-regulated will be replaced by a black market.

[Alex Ballinger]

I was not expecting to hear the hon. Member parroting big tobacco talking lines. Because of all the public health benefits and because of the reduced number of people dying from lung cancer, I think the public would be happy that the rate of smoking has reduced from 60% in the 1950s to 10%. Some 65% of people think children should not be exposed to gambling adverts at all. Does he share the public’s concern?

[Charlie Dewhirst]

I used an example of another sector to make a wider point that, if we over-tax or over-regulate anything, it will encourage the creation of a black market. There are various issues with that, whether for those exposed to the black market or for the Treasury, which might have concerns about the impact of a black market on its bottom line. It was a wider point about over-regulation and over-taxation, and there are number of examples of that.

I have already said that we should not allow gambling firms to target children in any way because they are not legally allowed to bet, and there has been progress. The reforms under the last Government were quite robust, and I always welcome ideas about how we can go further on that, but we should not necessarily go too far. Banning gambling advertising in sport, with the exception of horseracing and greyhound racing, feels excessive to me. There are other ways that we can address this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Dewhirst]

Thank you, Mrs Harris.

I will put some numbers on my discussion of the value of regulated versus unregulated advertising. The regulated market is expected to decline by more than £107 million this year, but unregulated companies will increase their expenditure to £845 million this year, which is up 32%, and to £934 million by the end of 2028, which is another 10% rise. A significant proportion of that investment originates from overseas companies that are not paying British tax, not regulated by the British market and not subject to British laws.

It is not just about advertising. More advertising by unregulated and illegal gambling companies only drives people to the harmful, unregulated and untaxed black market. Stakes on the illegal market are already estimated to equate to £4.3 billion per year. A PwC report based on H2 Gambling Capital data shows that the size and growth of the UK’s unregulated market has increased in recent years, alongside the implementation of tighter regulations. In my opening, I mentioned that regular betting and gaming contributes £6.8 billion to our economy and generates £4 billion in taxes—£4 billion that the Treasury could potentially lose. The effects of that are self-evident.

There are other measures that are squeezing people. The Gambling Commission has found that there are concerns about the introduction of new checks and how intrusive they may be. The last Government wanted to pilot that scheme, and there are potential benefits to it, but we have to be a bit careful, because the concern is that blanket checks are being brought in without a pilot scheme. People are naturally nervous—the regular people who like to have a bet are concerned—about the intrusive nature of what private companies, and indeed the Government, are doing to try to access their financial data. We need to be wary of that, because it can put people off using British, regulated companies and push them toward foreign, unregulated spaces that are not subject to the same gambling taxation, which often allows for more attractive stakes and so on.

All of that is drawing people into a place we do not want them to be in. We do not want to over-regulate our own market and force people into a place that is of no advantage to us and that we have no influence over. We must be very mindful of that, whether it is gambling or any other sector.

The modelling shows a depressing outlook for the industry under the current taxation system. There is some very headline-grabbing stuff: Coral has pulled out of its deal to sponsor Cheltenham, and the industry expects to lose 16,000 jobs across the UK, a number of which are high-tech jobs. This is a high-tech industry these days; there is a huge online element to it, as we know. Those jobs will be lost in places such as Stoke, Warrington, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham and Newcastle-under-Lyme where the successful gambling firms are based. Those job losses will then filter down to the gambling shops on our high streets; in recent weeks, we saw William Hill announce the loss of 200 high street stores.

Beyond the costs to the taxpayer and people’s jobs and lives, gambling advertising and sponsorship also supports broadcast media and sports across the spectrum. As well as regulated advertising falling, the WARC report also found that sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued in 2021 and is set to decline. That sponsorship covers prize money, along with increased levels of interest, competition and viewership. It is a virtuous circle. It gets people enthused by sport and gets them involved. It is not something that we should see as simply a bad thing to do.

Given that much free-to-air sports coverage—along with the lower levels or grassroots of certain sports—is largely dependent on this advertising revenue, there is a risk that we will further lose free-to-air coverage because sports will have to look to a more lucrative broadcast deals. Look at examples from the grassroots, with those firms sponsoring lower league clubs in football and the good work that they do there to support grassroots football—it is not just about what is going on in the premier league. We see less of those things on a day-to-day basis, but they are going on in clubs across the country.

While sponsorship by regulated companies plateaued and is falling, total sponsorship by the gaming sector has grown, from £158 million in 2019 to £250 million this year. The growth is not by those regulated companies, however. Unregulated firms have accelerated their sponsorship—more than tripling it in the same period—and by next year more than half of sponsorship will be by unregulated firms.

[Alex Ballinger]

The hon. Member’s concerns are about the unregulated market. However, the proposals in the APPG report are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, including unregulated gambling advertising. He talks about the growth in unregulated gambling advertising, which is of course a big problem. But surely if those restrictions were implemented, it would give a better chance to bookkeepers that already have shops on the high street and a well-known reputation?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. These are very long interventions. Some Members have given a speech and others will have an opportunity to speak later and will be able to make their points. We need to make progress.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank the hon. Members for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) for securing this debate.

I wish everyone a happy St George’s day. Perhaps the Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Arts is off celebrating St George’s day in his own Scottish way somewhere—I was looking forward to delivering that joke to him, so I am disappointed he is not here. Although I welcome the Minister covering this very important debate, I know there will be some confusion among the public about why no one from DCMS with direct responsibility for this policy area was available to respond. Hopefully, the Minister will still be able to answer some of the key questions on behalf of the Government before their complete collapse.

We all know that the Government are yet again distracted by their latest scandal in Downing Street, and that Labour MPs are preparing the runners and riders for their leadership contest; but we meet today to discuss gambling regulation at a very important juncture in terms of how we move forward with the regulated gambling industry in the UK. As we predicted would happen before Labour’s latest tax-hiking Budget, jobs are being lost and high street shops are closing, as we have already heard. Sponsorship for British sport is also being cut, and an illegal, dangerous black market continues to grow each week. Quite clearly, Labour did not properly vet the information they were being provided.

This is also a crucial time for the Gambling Commission. Major changes are happening at the top of the organisation and, as I understand it, it is deliberating on whether to move forward with controversial affordability checks despite major concerns from a range of stakeholders about their accuracy and, again, the unintended consequences of fuelling the illegal and dangerous black market. Today’s debate is therefore timely, and I have listened very carefully to contributions from hon. Members across the Chamber.

As always, there are a range of views. On the left, we have some who are more prohibitionist and view all forms of gambling through the prism of harm. On the right—thankfully not represented in the Chamber today—there are those who believe that party leaders should be allowed to promote their own crypto and pyramid schemes with no accountability. Then we have the rest of us, more in the middle ground, who are trying to find a sensible and pragmatic approach to regulation that provides protections and support for those suffering from addiction while recognising the regulated gambling sector’s contribution to jobs, the economy, British culture and sport.

As I have said in previous debates, I have no problem bashing the bookies; it is a British pastime between punter and bookmaker, and I am unashamedly pro-consumer. But as we are seeing now, the Government have inadvertently stacked the deck in favour of the illegal black market. In preparing for this debate, I was reminded of what gambling looked like when I was growing up in south-east London: those dark and dingy betting shops with beads covering the shop doors, and the wall of smoke that would occasionally escape, allowing some fresh air into the building.

While some of those small pens might have stayed in some shops, times have changed. The regulated industry has modernised, and technology has transformed how many people gamble across the country.

[Alex Ballinger]

The shadow Minister is talking about an historical example of a bookmaker’s. At that time, how many children and young people were exposed to gambling advertising? Is he happy with a Premier League weekend having 27,000 adverts that families might be watching?

[Mr French]

That is an interesting point about how bookmakers operate. My grandfather was really keen on horseracing when I was growing up; I remember often standing in the corner of the betting shop while he had a gamble or watching horseracing on the TV. The hon. Member’s APPG has made an interesting distinction about the carve-out of the advertising ban that it has committed to; if I understand it correctly, the APPG believes that younger people or children do not watch horseracing, compared with football—is that the argument for why there is a carve-out?

[Alex Ballinger]

Will the hon. Gentleman let me respond?

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Ballinger, please sit down. Shadow Minister, please speak through the Chair.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Thank you. Mr Ballinger, if you want to intervene, can you do it appropriately?

[Alex Ballinger]

The APPG recognise that horseracing and greyhound racing are much more dependent on gambling advertising than other industries; that is why we made that separation.

[Mr French]

I thank the hon. Member for making that distinction; I understood it as being something to do with whether children watched racing. The point I was trying to make was that times have changed. When I worked in a shop—some 20-odd years ago, when I was a student—a strict rule was brought in to stop children being allowed inside the premises. There was a lot of discussion then about whether it was safer for a child to be just inside the door of a bookmaker’s or to be standing outside. That is probably not as big an issue today as it was then, but I remember that discussion being had circa 20 years ago. Times have changed, and how bookmakers operate has also changed.

The debate around gambling and gambling harms boils down to a simple but important question: how do we reduce harm from gambling without driving people into more dangerous spaces? Advertising, the subject of today’s debate, forms an important part of that discussion. Gambling, when properly regulated, is a legitimate leisure activity enjoyed by more than 20 million people across the United Kingdom every month. That averages out at more than 30,000 people in every constituency across the country. The overwhelming majority of those people gamble without harm.

The role of Government is to balance regulation for people who enjoy a flutter safely, while ensuring that those who need help can receive it as a matter of urgency. Government should not act as a heavy, puritanical hand prohibiting all avenues of fun. That is why the distinction between the regulated and unregulated market is so important. Advertising by UK-licensed operators is not a free-for-all, as some would have us believe; it is controlled and is subject to oversight by the anti-gambling commission and the Advertising Standards Authority, which has been strengthened significantly in recent years. That has resulted in some good progress: for example, I understand that the whistle-to-whistle ban has reduced children’s exposure to betting adverts during live sport by 97%. The Premier League will soon ban front-of-shirt gambling sponsors, and online campaigns are age-gated, with operators prohibited from using personalities with strong appeal to children. However, those regulations do not apply to those who act beyond the law in the black market.

The Government have been clear that there is little evidence of a causal link between exposure to advertising and problem gambling. Crucially, the evidence does not show that advertising drives participation. Advertising influences which brand people choose, not whether they gamble at all. That matters, because restricting the regulated sector too heavily will not remove demand; the Government will simply be redirecting it to the unregulated market, where harm becomes the norm. Independent analysis from WARC suggests that UK gambling advertising spend will reach around £1.9 billion this year, with half—between £800 million and £900 million, and increasing—already coming from unregulated operators.

We are approaching a tipping point. Close to half of all gambling advertising seen by UK consumers comes from operators that are not licensed in this country and can act beyond the law. It is the direction of travel that concerns me most: WARC’s research shows that while licensed operator spend has fallen, illegal and unregulated spend is growing sharply. That is a sign of a market shifting quickly and decisively, and we must be honest about what sits behind that shift. The Government have increased regulation on the legal sector, but done very little so far to stop the illegal black market.

While licensed operators are seeing their ability to advertise reduced, illegal operators are expanding aggressively, particularly online, and particularly aimed at children and younger people. Those unregulated operators do not follow the rules. They do not verify age; they do not offer safeguards such as deposit limits or self-exclusion; they do not contribute to treatment or research; they do not pay tax. Those companies actively market themselves as being outside the system, with “Not on GamStop”—a favoured slogan that is deliberately used to appeal to the most vulnerable. This is not a marginal issue. Up to 1.5 million people in Britain are estimated to be using these sites already, staking as much as £10 billion a year.

Today’s advertising frontline is not so much television as social media, streaming platforms and influencers. Around 62% of children report regularly seeing gambling-related content online on platforms such as YouTube, TikTok, Twitch and Instagram—I use some of those platforms myself, though I am not sure what Twitch is. What they see is not the regulated sector: they are seeing influencers who are paid to promote black market gambling sites—sites that would never be allowed to advertise through regulated channels and that offer inducements and access without safeguards. Among those young people who follow gambling content, nearly one in three report seeing an influencer advertising the products. The reality is that we have built a system that tightly regulates those who comply with the law, while those who do not are free to exploit the faster-growing parts of the media landscape.

We must be honest about the risk of getting this wrong. By clamping down further on regulated advertising without tackling illegal activity, we will not clean up this space. We will simply cede the territory to the illegal operators. We will make it harder for consumers to distinguish between safe and unsafe operators, pushing more people towards platforms that offer no protections at all. The Government’s priority must be enforcement in the spaces where harm is now most concentrated.

I will conclude by asking the Minister a series of specific questions that I hope she can answer or follow up in writing. First, will the Government bring forward proposals to place a clear duty on social media platforms to identify and remove illegal gambling advertising, particularly influencer-led promotion of unlicensed sites? Secondly, what steps are the Government taking against unlicensed operators targeting UK consumers online? Thirdly, can the Minister set out a timeline for action on unlicensed gambling sponsorship in sport, and will the Government go further to prevent UK clubs from entering into partnerships with operators that are not licensed in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

Thank you, Mrs Harris. I thank all Members who have joined in this lively debate: the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Dr Cooper), the Minister, the shadow Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson. We have covered a lot of issues and it has been one of the few debates in which we have had an exchange of views rather than of party political positions, so I appreciate that.

I will respond to the comments of the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey). I have not seen that correspondence, but she seems certain that I have received it, so I will go back and check.

[Esther McVey]

It is on the record.

[Alex Ballinger]

I will check, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West responded on what the all-party group may have said.

I should say very briefly that there seems to have been a big debate about the unregulated market and the regulated market. I think that is important. There were questions about the size of the unregulated market, and some of that is in our report, which I have just looked at: it is approximately 9% of the online space, with 700 operators, according to Yield Sec. As everyone has said, that is largely driven by the unregulated market going after people who have been banned by GamStop.

[Esther McVey]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alex Ballinger]

I will not give way at this point, because I am just wrapping up—

[Esther McVey]

I will give you the information that you don’t have—

[Alex Ballinger]

It is in the report. I have just told you.

[Carolyn Harris (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we not have debate across the Chamber, please? Can you finish your wind-up, Mr Ballinger?

[Alex Ballinger]

Absolutely. This has been driven a lot by the argument that the unregulated industry will somehow capture the market. If we are talking about restrictions on gambling advertising, that should include such restrictions on the unregulated gambling market, which as we can see is already advertising in football and online in lots of spaces. Those are things that we are calling for, too. That 9% of the market, which is in our report, will hopefully not grow.

We should not pretend that the unregulated market is the only one causing problems. There are issues in the regulated market as well. We have heard about the bonuses, the promotions, the free bets and other issues from people with lived experience, who have faced them in the regulated market too, which is the majority of gambling harm.

Across the House, I think there is a wish to go further in protecting children and young people, even though we may have disagreements about how we do so. There are some good recommendations in our report, I hope, for sensible steps to protect children and young people from gambling advertising, and particularly from gambling harms that might come to them in future.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered gambling advertising.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

It is absolutely for the birds. Not only are our farming businesses being attacked through the changes to inheritance tax, but they face complications and additional burdens through challenges with cashflow. We have already seen de-linked payments drop dramatically for many of our farming businesses. The sustainable farming incentive has been chopped, changed and moved around, and we are not sure what the fundamentals will be when the new SFI is rolled out in the summer. When that is coupled with additional costs, and with red diesel going up, the cashflow challenges increase, as many of my hon. Friend’s constituents, and constituents of Members from across the House, have realised. When the Government put an additional burden on a potential inheritance tax liability, it only increases the anxiety in our farming communities.

This morning, in addition to meeting the Tenant Farmers Association, I met the CLA and the presidential team there, including Gavin Lane. He put it across to me very clearly—he rightly continues to campaign on the matter—that the family farm tax must ultimately be abolished. That is why we Conservative Members reiterate our commitment that there will be 100% agricultural property relief and business property relief if we are lucky enough get back into government.

Finally, there is the issue of indexation. Setting the threshold at £2.5 million takes no account of the value of farmland increasing; our farming community and family businesses will be further impacted when the value of assets rises further down the line, while the threshold is maintained at £2.5 million.

We are at the final stages of the Finance Bill, yet we do not have any further clarity from the Government on the timings associated with extending the point at which payment is made from six months to the 18 months that we are requesting. We have no certainty that indexation will be linked to the threshold, which has been increased, though minimally, and no assurance that the Government actually get how our farming community operates.

I hope that the Government will consider amendments 88, 89 and 90 and the associated amendments in my name and the name of the Opposition Front Benchers, and that they will ultimately agree with amendment 6, which scraps the family farm and business tax in its entirety.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Before I start, I should declare that I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on gambling reform. I want to talk about new clauses 8 and 9, which my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke to earlier. They are thoughtful, well-meaning new clauses that address real concerns. I want to add a bit of context, and set out what the evidence shows about the black market and the situation in Gibraltar.

Industries associated with harm often use the black market as an excuse to avoid regulation or additional taxation. When I was on the Finance Bill Committee last year, we received a lot of correspondence from the tobacco industry, in which it made the same sort of claim. We were seeking to increase taxes—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), might remember the debate—and the tobacco industry was using the black market as an excuse for why that should not happen. In the gambling sector, the threat of the black market is overblown. The regulated market is dominant, and in recent years there have been lots of taxation changes that have not increased the size of the black market. I will give two examples.

When we changed from taxing turnover to taxing profit in 2001, the black market was highlighted as a risk, but there were no real changes. Again, when we introduced the point-of-consumption tax in 2014, there was no surge in unregulated or black market gambling. Indeed, a 2021 Gambling Commission study found that only a very small proportion of UK gamblers ever used unlicensed sites, and they did so mostly by accident. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central accurately pointed out, people who are banned from regulated sites sometimes turn to the unregulated sector, and that truly is a problem.

Focusing on the black market risks diverting attention away from the significant and better-evidenced harms in the regulated sector. Those harms are most widespread in the areas in which we are seeking to increase taxes—we have discussed that, so I will not go into it too much. However, it is important that we tackle the black market, so I welcome the illegal gambling taskforce that has been introduced, as well as the additional £26 million for the Gambling Commission to address those issues. We should not buy into the narrative that risks from the black market should stop us making changes to keep people safe from the most harmful forms of gambling.

If the tax changes are as economically damaging for Gibraltar as has been claimed, we need to consider how they work in other jurisdictions. The same gambling organisations often operate in other countries with much higher tax rates than the UK, and they manage to survive profitably in those sectors. I think that we should take that into account when considering new clause 9 and the impact on Gibraltar.

[Kirsty Blackman]

You would not believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, how far beyond delighted I was when I discovered that I would be stepping in for a colleague on the Finance Bill. I am sure that the House is similarly ecstatic to hear me speak on the Bill. I did a significant number of Finance Bills in my first few years in this place, and I have missed it. I have also missed the former Member for Amber Valley, Nigel Mills, who used to make a speech from the Government Back Benches about something that nobody else had even considered or knew existed. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) is very kindly stepping into his shoes and raising issues relating to gambling tax, which, to be fair, are important. He is asking very important questions, as Nigel Mills used to, about a fairly niche subject. In the light of the hon. Member’s comments about gambling taxation and the black market, it would be great if the Treasury provided updates on how the tax has worked.

In fact, I think the Treasury should generally provide more updates on every tax measure that it implements. If the Treasury says that a tax measure will raise £30 million, it would be helpful for the MPs who sat on the Finance Bill to know whether it did in fact raise £30 million, or if it raised £50 million or £10 million. Then, we could make better decisions about future tax changes, because we would have a better idea of whether they would achieve the Government’s aims. Successive Governments have been particularly bad at undertaking post-implementation reviews, particularly of tax measures. It would be really handy to see that information more regularly, so that we can make better-informed decisions.

Let me touch on the transparency issues that have been mentioned. Earlier, I raised my concerns about the fact that additional Ways and Means motions were added at this point. I also raised the fact that we do not have oral evidence sessions during the passage of the Finance Bill. I continue to make the case that that could be done after Committee of the whole House. Usually the more technical aspects of Finance Bills are considered in a Public Bill Committee in a Committee Room, rather than in a Committee of the whole House in the Chamber.

The Minister said that some Government amendments had been tabled following stakeholder feedback—particularly through written evidence—to clarify the intention of the legislation. The Government had intended to do something, and stakeholders said, “We don’t really understand this; it’s not clear enough. Could you clarify it?”. If the Government had held oral evidence sessions, they may have been able to make those changes in Committee, rather than on Report. I urge them, and any future Government, to consider holding oral evidence sessions. Anyone who has been on a Bill Committee in which there are oral evidence sessions will understand their great value, and we refer back to them so many times throughout the course of a Committee. There is nothing quite like being able to ask an expert questions, rather than just looking at the written evidence, which is helpful, but it is not the same. We do not remember written evidence in the same way, and we do not have the same ability to probe it.

I want to touch on the four amendments that may be put to a vote. The SNP and I are happy to support new clause 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). I was thinking about the history of some “get rich quick” schemes. We had Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes. The new thing—the Ponzi scheme of the day—is the scheme that says, “This is foolproof. This is failsafe. You are going to make loads of money doing this,” but it is actually unregulated. The new clause would be incredibly helpful. I would have preferred the new clause to say “user-to-user services” instead of “social media”, so that it would cover all the stuff in the Online Safety Act 2023. That covers things that we may not classically define as social media. For example, if somebody gave really terrible tax advice on a money-saving expert forum, would that be included in the definition of social media? Social media is not 100% defined, which is why I would have preferred a different term. However, the new clause is sufficient to cover the majority of people.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

These changes were presented as some sort of simplification and modernisation, but clauses 83 and 84 nearly double remote gaming duty from 21% to 40% and increase general betting duty to 25%. We will have some of the highest rates of tax on gambling in the world. As we have heard from some Members, the industry has warned that that could have severe consequences for an internationally competitive sector that supports tens of thousands of jobs, underpins horseracing and other sports and already contributes significantly to the Treasury. It is questionable whether these measures will lead to stable, long-term revenue gains for the Exchequer, and there is a very real risk that they will result in job losses and greater use of unregulated operators in the black market. New clause 25 would require the Chancellor to come back to the House and explain what the consequences have been for revenue, sports and horseracing, high street betting shops, the black market, jobs and the public finances.

Of course, the origin of these changes owes much to Gordon Brown, who encouraged the Chancellor to hike taxes in order to increase welfare spending. Proponents of higher taxes often suggest that they will not have any consequences, but it is the role of us in this House to scrutinise potential changes and assess the impact after the event. Independent modelling from EY shared by the Betting and Gaming Council suggests that the impact of doubling remote gaming duty could be the loss of 15,000 jobs, and a further 1,700 jobs could be lost as a result of the increase in general betting duty. In total, 17,000 positions located in Stoke-on-Trent, Leeds, Sunderland, Manchester, Nottingham, Newcastle-under-Lyme, Norwich and other areas could be affected. Of course, those are simply projections—they could prove to be pessimistic, and we certainly hope that will be the case—but when unemployment has risen consistently under this Government due to the jobs tax and other costs, such warnings should not just be dismissed. That is why the Chancellor must account for the impact of her choices, as new clause 25 requires.

There has been some mention of horseracing. I was pleased to join colleagues across the House in support of the “Axe the Racing Tax” campaign. That is another tax that the Chancellor wanted to introduce, but she was forced into one of her all-too-regular U-turns.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the proposal to harmonise gambling taxes, which the horseracing industry was most opposed to, was first proposed by his Government? It is something that they were proposing; we have just inherited it.

[James Wild]

We are debating the measures in this Bill, which was introduced by this Government. I was not involved in the changes that the hon. Gentleman refers to, and I certainly would not have supported hitting the horseracing sector in the way that was proposed. I do not remember that being in a previous Finance Bill introduced by a previous Government; it is this Government who sought to bring forward those measures, but they were roundly rejected, because horseracing supports around 85,000 jobs and contributes £300 million in tax revenue every year.

Despite the Government’s climbdown in exempting horseracing from the higher rates, the industry could still feel the consequences of this Government’s approach to gambling duties. When the online betting sector is squeezed, sponsorship is likely to be reduced, and because racing’s funding depends heavily on those partnerships and that sponsorship, we could see an impact on racing. In my area of Norfolk, we are very fortunate to have Fakenham races—I went there to support the British Horseracing Authority’s campaign against the Government’s plans. That venue is synonymous with the area and its identity, and is a source of local employment, not just at the track itself but for the farriers, the pubs, the hotels and the whole ecosystem that supports racing. That is why these clauses in the Bill continue to pose a risk to the sector and other sports, and that risk needs to be accounted for.

I now turn to the black market, an issue that was raised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson). The Government have acknowledged the risks associated with taking this approach, which is why they quietly set aside £26 million for the Gambling Commission to combat expansion of the black market, but the same EY analysis suggests that over £6 billion in stakes could migrate to the black market, doubling its current size and undermining the progress that has been made through the existing regulatory framework. The Office for Budget Responsibility has identified potential leakage of around £500 million in lost revenue as activity shifts away from properly regulated markets. Those projections—which again could be wrong, but could also be right—raise legitimate questions about the overall effectiveness of the Government’s approach.

When taxes rise too far, behaviour can change and the yield can go down, which is what we will see with a number of the tax rises that the Government have included in their Finance Bill. Rather than reducing demand, activity will move to unregulated markets where consumer protections are weaker, fraud risks are higher, and tax revenue is not collected. I am not sure we have heard a convincing response from the Minister about how that will be addressed and whether those risks have been taken properly into account.

Let us look at what happened in the Netherlands, where the Dutch Government raised their remote slots tax rate to 34% last January. Within months, gross gaming revenue fell by a quarter and gambling tax receipts dropped to just 83% of the previous year’s figure, leaving a €200 million shortfall from the projections. Somewhat predictably, the Dutch regulator then reported a huge growth in the number of people accessing unlicensed domains, rising from 200,000 to a million. That should serve as an example of why we should be cautious about the Chancellor’s plans. Experience suggests that changes have unintended consequences, and those risks must be carefully assessed. In winding up, will the Minister provide a bit more clarity about how that will be monitored and what steps the Government will take if there are unintended consequences and those projections prove to be accurate?

There is some debate and confusion in the sector and some of the professional bodies about the treatment of free bets and free plays. The sector and those bodies have raised concerns about that. The Budget costings document calculates gambling duty using the gross gambling yield, which is the revenue retained by operators after paying out winnings to customers. However, current law uses a wider measure, which also counts the value of free bets and free plays. That means there is a potential mismatch. Will the Minister clarify that? I am sure she has had representations on it directly.

We need to strike a balance with the levels of taxation. The industry is warning that these increases will impact on sports and lead to job losses and more black market activity. New clause 25 seeks transparency and an answer to those concerns. It asks the Chancellor to assess the impact of these rises on horseracing, the black market, jobs and the public finances. That is the minimum that Parliament should expect, and I hope Members will support our new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

We Liberal Democrats have long campaigned for the doubling of remote gaming duty, and we are grateful to the Government, who have finally listened and taken that on board. This measure will raise vital revenue in a fair way, while addressing the eye-watering profits of the big online gambling companies and standing up for the thousands affected by problem gambling. According to the latest figures from the Gambling Commission, the online gambling giants saw revenues reach an eye-watering £7.8 billion in 2024-25. Meanwhile, Public Health England has estimated that gambling costs the UK economy about £1.4 billion a year through a combination of financial harms and the impact on physical and mental health, employment, education and crime. About 300,000 adults in Britain experience problem gambling, as well as roughly 40,000 children. Those figures are stark. This measure finally takes action that should have been taken a long time ago, and it will raise about £1.8 billion a year by 2029-30 to fund our public services fairly.

Buried in the fine print, however, is a detail that makes it seem as if the Government are giving the big online gambling firms a get-out, and I should be grateful to the Minister for some clarification. According to the “Budget 2025 Policy Costings” document,

“The tax base for this measure is the Gross Gambling Yield”,

which is the revenue retained by gambling operators after they have paid out winnings to customers. The tax base for remote gaming duty as defined in the Finance Act 2014 is a larger tax base. It is known as the gross gambling revenue, and includes the notional stake value of free bets and free plays. Can the Minister explain why today’s tax measure will apply to a narrower tax base than the one currently targeted by remote gaming duty? How much tax revenue has been forgone by this narrowing of the tax base? Was it unintended, or was it a result of influence from the sector? Did any of the big online gaming companies meet any Ministers and discuss these measures while they were being considered?

New clause 21, tabled in my name, seeks to clarify this situation by requiring the Chancellor, within six months of the passing of the Act, to undertake an assessment of the impact of the implementation of sections 83 and 84 in respect of the treatment of free bets and free plays for calculating general betting duty on remote bets, so we can clearly see the impact of this difference.

[Alex Ballinger]

I want to speak in support of clauses 83 and 84 on gambling taxation. I of course strongly welcome these steps on remote gaming duty, which cover online slots, online casino games and other high-risk remote gambling products.

Ahead of the Budget last year, I was one of more than 100 Labour MPs, alongside Gordon Brown, who wrote to the Chancellor calling for a different approach to gambling taxation and one that recognises the reality of the modern gaming industry. We highlighted how taxing the social ills caused by online gambling could pay for the abolition of the two-child benefit cap, and I strongly welcome the action the Chancellor has taken to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty on the back of these changes. For us, fairness was not just about asking those with the broadest shoulders to contribute more, but about ensuring those whose business models generate the most harm make a proper contribution to the cost of that harm. That is why clause 83 is so important, as it targets the most addictive and dangerous forms of gambling: online slots and casinos.

As a country, we are experiencing record levels of harm caused by gambling. The Gambling Commission’s figures tell us that 2.5% of adults, which is more than 1 million people, are suffering from serious gambling harm. There are many types of gambling harm—debt, family break-up, crime and, at the most severe end, suicide—so it is extremely worrying that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has seen a threefold increase in the number of those referred for gambling treatment since gambling moved online during the pandemic.

In my own area, the Dudley-based Gordon Moody charity, which provides gambling treatment centres all over the west midlands, has seen a large increase in referrals, most worryingly among younger people involved in online gambling. This is not a coincidence, because online slots and casinos are designed to be high speed, continuous, psychologically manipulative and, for many, overwhelmingly addictive. So the Chancellor’s decision to increase remote gaming duty targeted at these most harmful forms of gambling is absolutely the right thing to do. It sends a clear message that the tax system must reflect the level of harm caused.

There is another reason why this change—as well as clause 84, which increases general betting duty—is the right thing to do: many online gambling operators, particularly large global operators, have spent years offshoring their profits, booking revenues overseas, minimising their UK tax liabilities and contributing very little in meaningful employment or investment in our communities. In one example, at the end of last year the online operator Sky Bet moved its headquarters to Malta specifically to avoid UK corporation tax, cutting its contribution to the Treasury by tens of millions of pounds. In another example, an unnamed online bookmaker was investigated by the Gambling Commission for illegally directing customers to offshore-based platforms —indeed, to the black market itself—to avoid paying UK tax and to avoid UK regulations. Increasing these online duties means that it will be harder for unscrupulous operators to avoid tax by moving operations offshore. Online gambling in the UK will be taxed fairly in the UK.

Raising remote gambling duty to 40% and general betting duty to 25% for remote bets also puts us on a footing much closer to that of other European jurisdictions and many states in the United States. Until the Budget, the UK was behind the curve in taxing these highly harmful online products. For us, the Chancellor’s move is a matter not just of revenue, but of fairness, responsibility and aligning our tax system with the reality of modern online gambling.

However, taxation is only one element of harm reduction. Raising duty alone will not of course prevent gambling addiction, stop children being exposed to online gambling advertising and ensure that families receive the support they need when a loved one falls into crisis. If we are to tackle these harms, we need a public health approach. That means proper funding for treatment, and I welcome the steps already taken under the statutory levy. However, it also means serious investment in prevention, community education and early intervention, and a modern regulatory framework that puts people, not profits, first and is fully independent of the gambling industry.

I want to highlight another pressing issue for the Minister, which is the continued prevalence of the B3 gaming machines on physical premises. These high-intensity machines, so often located in areas with higher deprivation, continue to cause significant harm, yet they remain under-regulated and undertaxed relative to the risks they pose. If we are to take harm seriously, B3 machines should be included in the next phase of gambling tax reform.

Finally, the most recent gambling Act was introduced more than 20 years ago, in a completely different era: before the smartphone, before the explosion of data-driven behavioural targeting, and before 24/7 online casinos in your pocket. A new Act is clearly needed. Our laws have not kept pace with technology, they have not kept pace with the scale or sophistication of online gambling operators, and they have not kept pace with the reality of the harm we now see every day in communities across the country. I welcome the measures in the Bill, but I urge the Government to move quickly to update advertising rules, strengthen affordability checks, protect children and vulnerable people, and ensure that tax policy, regulation and public health strategy on gambling are all aligned.

The measures on remote gaming duty and general betting duty are excellent steps in the right direction. They acknowledge the reality of harm, strengthen fairness in our tax system and take us closer to a modern framework that puts the wellbeing of the public first.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I call the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

The point that I was trying to make was not at all that people who work in the gambling industry are not involved in meaningful employment. The online sector represents less than 10% of jobs yet makes enormous profits, so in fact, if online companies are taxed more, gambling companies are incentivised to put more people in the land-based gambling sector, which could increase employment and would be good for people in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Gareth Snell]

That is nonsense, frankly. Some 7,500 people work for that company in my constituency. If they were all my constituents, that would mean one in 10 people in my constituency were getting paid a salary that is greater than the average for the region. Whether we like gambling or not, that company and the people it employs are driving the economic regeneration of north Staffordshire, because those jobs are the ones that give people money to spend on our services, shops and social activities.

I am sure we do not want to make this a debate about the moral rights and wrongs of gambling—that is not the nature of the debate we are having today—but I do think we need to consider the reality of the circumstances that the communities that host these companies will face as a result of the tax changes. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen on being successful in his campaign to get to where we are today, but the consequence is going to be felt in my constituency with job losses. There are people who will not have a job this time next year, either because the company that they work for will have to reduce the number of people who work for them, or—worst of all—will move overseas.

There have been lots of comments about moving profits overseas and the prospect of bad actors, but the company in my constituency is probably an exemplar of how to keep the money in the UK. The owners of the company are paid incredibly well, but they still pay PAYE. They make a contribution to the state that is about equal to my entire local government budget. The idea that these are not meaningful organisations is slightly disrespectful to the people in them, and the economic damage that would occur in my city if such companies were to disappear overnight, which they could do, would be devastating. Frankly, it would cost the Government significantly more in the bail-out that would be needed than they would raise through the tax.

I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) who made the point that we do not do hypothecated taxes in this country. When it comes to spending, I support every measure that the Government brought forward at the Budget. The lifting of the two-child benefit cap will benefit 4,500 people in Stoke-on-Trent Central. My city has one of the highest rates of child poverty of anywhere in the country, so the benefit to those families will be enormous and immediate. However, everything goes into one big pot and then goes out from the other pot, and we should be careful about making the moral argument that specifically taxing gambling is the only possible way to fund how we deal with child poverty. That is a slight misapprehension.

Having visited bet365 and seen the work that it does, I know that it is worried about the impact that the changes will have on the black market. It—as does the entire sector—spends a lot of its time and energy doing research and development to try to work out how to keep people playing and betting in the regulated sector, where there is support for people at risk from gambling, including lock-out mechanisms for problem gamblers, and where the tax receipts from the people who bet go back into the UK. To have £6 billion going into the unregulated sector could be a huge loss to the Treasury.

We are all only one or two clicks away from being in an unregulated gambling app. For Safer Gambling Week, the Betting and Gaming Council asked people to look at two comparable gaming sites, because without realising, people can easily find themselves on one site that is not regulated, whose revenue stream almost certainly goes into dark activity—probably funding some organised criminal activity—and not a regulated sector product, with all the support and safety measures that come with that. Because these things can now proliferate on phones, access to them for people of all ages is now much easier.

There is a genuine concern that we must think about: if that £6 billion is going into the unregulated sector and, as the result of the tax changes—as the OBR recognises—there will be an increase in unregulated activity and problem gaming, is the £26 million for the Gambling Commission enough? Will the £1.1 billion raised by the statutory levy be sufficient? As the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) said, there is genuine concern from some charitable organisations on the ground that they have not yet had their funding for this or confirmation about how they will be able to spend it. Does it just get sucked into the NHS pot to be spent on a medical solution? That might be the solution, but that means that some of the carefully crafted mechanisms to deal with problem gambling will simply lose out as a result of big structural changes to tax.

[Alex Ballinger]

I agree with my hon. Friend—I am also concerned about the black market in online gambling—and I welcome the extra money that the Chancellor has introduced for the Gambling Commission, which has powers including blocking ISPs and blocking payments, among other things, to crack down on unregulated gambling.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern about unregulated online gambling companies advertising in the UK, including in the premier league? Does he agree that the Government should be doing something about that so that we can better support the regulated sector?

[Gareth Snell]

Absolutely, we do need to do that. I am an old-fashioned state regulator; I like the idea that the state can regulate things. I like the idea of tax and spend as well, which is what we are doing in the Budget. It is a good thing—[Interruption.] I was so close—I raised the hopes of the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) and then dashed them.

We should think about some of the changes that came in through the White Paper, including the whistle-to-whistle ban on promoting certain products, the premier league’s voluntary opt-out on gambling company sponsorship, and the soon-to-be banning of gambling companies on football shirts. Again, that uniquely affects Stoke-on-Trent, because bet365 sponsors Stoke City. Therefore, should we ever make it to the premiership—we came so very close at the beginning of the season, but we are not quite there now—we would have to have a complete change of kit.

There is more that we can do about the unregulated sector, but that should be a collective effort. We should also not kid ourselves that what we are doing today is about trying to get on top of the unregulated sector. We are talking about the taxation of the regulated sector. As a consequence, we may inadvertently push more people into the unregulated sector. The consequence of that will be bad for society and bad for people who are problem gamblers. It will also be a challenge for the Gambling Commission to them try to regulate, and we need to be up front about that.

I recognise that there are some very addictive games that people can get hooked on and spend an absolute fortune, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen said, they are affected psychologically; they get drawn in, spending more money to make the experience worth while. But we may be in a perverse situation, because the machine gaming duty rate for a land-based product will be 20%, but the remote betting duty—for products where people can bet on a football match using one of the apps at home—will be 21%. Although we recognise that the gaming side is much more damaging than the betting side, we are going to have a lower rate for land-based gaming than for remote betting, when we recognise that betting as a product presents a safer, more cost-intensive situation. Was that by design, or is it a consequence that the Treasury has not considered? Will the Minister address that point?

The Minister has said that this is a fair levy, taking the gaming rate to 40%. That will make us an outlier compared with our European neighbours. The next on the list are Czechia at 35%, the Netherlands at 34% and Denmark at 28%. There is a point at which the taxation of a product becomes so de minimis in its return that it ceases to have an effect. I have never believed in the Laffer curve—I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for North West Norfolk again—but I can see that we will get to a point where we are trying to squeeze an increasingly large amount of money out of a shrinking tax base because more people are taking their spend elsewhere.

That would be damaging for everybody. It would be damaging for my constituents, because if the demand for the service and products made by the companies in my constituency dry up, the jobs also dry up. It would also be bad for the Treasury because the amount of money it can raise from the regulated sector will decrease, and that is not something that we want to see. Has the Minister looked at the evidence from the Netherlands? When the Netherlands increased its rate, which it did for good reason—a decision around tax and spend in order to raise money to pay for parts of its social programmes—it actually saw a huge spike in the use of unregulated products, with something like a fivefold increase over three years, and a huge decrease in the expected rate of return for its revenue.

There are similar examples in other European countries. I do wonder whether we have looked at those before making some of the decisions that we are making today. Do we have a contingency? It is not that we are hypothecating taxation in this country, but we have said that these changes are, quite rightly, to fund the reduction of child poverty through the removal of the two-child benefit cap. If the revenue rates from the changes decreases, where will the additional money come from?

Finally, will the Minister touch on the impact on Gibraltar? The decisions on gambling tax rates that we make today will have an effect on Gibraltar. Nigel Feetham, the Minister for Justice, Trade and Industry in Gibraltar, has repeatedly pointed out that 3,500 people in Gibraltar derive their job from the gambling sector. It makes up 30% of GDP there; one third of Gibraltar’s tax receipts comes from the gambling sector. He has said only this week that the change will remove tens of millions of pounds from the Government of Gibraltar’s budget. There is absolutely no way they can replace that from domestic sources in any reasonable time.

Given that Gibraltar is one of our important overseas territories, will the Minister set out and explain what conversations the Treasury has had with counterparts in Gibraltar? What are the contingencies if we find ourselves inadvertently creating a massive black hole in the budget of the Government of Gibraltar? Again, if we have to bail them out in some way, where will that money come from? If it is taken out of the revenue that is expected to be raised from this particular rate, that then undermines the figures in other parts of the Budget, which, in its entirety, I support.

Taxes

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

I agree. Of course, higher taxes are bearing down on living standards, but so is inflation. We have the highest level of inflation in the G7 and are forecast to have the highest in the G7 next year, too. Within that sits food inflation, which is running way above the headline rate of inflation. Who does that impact the most? It impacts the very people that Labour professes to stand up for the strongest: the poorest in our society. It is a direct consequence of the policies pursued by this Chancellor.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Chancellor recognise that the previous Government were the only Government in living memory to oversee a reduction in real living standards over the course of five years? Does he accept that the difficult situation with the cost of living is in large part due to his Government’s decisions over those five years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has given me an opportunity to correct the record, because I know this has been spun by the Labour party. At a fringe meeting at the Conservative party conference, there was a long, extended debate about just how bad things are, with speculations about all the “what ifs” and “maybes” of different scenarios. If the hon. Gentleman reads the full transcript of those exchanges, he will see that the point I was very clearly making was that there is an alternative to putting up taxes, which is controlling spending. That is the point I was making.

What is happening to the wealth creators in our country? About 16,000 of them have fled—they are going by the day. These are the people who generate the wealth, jobs and growth that we are all striving to achieve. Look at the cumulative tax take that has just walked out of the door with the 16,000 who have gone—it would probably require a third of a million to half a million people on average earnings to fill that gap. It is not sustainable.

There is an alternative. The Conservatives set out this alternative at our party conference: a way forward through control of Government spending. Government spending could be controlled to the tune of at least £47 billion, which were the savings we identified. Of the £47 billion, £23 billion can be found from the welfare budget by getting people off benefits and into work. It is better for the economy, but equally, for those who have mild mental health conditions such as mild anxiety, mild depression and ADHD, it is a better outcome than parking them on benefits, which the Government are doing through time. By focusing on actual need rather than simply transfer payments and on medical diagnosis rather than self-assessments and by not paying benefits to non-UK citizens, we can make real savings. In some cases they are tough choices, absolutely. However, these are decisions that the Government have made.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way. He will of course remember his time as the Work and Pensions Minister, when he oversaw a £33 billion increase in the welfare budget. Of course he is talking about cuts now, but not about welfare cuts, because he had the opportunity to make those cuts and failed to do so. He is talking about cuts to teachers, nurses and our armed forces. Which of those three areas is he talking about cutting right now?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has raised my tenure at the Department for Work and Pensions, when I was the Secretary of State. I was very clear that we needed to arrest the rising welfare bill, and—

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Ballinger]

Why didn’t you, then?

[Sir Mel Stride]

We did, actually. We did arrest it. We made changes to the work capability assessment, which the OBR scored at £5 billion-worth of savings. The OBR also scored the fact that there would be 450,000—almost half a million—fewer people going on to those benefits as a consequence. We had already started a consultation on personal independence payment, which I will come back to in a moment, but it was interrupted by the general election. The first thing the Labour Government did when they came into office was scrap all of that and then come forward with some ill-thought-through proposals that did not survive contact with their own Back Benchers.

There are other areas where we can make savings. The size of the civil service is one. The civil service has grown by 37% since 2016. We could cut it back by 25% and make about £8 billion—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) should listen carefully to this, because he is about to sit on those benches on the 26th of this month and listen to his Chancellor come up with some pretty unpalatable things. These are good alternatives that should be taken seriously.

Raising taxes is simply a choice. The Labour Government are too weak to make the choice to control spending, so they fall back on taxes. They had to U-turn on the welfare reforms they brought through, and £5 billion was added to Labour’s black hole in an instant. We have seen the terms of reference for the Timms review of personal independence payment. They show quite clearly that there is no intention of saving any money from the PIP budget. That is grossly irresponsible. It is spiralling ever skyward.

From what we hear, it is highly likely that the two-child limit will be scrapped and abolished. Why? Probably because the Prime Minister, shackled to his Chancellor, is feeling that he is being squeezed halfway out the door of No. 10 and thinks he had better do something to settle the troops on the Back Benches. But that comes with a price tag of £3.5 billion. The only choice that this Chancellor is taking is to fail to get on top of spending and to put up taxes in order to fund ever more welfare.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

The hon. Gentleman said “the Chancellor’s fiscal rules”, so I suspect that it was the Chancellor who introduced those fiscal rules. He gave it away in how he phrased the question.

The point is that when the Chancellor was setting out her economic strategy at the Budget last year, it was on the basis of the fiscal rules: day-to-day spending to be paid for through tax receipts rather than borrowing and debt to be falling as a proportion of GDP, to enable investment in the long-term future of the country. I see that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) is struggling to get his head around why that sense of fiscal reality and credibility is important, but we on the Government side believe that having those fiscal rules is crucial to that fiscal stability, to ensuring that we have that responsible attitude in government and to providing the stability for businesses to invest and grow the economy.

[Alex Ballinger]

My constituents, of course, remember Liz Truss’s devastating mini-Budget, when those rules were not followed. That had a massive impact on not just our public services but the mortgages and cost of living that my constituents are still feeling today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that going back to that irresponsible financial management would be a disaster for this country?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the damage that recklessness in public office can cause families right across the country—not just for one day, but for months and years beyond that. The Conservative party is desperate for us to forget what happened when Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng were in Downing Street. But the British people will not forget, and they have been feeling the impacts for many years.

The Conservative party talks about public spending but its record on public spending is abysmal. It spent years in office with money lining the pockets of dodgy PPE providers as the bill for asylum seekers’ hotels soared. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) just said, no debate on the Conservative record on tax and spend can be complete without mentioning the mini-Budget. Conservative Members are desperate for the British people to forget what happened three years ago and what the Conservative party foisted on the country. They are desperate to forget that their reckless unfunded tax cuts crashed our economy, damaged our international reputation and added hundreds of pounds to families’ mortgage costs. While British homeowners have been living with the consequences of the Conservatives every day, Conservative Members are all too conspicuous in their efforts to sweep their record under the rug.

True leadership is about not ducking the difficult decisions but confronting them head-on with a clear focus on priorities and values. That is what the Chancellor has promised to do in this Budget. As she set out last week, we will secure this country’s future with a Budget for growth led by this Government’s values of fairness and opportunity. We will do not what is politically expedient but what is necessary to protect families from high inflation and high interest rates; to protect and strengthen our public services, rejecting the austerity that Conservative Members seem keen to impose on our country once again; and to ensure that the economy that we leave to future generations is secure, with debt under control.

Our focus on cutting debt is crucial. We inherited a national debt of about 100% of GDP and since the spring the cost of borrowing has risen for Governments around the world. Today one in every £10 of taxpayers’ money in the UK is used to pay the interest on our national debt. That money should be going to our NHS, our schools, our police and our armed forces. Instead, it is going to our creditors. That is not what people pay taxes for.

Finance Bill (Third sitting)

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild]

As we have heard from the Minister, clause 65 increases excise duty on all tobacco products and the minimum excise tax on cigarettes by the duty escalator RPI plus 2%. In addition, the excise duty rate for hand-rolling tobacco increases by an additional 10%. This is a one-off increase in addition to the restated policy of increasing rates in line with RPI plus two percentage points. We are broadly supportive of these measures but I have some questions around purchaser behaviour and its impact on the illicit market and enforcement. In addition to speaking to clause 65, I will also speak to new clause 5, which stands in my name.

Tobacco receipts are expected to be £8.7 billion this year, down by 2.7% on last year. They are forecast to decline by 0.5% a year on average over the rest of the forecast period to £8.5 billion, as declining tobacco consumption offsets increasing duty rates. The tax information and impact note explains that over the four years from 2019 to 2023, the tobacco escalator coincided with a reduction in smoking prevalence from 14.1% to 11.9% of people aged over 18. That is clearly welcome. The Government are bringing forward the Tobacco and Vapes Bill, which the Minister referred to and which includes lots of measures to make vapes less attractive to children and harder to get hold of. There is a lot to be said about that Bill, but fortunately, that is the job of another Committee.

Increasing the price of tobacco clearly comes with the risk of boosting the illicit market. The tax information and impact note suggests that some consumers might engage in cross-border shopping and purchase from the illicit tobacco market. HMRC will monitor and respond to any potential shift. Indeed, the OBR has suggested that the duty rate is beyond the peak of the Laffer curve—the revenue-maximising rate of tax. Can the Minister confirm what measures will form HMRC’s response to any shift in illegal consumption?

There are also questions around the figures. Although HMRC estimates that 10% of cigarettes and 35% of hand-rolling tobacco consumption is from illegal and other non-UK duty paid sources, evidence submitted by the industry believes that is a significant understatement. Its data shows that the consumption of tobacco from non-UK duty paid sources currently accounts for 30% of cigarettes and 54% of hand-rolling tobacco consumption. Has the Minister discussed with HMRC the difference between those figures and the basis on which they have been put together?

The Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association said that the illegal market is not in decline but that, contrary to HMRC’s claims, it is expanding. As well as providing more accurate figures on the scale of the illegal market, it would be useful to know whether the Government have calculated the potential consequences for retailers and law enforcement of an expanding illegal market.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the tobacco market’s estimates are not unbiased? It has form in exaggerating the scale of the illicit tobacco market in the UK.

[James Wild]

The hon. Member has probably seen the same evidence produced by the industry as I have; I do not think that we should dismiss it out of hand. Representatives from the industry do, for example, go around football terraces, pick up the empty packets, see where they came from, and do sampling or take other measures. Of course the industry’s evidence should be challenged and tested, but my point is about whether HMRC has worked with the sector to see if its figures are wrong. If they are, and HMRC’s are perfectly right, we can follow the HMRC figures. I am raising a legitimate concern about the accuracy of the data to make sure that we are all operating from the same page because, as the OBR has pointed out, we may already have reached the peak point where the tax will be doing harm.

The Minister referred to the success of enforcement over the last couple of decades. In March last year, the previous Government set out a new strategy to tackle illicit tobacco. With evidence of a substantial illegal market—and whichever set of figures we take, it is substantial—what steps are the Government taking? Are they taking the previous Government’s strategy forward or will they introduce their own strategy?

The industry has specifically proposed that the Government provide trading standards with full access to the powers granted to HMRC under the Tobacco Products (Traceability and Security Features) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. At present, the legislation allows trading standards to refer cases to HMRC, which will then consider imposing on-the-spot penalties of up to £10,000 on those selling tobacco.

The industry proposed that it would be far more effective for trading standards to apply the penalty at the point of enforcement rather than having to refer the case to HMRC. It also suggested allowing trading standards to keep the receipts from any such penalties to reinvest in its enforcement action—we are all familiar with the pressures that trading standards is facing. Will the Minister say whether the Government have considered those proposals and, if they have not, will he?

I have tabled new clause 5 to ensure there is better understanding of the risk around the illicit market. The Minister respectfully dismissed the need for it, but it would require the Chancellor to, within six months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the impact of the changes introduced by clause 65 of the Bill on the illicit tobacco market. As we have heard, increasing tobacco duty could alter the behaviour of consumers, and we could see greater illicit market share.

Evidence from the industry—which may be contested—shows that non-UK duty paid sources are significant. There is clearly a risk that a further increase to tobacco duty could boost the illicit market, and HMRC needs to act to protect lawful revenues for the taxpayer. We would therefore welcome the Chancellor publishing an assessment of the impact of the changes. As I set out, we will not oppose clause 65, but I look forward to the Minister’s response to my points, particularly on the illicit market.

Finance Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), who gave a wonderful maiden speech. I am sure that her daughter Lillian will look on her as a lovely role model as she moves forward.

Earlier this month, we witnessed an historic moment as the first ever female Chancellor delivered the Government’s Budget—a comprehensive plan that is designed to support working people, rebuild our economy and bring fiscal responsibility back to the heart of Government. The Budget delivered a plan for recovery, a plan to undo the damage left by the previous Government and, most importantly, a plan that will benefit the people of Halesowen and the wider community.

However, let us be clear: this Government inherited a dire financial situation. [Interruption.] It is true. The Chancellor exposed a £22 billion black hole that was left by the previous Government, and a series of undeliverable promises that the Conservatives knew they would never have to keep. The last Government knew that they had no money to deliver their agenda, yet they concealed the truth from the British people, leaving the incoming Government to pick up the pieces. The Budget was about sorting this out, and we are committed to doing just that.

Our economy faces multiple challenges, including high debt, underfunded public services and rising youth unemployment, but the true cost of the past 14 years is felt most acutely by the people who have been left behind. In Halesowen I hear from residents every day: people who have been waiting weeks for a doctor’s appointment; people who are forced to travel miles to receive healthcare; and people who are completely unable to access their NHS dentist. Fourteen years of cuts have left our NHS in crisis, and no matter someone’s political affiliation, no one can deny the challenges our health service faces.

But it is not just in healthcare. Our schools, roads, railways—all of this infrastructure—has suffered from years of under-investment. Our public services are falling apart.

[Graham Stuart]

It is tempting for Members to read out the rote stuff that is given to them—as some of the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues have been prepared to do, but are mostly not prepared to do today—but I just gently point out that there was never a reduction in NHS spending; in real terms it went up in every single year. If there is a belief that the NHS can be magically turned around by having above-inflation increases in spending alone, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not true, because we did it every year and we still had demand going beyond the resource.

[Alex Ballinger]

The right hon. Gentleman will have noticed that we reached record NHS waiting lists under the last Government, more than 7 million people waiting and many of my constituents waiting over two years. If he thinks the investment in the NHS by the last Government was enough, he is completely wrong.

Our roads are literally crumbling, working families are struggling and the hope of upward mobility is slipping further out of reach. We cannot let this continue. The Government are faced with what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has described as a genuinely difficult inheritance. The truth is that the last 14 years can be described as, at best, a period of managed decline; or at worst, wilful neglect. The last Government will be characterised as an Administration that allowed services to erode and future generations to be abandoned.

We must take a different approach and offer real change. We are not pretending that the work ahead will be easy, but we are determined to rebuild and restore. A key part of this recovery is investing in our most vital public services, especially the NHS, which cannot survive on good will alone. The Budget commits to injecting much-needed funds into our healthcare system, securing a lifeline for the NHS that will allow it to begin this recovery.

The Budget is also about presenting an offer to working people who have been neglected for so many years, including a rise in the minimum wage to boost the living standards of 3 million low-paid workers; NHS funding to support 2 million more operations, scans and appointments every year; fuel duty frozen for another year, providing relief to drivers and families; a £500 million investment to fund the construction of 5,000 more social homes; a significant increase in the carer’s allowance earnings limit, because those who care for our loved ones deserve our support; and a crackdown on tax avoidance, fraud and waste, ensuring that the super-wealthy pay their fair share of tax.

The decisions in the Budget, though some are difficult in the short term, are the right ones for the long-term good of our country. This is a Finance Bill that prioritises public services and working people without raising taxes on the majority. It is about restoring fairness, rebuilding trust and setting the country on a new path towards growth. It is also important to remember that fiscal responsibility is central to this Government’s approach. The IFS has praised the soundness of our fiscal rules, ensuring that our efforts to drive growth are sustainable and the public finances remain on a stable footing. Changing the fiscal rule to allow more investment is both sensible and necessary, and this investment will boost long-term growth.

The Bill is not just about recovery; it is about securing a prosperous future. Businesses in Halesowen have been struggling, especially on our high streets, where many have been forced to close their doors in recent years. I have heard the concerns of small business owners and the concerns shared by the Black Country chamber of commerce, and I am pleased that the Chancellor’s plans include support for high street businesses, including business rates reform, which will give local shops the chance to compete against tax-avoiding multinationals.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech highlighting a whole series of important points. I just wondered whether he was going to come to the cut in beer duty. I know there are a number of famous brewers in his area and this is an important measure for many brewing towns—[Interruption.] This is an important point for many brewing towns and many small, related businesses in that sector. I have a number of SMEs in my own constituency that will benefit from this, as well as pubs. Does my hon. Friend welcome this measure, as well as the important measures he has mentioned for small businesses in town centres?

[Alex Ballinger]

I welcome the 1p reduction in tax on beer. I have spoken to many businesses in my constituency’s hospitality sector, including many pubs, that are happy with this measure, which they hope will increase the footfall in our town centres and in their businesses.

I am also delighted that the Budget confirmed £20 million of investment in the redevelopment of Haden Hill leisure centre in Cradley Heath in my constituency, and £20 million of investment in Halesowen town centre, to redevelop what is becoming a difficult area.

The Bill will ensure that local assets that serve the community are protected and enhanced. It marks a turning point for our country, laying the groundwork for a better future. It is a plan that protects our public services, supports working people and puts the economy on a sustainable path. I fully support this Bill for Halesowen and beyond. It delivers hope, invests in communities and fixes the foundations of the economy, so that we can deliver the change for which the country voted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Simons]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. To be specific about the benefits that will accrue, there are 500 families in my constituency who for decades have watched the Government take out of their pension scheme and refuse to rectify the ongoing justice. We all know what Conservative Members think of miners. By ensuring that they get a 32% increase in their pension we are not only putting money directly into the pockets of the working people who built this nation but signalling our respect for an industry and profession that made this country’s wealth.

The second smaller, subtler, sometimes missed thing that demonstrates the values that lie behind the measures that the Finance Bill will pay for is the £44 million funding increase for kinship and foster carers. My council in Wigan is a pioneer in the provision of adult social care and care for children. It has blazed the way in ensuring that it works with third sector organisations and maintains the budget to fund its own care provision publicly. Now it is backed by a Government who care about what carers do. As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire has argued, the flipside of a high-productivity and high-technology economy is caring. Caring is the most human thing that we will do more and more of as we build a higher-tech and higher-productivity economy. The Government’s £44 million increase will ensure that caring is properly funded in this country.

[Alex Ballinger]

I thank my hon. Friend for mentioning carers. I was also really pleased to see in the Budget an increase in the carer’s allowance eligibility limit to £196 a week, which will allow many carers to work longer and earn more money before their allowance is withdrawn. Does he welcome that commitment, which shows the real commitment of the Labour Government to supporting carers?

[Josh Simons]

Not only do I agree with my hon. Friend’s point about the carer’s allowance, which will benefit 8,000 people in my region of the north-west, the increase demonstrates a wider point about respecting those who provide care in our society and economy. For too long, we have thought the profession to be unskilled, and have undervalued it as a path of work. In several of the measures that the Finance Bill will pay for, the Government have demonstrated that caring is a vital part of the economy that we wish to build. I have said this before, and will say it again: higher productivity and more technology mean more care. We must respect and value that most human of professions if we are to build an economy in which we all want to live in the future.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Alex Ballinger Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to have heard the beautiful maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), whose father must be really proud.

It is excellent to hear the details of the Bill, but Russia’s continued assault on Ukraine is absolutely terrifying. We must not buy into a narrative of peace on Russia’s terms; that would be tantamount to appeasement. A sovereign, democratic country ceding territory to an aggressive imperial country basically takes us back to world war two—an idea that I find absolutely terrifying. It would completely embolden Putin, and eastern Europe and the Baltic would be next on his target list.

It is completely right to say that defence of the UK starts in Ukraine. We are doing everything we can to support Ukraine. It was great to hear about the 50,000 Ukrainian troops who have been trained by the UK through Operation Interflex, and I am glad that that policy is being extended. It is excellent to hear about the military support that we are providing to Ukraine, including the Storm Shadow missiles that we are hearing about in the media at the moment. I trained on those weapons, and I hope that they can help to take the fight to the Russians. It is also excellent to hear that we are providing financial support of £12.8 billion, as well as an additional £2.26 billion from interest on seized Russian assets.

Unfortunately, 1,000 days since the invasion of Ukraine, the Russian economy is, despite sanctions, doing better than many of us expected at the start of the conflict. However, the Russians do face challenges, including the highest casualty rate since the conflict began, higher interest rates, and now a labour shortage in the Russian economy. We must sustain our support for Ukraine and increase the pressure on Russia, which cannot be allowed to succeed.

The Bill is an important step in sustaining our support for Ukraine. The £2.26 billion will help Ukraine to invest in air defence, artillery and other military equipment. I fully support the Bill, but I have a couple of questions for the Minister. What more can be done to seize frozen Russian assets? I think in particular of the £2.25 billion from the sale of Chelsea football club, and other assets that must be held in the City of London. We must use everything in our arsenal, and I would like the UK Government to do more to seize and use such assets, rather than using just the interest, as we are committed to doing at the moment. Will she confirm whether this is a non-recourse or recourse loan? It is important that, if the interest from Russian assets is not what we expect it to be, there is no expectation on the Ukrainians, given all the difficulties that they are facing, to repay the bill.