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.