Finance (No. 2) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am happy to discuss those numbers with the right hon. Member in more detail, either afterwards or I can come in and discuss those points with him, although I did not quite follow all of the maths—[Interruption.] I thank Members on the Conservative Front Bench for their intervention about that.

Increasing taxes on online gaming and betting is another change that we are making in the Budget, with the rate for remote gaming increasing from 21% to 40% from April 2026, and the rate of remote betting increasing from 15% to 25% from April 2027, while choosing to protect in-person betting and horseracing, which plays such an important role in our sporting culture and many local economies.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister will be aware that those rate changes will have a consequential impact on jobs, particularly in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, where thousands of people are employed by gambling companies. The rights and wrongs of gambling aside, there will be an impact on jobs. Is he willing to look at that issue with the industry going forward, so that we can mitigate the damage done to the sector and keep people in Stoke-on-Trent gainfully employed?

[Dan Tomlinson]

My hon. Friend is a strong advocate for his constituents and the businesses based in his part of the world. Those businesses contribute significant revenue to the Exchequer, and this Government are asking them to contribute a bit more in order for us to be able to continue to fund our public services in a sustainable way. I will continue to have conversations with him and others about the impact of the changes that the Government are announcing to this sector and others in the Budget and this Bill.

Alongside the choices I have mentioned, we are also taking action on the loan charge review. That will include accepting all but one of the recommendations of the independent review, and in some places going further than the review suggested. We are creating a new settlement opportunity to support those with outstanding liabilities to resolve their affairs with HMRC. This marks the start of a final opportunity to draw a line under this long-running issue. I sincerely and dearly hope for everyone involved that we will be able to move forward and that this issue can start to be part of people’s pasts, rather than a seemingly never-ending part of their future.

In tandem, we are delivering a package of measures to close in on promoters of marketed tax avoidance and help taxpayers to steer clear of the schemes that they promote. Those measures include a new prohibition on promoting avoidance arrangements that have no realistic prospect of success and new promoter action notices to require businesses to stop providing goods or services to promoters of tax avoidance where they are used in the promotion of avoidance.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

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

[Lucy Rigby]

The tax changes in the Bill disincentivise the most harmful forms of gambling. We have also introduced a statutory levy to pay for the prevention of some of those harms arising in the first place, and of treatment, and my hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister has said that the tax change will disincentive the most harmful form of gambling, but can she cite any evidence that will demonstrate that? I have no problem with taxing a profitable industry to pay for the wonderful policies that we announced for the sector, but the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility states that there will be a drive towards the black market as a result of these taxation changes. That is much more damaging, will raise much less revenue and, ultimately, will be much more damaging to our economy.

[Lucy Rigby]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. NHS figures show that over 40% of gamblers who use online slots, bingo and casino games are considered at risk, compared with less than 15% of those who bet in person on horseracing, so that is an important contrast, and the NHS figures bear that out.

Reform UK’s position on the two-child cap is even more brazen. The party went into the election promising to scrap the two-child limit but has now abandoned that position, and its Members will be traipsing through the Division Lobby with their ideological bedfellows, the Conservatives. Indeed, on any given day it is hard to keep track of who is supposed to be sitting on the Conservative Benches, and who has moved to the Reform Bench.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

For clarity, bet365 is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), but—

[Gareth Snell]

He just read my notes!

[Adam Jogee]

It is one of the largest private sector employers in Newcastle-under-Lyme—that was not in my hon. Friend’s notes. [Laughter.] Can the Minister touch a little bit on the engagement with some of these companies to ensure that the workers, many of whom live in my constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, will not be adversely impacted?

--- Later in debate ---

This is really important. While the Chancellor believes that she is potentially pocketing a cool £1.1 billion from this increase, there is a risk that in reality she will lose out on the tax receipts from up to £6 billion diverted back to the black market. She might think that she is the winner, but in actual fact, under her watch we will all be losers.

[Gareth Snell]

As has already been pointed out by a number of colleagues, my constituency is home to bet365. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) said something about there being no meaningful employment in gambling, but I would say to him that there are thousands of people in my constituency and in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), who put food on the table for their children as a result of the job they do in the industry. There are 109,000 people who go to work in the sector, whether it be in a betting shop, a casino, a bingo hall, or a high-tech company like the one in my constituency. To say that the work is not meaningful makes this sound like an ideological change rather than a taxation change.

[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.

[Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

My constituents know all too well that there are some gambling companies that thrive on making vast profits from addiction, distress and despair, often delivered straight into people’s homes through online platforms and their mobile phones—quietly but devastatingly tearing families apart. That is why I speak today on clauses 83 to 85 and schedule 13.

Remote gaming, including online slots and casino games, is the most addictive and fastest growing part of the gambling industry. Those products are deliberately engineered to keep people playing, spending and losing long after the fun has gone and the harm has begun. In Wolverhampton North East, through my constituency casework, I see the real-world consequences of parents trapped in spiralling debt, children going without the basics and relationships breaking under unbearable strain. The Bill addresses that harm head-on.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I think that makes sense, and I certainly agree with my hon. Friend.

The Government are having to try to put in place solutions to deal with problems that they have created. If Labour MPs were welcome in pubs across the country, they would hear quite how difficult—

[Gareth Snell]

I am!

[James Wild]

I am sure that the hon. Member is welcome, but let us be clear that some are not.

If I go into a pub, I do not think I will find many publicans who think that this Government are pro-pub. We have a Chancellor who said that she did not understand the impact that her Budget, the revaluation and the removal of the discount on business rates would have. That is staggering. Frankly, it shows once again that she does not understand business and was not listening when the sector and many others warned that that was precisely the impact that her policy would have.

The Chancellor is reportedly about to do a U-turn on her business rates raid. She has not come to the House yet to inform us or the sector, but what is being briefed is likely to be wholly inadequate. On the radio this morning we heard Ministers saying that the impact will be limited to pubs, but the hospitality sector, leisure businesses and retail all face huge increases in business rates.

--- Later in debate ---

Of course, we need to sort out genuinely lower business rate bills for hospitality venues, which is what the Chancellor promised she was doing and the Business Secretary apparently thought they were doing, despite the Treasury publishing all the data on the day of the Budget that made it clear that the median rateable value of pubs was going up by a full third, which more than offset the reduction in the business rates multiplier. The Government certainly need to address that, but they can make a start tonight by dropping the plans to increase alcohol duty and, in particular, to increase that duty on draught beer in our high street and community pubs.

[Gareth Snell]

It is a pleasure to follow my county colleagues, the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier). Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire as a county are rich in the heritage of brewing. Burton is a prime example of that, but in Stoke-on-Trent we too have some wonderful small brewers, such as Titanic, which has sadly shared with me the business rate increases that it faces, with a 450% increase in some of its venues.

That is a challenge that those venues have to face, and I hope the Government will look seriously at finding a realistic workable solution. The value of pubs in our communities is not just about the pints that they sell, but about the people they look after, such as the old gent nursing a pint for a couple of hours and being looked after by the bar staff. We lose that at our peril.

I will restrict my comments to the differential between cider rates and beer rates. One of the things that the Treasury has done for many years, including under the Conservative Government, is to keep an unfair differential between the rate of duty applied to cider and that applied to beer. That came in during the coalition Government and I can only presume that it had something to do with the number of Lib Dem seats in the south-west. The point remains, however, that a small beer producer—a small brewery—in the UK will pay more in duty on the pints it produces than a global cider manufacturer, because of the differential points at which the relief comes in.

[Mr Dillon]

Under this Government, we also have the situation whereby champagne in France is taxed at 40% less than sparkling wine is taxed in this country. If we are levelling the playing field, does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Government should also level the playing field for English sparkling wine so that it can compete with champagne?

[Gareth Snell]

There is a danger here of getting into the inevitable jokes about champagne socialism, but I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. He is right: there needs to be fair play. If we even out the taxation across the sector, that means that we can have targeted support in other areas where we know that there should be an unfair advantage for certain things. For instance, as the hon. Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire said, we should encourage and support making greater use of the draught relief for those selling alcohol in a pub.

Currently, 61% of cider producers produce less than five hectolitres of alcohol, which means they get a 100% reduction in the duty they pay. That is why we could increase or level out the rate of alcohol duty on cider and beer producers without impacting the small cider producers in this country. It would only impact the global manufacturers which, frankly, are taking a profit and making, I would argue, a substandard product, or trying to hide a mass-produced product behind a local label, which is often the case.

Under the Government’s proposal, the duty will be £10.39 per litre for cider and £22.58 for beer, and that differential grows every year. Because it is uprated by an inflation percentage, over the past few years the rate between the two in cash terms has just got bigger and bigger. It is a disadvantage to small brewers, who produce good quality beer, that they pay a rate of alcohol duty equivalent to the global cider manufacturers. SIBA estimates that the levelling of that figure could generate £360 million per year. That money could either go towards reducing the rate overall for all levels of duty, or it could further reduce the draught relief so that there is a clear and meaningful differential between those selling alcohol in pubs and those selling it in supermarkets.

There are some brilliant pubs in my constituency, the Greyhound in Hartshill being the one that I frequent the most. It is a community venue, and if it has to pay greater levels of duty on alcohol as a result of this Budget, I am sure it will find a way of doing so, but if there was a way of encouraging more people to go to that pub because the rate of duty on that pint was lower and it was subsidised by the big cider producers selling to the supermarkets, it seems to me that that would be a fair thing to do.

There is also a non-tax measure that the Government could introduce to support small brewers across the country, and it would cost the Government nothing. The market access review is currently sitting on a desk in the Department for Business and Trade, and it would guarantee that small brewers could have access to pubs in their locality to guarantee guest ales. I believe that Scotland already has this mechanism and that it is working well—unless someone can tell me otherwise. If we could replicate that in England and Wales, it would mean that those small independent brewers would have an opportunity to sell more beer in pubs, where a lower rate of duty would be applied to the product. That would help them with their business. It would give publicans an opportunity to increase the range of beers they sell, which would then help to attract more people into those pubs. It would mean that we would have more small independent brewers in this country selling more pints of beer, which supports them as employers and as good companies, such as Titanic in my own city.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I want to speak about the pub and hospitality sector in my constituency in the Scottish Borders, but also more broadly about the impact of these changes on an important industry that is the lifeblood of the Scottish economy. We are debating the hike in alcohol duty, which the Treasury has described merely as “uprating”, but for Scotland this technical change will have a real impact on our iconic industry. It will be a hammer blow to the Scottish whisky industry as well as to the pub and hospitality sector.

The Treasury is hiking these taxes to fill the black hole in its balance sheet, but the Scottish whisky industry is a global brand that not only supports the Scottish economy but is very important to the UK economy, and it is really important that the Treasury and the Government understand the impact that these changes will have on this global brand.

It is important to remember the numbers associated with the Scottish whisky industry. It contributes £7.1 billion to the UK economy. It also supports 41,000 jobs in Scotland, some of them in our most fragile and vulnerable communities in the highlands, in Moray, in the Borders and all over Scotland. The whisky industry has a footprint and an impact. Whether it is the distilleries or the farmers who are growing the crops that go to be distilled, the whisky industry is a key part of the Scottish economy as well as the key part of many local economies, in that it provides local jobs in remote communities and supports local events and, often, local services such as the local school, the village shop and many other key parts of the community.

The Minister and the Chancellor claim that the rise in alcohol duty will boost revenue, but history says something very different. Indeed, the Treasury’s own data says something very different, because when duty was hiked by 10.1% in 2023, spirits revenue did not go up; it actually plummeted. Before colleagues seek to intervene, I appreciate that it was a Conservative Chancellor who made that change, but Scottish Conservative MPs argued strongly for it not to happen. We accepted the representations that the Scottish whisky industry, the Scotch Whisky Association and many of our constituents were making against the tax rise.

The evidence has backed up what the industry was saying. When we put up taxes, the revenue generated actually falls. According to the Scotch Whisky Association, that tax hike actually cost the Treasury £150 million as consumers pull back and stop spending as much as they did. By doubling down, the Labour Government will compound the situation. The Chancellor and this Government are trapped in a doom loop where higher taxes lead to lower sales, which lead to lower tax receipts, which lead to—you guessed it—even higher taxes from elsewhere as they scramble around to try to fill the gap. It is not possible to tax a sector into prosperity.

I want to touch briefly on the impact on our high streets and pubs, because it is not just the distilleries that will suffer as a consequence of this tax hike. From the highlands to the Borders, our hospitality is screaming out for “breathing room” because all it is getting from this Government is a tightening of the noose. The Scottish Government are compounding matters in Scotland with their anti-job policies. Taken with the UK Government’s policies, that is making things even worse.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard]

I thank my hon. Friend for speaking up on this matter. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) feels very strongly about it as well.

We do not really understand why the Government have decided to go with those fixed static thresholds. Everybody recognises that agricultural land values go up and that the cost of living goes up. We would really appreciate it if the Government could explain why they have decided not to index that. We will therefore be pushing new clause 11 to a vote, because we really want to see that fixed.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I will speak to the two new clauses that stand solely in my name, which relate to the impact of the changes to the remote gaming and remote betting duties. I do not intend to relitigate the rights and wrongs of those changes; we have had a number of debates on that subject in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall, and the determination has been settled by Treasury. However, I do think it is important that we consider what I believe are the genuinely unintended consequences of the changes that the Treasury will introduce and how best to mitigate them. To mitigate them, though, we need to understand them, so new clause 8 simply seeks to get an independent assessment of the changes to the remote betting and remote gaming duties on the black market.

I am sure that those of us who have participated in debates around gaming and gambling will accept that there are challenges that we need to address with problem gambling, but that requires people to participate in the regulated sector, where help and support is available for those who find themselves getting into trouble. The more people we push into the black market—where there is no support, no GamCare, no lock-out system—the more people are at risk of harmful activity and being preyed upon by predatory organisations and companies that are outside the UK, do not pay taxes here and are simply not worried about the participants.

The independent study done by EY for the Betting and Gaming Council found that there is a potential for £6 billion-worth of stakes to be diverted into the black market as a result of this change. That is £6 billion of stakes that were going to be made somewhere, but will now go into the black market and will therefore not be subject to any taxation, including any form of potential corporation tax if they are staked outside the UK with one of the companies headquartered elsewhere, or to the remote gaming duty. That is a 140% increase on the potential stakes going into the black market.

It also means thousands and thousands of people—our constituents—who will find themselves in an unregulated part of the gambling and gaming economy, where there is absolutely no help and support for them. The people who run those sites have no interest in the welfare of those individuals whatsoever; they simply want to try to maximise their profits. Every single one of us is no more than two clicks away from an unregulated gaming or gambling site, and we should be open and acknowledge the fact that that money often funds questionable activities overseas, including organised crime and, in some cases, terrorism.

I recognise that the Treasury has, as part of broader changes to the betting and gaming regulations, identified £26 million for the Gambling Commission to try to mitigate some of the worst aspects of those activities, but we simply do not know what impact that will have; the assessment has simply not been done by the Government to determine whether that £26 million is enough. Frankly, every penny that could be spent on helping people in this country to avoid damaging gaming and gambling, and to enjoy regulated gaming and gambling, should be spent.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Have the Government given the hon. Member any idea of when a post-implementation review of this legislation might be done, and therefore when the Treasury can say how much tax has been gathered and how much has been lost as a result of these changes?

[Gareth Snell]

That is an incredibly fair question. The Treasury has been unable to give me an answer, but I hope that the Minister will be able to when he sums up the debate. Regardless of one’s views on gambling, we must ensure that the implementation of new levies does not drive people into the black market, because that is where they are most exposed to risk. If people are to participate in gaming and betting, I would much rather they did so in UK-based, regulated services, where they can get help and support if needed, and where the taxes they pay can go towards funding our public services. It is a fair point, and one on which I hope the Minister will be able to provide an answer.

I wonder whether the Minister could also give some thought to the following point. This taxation has been hypothecated, in the narrative, as being directly to fund the Government’s welcome lifting of the two-child benefit cap, but in reality that is not how taxation works in this country—we do not hypothecate specific taxation lines to pay for specific social policies; instead, the money goes into the Treasury pot, and the Treasury, in its infinite wisdom and benevolence, hands it out to other Departments, which then make their spending commitments.

Now, the Government’s own OBR forecast suggests that, given the behavioural changes expected to take place as a result of the differential rates between the regulated and unregulated sectors, and given the people who will pay tax, the yield from this tax will potentially be down by a third by 2029-30—that means somewhere in the region of £300 million will be lost. If we are making this direct comparison, saying that the levy is needed to fund the welcome change in the two-child benefit cap, can the Minister set out where the additional funding will come from in 2029-30, if the reduction resulting from behavioural change takes place?

Even if the Government are unable to support my new clause 8 tonight, a proper impact assessment would at least allow a better understanding of future challenges relating to the behaviour of consumers and the impact on tax yield.

My new clause 9 seeks a similar impact assessment, but in relation to our friends in Gibraltar. The Minister will be acutely aware that the gaming and gambling sector is a huge part of Gibraltar’s economy—30% of its GDP comes from the sector, and it employs some 3,500 people. The gambling and gaming companies that have a footprint in Gibraltar pay Gibraltar corporation tax as well as any levies paid in the UK. However, because it is a top-line tax, rather than a bottom-line tax, any impact on the profitability of companies based in Gibraltar, or any behavioural changes in the stakes put through those companies, will have an immediate and direct impact on Gibraltar’s revenues.

One third of Gibraltar’s tax receipts come from the sector, so anything we do in this place that has an impact on the sector there—I entirely accept that this is not an intended consequence of the decision—would leave a huge hole in its economy, and that will have to be filled. We are talking about potentially tens of millions of pounds, if not hundreds of millions. Gibraltar is, of course, one of the family of nations that make up Britain, and we have to ensure that, given its strategic importance because of our defence work, we do nothing that makes it less safe as a result of tax changes here.

Of course, the Government of Gibraltar are currently putting through their Parliament the changes to the EU-Gibraltar treaty, which will help with the flow of the gaming sector’s workforce, given the cross-border nature of the workforce. However, Nigel Feetham—the Member of the Gibraltar Parliament who holds the justice, trade and industry brief—has said that what Gibraltar really needs is stability, and not to have “avoidable” decisions from the UK. I know that the Government will resist my new clause, but I ask the Minister to lay out what communications and active engagement he and the Treasury have had with our friends in Gibraltar.

Gibraltar is of strategic importance to us and part of the family of nations that makes up who we are, and decisions that we take in this Finance Bill are having a huge impact on its economy and its ability to fund its public services, which contribute to our overall national defence. While Gibraltar is embedding the new treaty changes, it is important that it has some certainty about its revenue stream.

The media are reporting that the Gibraltarian Government are looking at rapid diversification of their economy to make up the difference, but realistically we do not know what the impact will be on our economy, and they certainly do not know what the impact will be on theirs. The Minister will be acutely aware that as Gibraltar is dependent for 30% of its tax intake from one sector, even a small change here in the UK could have a hugely detrimental impact over there. I hope that he will address the stability that the Gibraltar Parliament has been asking for, and for which Nigel Feetham has rightly been asking in his engagements with the Treasury.

Finally, I had not intended to do so, but I will touch on new clause 10 tabled by the Opposition about CBAM. I have often talked in this place about the importance of our manufacturing industries, and not least the ceramics industry, which falls outside the current proposals for CBAM but will be subject to the emissions trading scheme. There is a perversity about the emissions trading scheme and CBAM in that if we get it wrong, we will just drive up prices for consumers and for producers, while others are importing into our country ceramics produced using cheap Russian gas, which means that their price point is much below what we can produce them here. It also has the distorting effect that our exports become more expensive when they hit the CBAM—particularly for Europe.

Therefore, while we are at a point of global turmoil and gas prices are increasing hugely overnight—the price per therm was 74p last week; it is now somewhere around 160p—there is some work to be done by the Treasury. I asked the Chancellor about that in her statement on Monday; unfortunately, she missed the point about gas-intensive industry and went straight to electric-intensive industry, which is different. When the Government look at how we do CBAM and where we will have free allowances for the ETS, will the Minister bear in mind those small sectors such as ceramics that are crucial to our foundational manufacturing? I am talking not about the tiles, tableware and giftware that I talk about so often, but about the advanced ceramics that we need in this country, which are dependent on a gas price that works and being able to trade across the European border without huge external tariffs being placed on them because of carbon leakage.

Nuclear submarine air filtration systems are ceramic, and the rotor blades that go on small modular reactors made in Derby will require a ceramic powder coating for them to be utilised that will have to cross many borders. There is the potential that we price out British manufacturers as a result of the CBAM and the ETS if we do not have some of those lifelong allowances and we do not think about the interplay of components that travel over borders. Therefore, while I had not intended to speak about the Opposition’s new clause 10, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) made a valid point in terms of ceramics. Even if the Minister will not take the new clause forward—obviously we will not support it, because it is not a Government amendment—the hon. Gentleman’s point is worthy of consideration in a different form.

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

Since the Government announced their tax raid on family farms, they have made numerous false claims about the policy and what it will mean for farmers. Raising the threshold, as the Government propose today, does not fix the fundamental wrongs at the heart of this awful policy. I will speak in favour of amendment 6, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), which would remove those problems altogether by doing away with this pernicious tax.

What are the claims? The Government have claimed that farmers are rich and so can afford to bear the cost of tax increases. To the surprise of nobody who actually works on a farm, that myth is born of a fundamental misunderstanding of how agriculture works. A farm is not simply another asset like a share portfolio where we can sell a little today and buy a little tomorrow. The assets of a farm—primarily its land, its crops or livestock, and its equipment—are huge long-term investments, completely inseparable from the ability to produce whatever it makes. There is often little relationship between the value of the land held by a farmer and the profitability of that farm. That is particularly true at a time when, to sell their produce at all, farmers must abide by a seemingly endless list of regulations, all of which drive up costs and reduce profit margins. Farmers tolerate a rock-bottom level of return on investment that most businesses would never consider.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I am glad about the Minister’s meetings, but while he is at the Dispatch Box, will he give an assurance that there are no future surprises and no significant tax-change announcements planned that will disproportionately affect areas such as Gibraltar as a result of their dependence on certain industries?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will, of course, continue to engage with Ministers in Gibraltar. It would not be appropriate for me to write future Budgets at this Dispatch Box today, but we have made a significant change when it comes to gambling taxation. Rather than make further changes, the Government will monitor the impact of that change. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen for his contributions and representations.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a helpful speech— with not much notice, I understand. She raised the matter of alcohol duty. It is worth pointing out that the uprating in alcohol duty just keeps the revenue in line with inflation. We have seen reductions in alcohol consumption, driven not by the tax staying in line with inflation, but changes in consumers’ consumption habits. I therefore urge the House to reject amendment 101 and new clause 20.