Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

I was not sure what the hon. Member was referring to when he said there was a “shambolic, chaotic furore”, but it was probably his own party, which would not be able to run anything in any brewery, let alone a whole country.

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

The Minister says that it is the job of MPs to help publicans and hospitality businesses understand the system. I gently say to him that they do understand it. Their frustration comes not from not understanding the help that is available, but from the system they are working in. Several things can be true at once. It is true that there is a permanently lower rate and that there is a £4 billion package to soften the blow for those with increased business rates, but it is also true that, when that goes away, breweries such as Titanic Brewery in Stoke-on-Trent will have an overall business rates increase of 130%, with some of its venues seeing a 400% increase. Can the Minister set out what specific support they can look forward to in the next three years, or can he give them clarity on what they need to budget for, because as a result of these changes some pubs around the country will close, and we need to avoid that?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend that we need to avoid the situation we saw for 14 years, when 7,000 pubs closed under the Conservatives, with about 4,000 closing in the first five years when the Lib Dems were in coalition with them. This Government will do all we can to support pubs, hospitality businesses and our high streets, which is why we set out a really strong set of proposals at the Budget, as he mentioned, including £4.3 billion of support.

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.

Clause 1

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I wish to speak to new clauses 13 to 15, which are in my name, but first I will cover what the clauses in this group mean for British taxpayers. If you will forgive me, Madam Chair, I will do so slightly out of numerical order. Clause 9 sets the starting rate limit for savings for tax years 2026-27 to 2030-31, keeping it fixed at £5,000. That is an important allowance for so many with relatively low incomes, including those who work part-time or are retired. Clause 69 fixes the various inheritance tax thresholds at their current level for a further tax year, 2030-31. Clause 10 freezes the basic rate limit for income tax at £37,700, and sets the personal allowance at £12,570 for tax years 2028-29, 2029-30, and 2030-31.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Labour Government’s freeze to income tax thresholds will raise around £7.6 billion in 2029-30 alone, and more than £12 billion in 2030-31. This is a £23 billion tax rise; clause 10 alone is a £23 billion broken promise. The OBR is clear: 920,000 more people will be pushed into the higher rate, and 780,000 more people will be pushed into income tax altogether. We have already heard the Minister try to explain away Labour’s breach of the promises that it made to the British people. The best the Chancellor can manage is to say that it is not her fault, because she was very clear in the small print—a technicality dressed up as an excuse. But people are not stupid. It would not be quite so embarrassing if the Chancellor herself had not proclaimed so theatrically in her first disastrous Budget that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. Yet here we are, and it is no surprise that the Prime Minister is breaking records for unpopularity. New clause 13 would ensure that the Government undertook an assessment of the impact of clause 10 on the average earner, because we all know that working people will be hurt very badly by this clause.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Gareth Davies]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope he will not ask me why we froze the threshold, because he will know that we did so under tremendous pressure, given the covid pandemic and the debt that we accrued in the economy. We are in a very different scenario now. I am sure that is not what he is going to ask.

[Gareth Snell]

No, that was not what I was going to ask, but I am glad that the hon. Gentleman got to the “It was all covid’s fault” argument so early in the debate. I was going to ask whether he has an in-principle objection to freezing the rate, or whether he objects to it because he thinks it is somehow a breach of the Labour party manifesto. Those two things are different. I would be genuinely interested to know whether he has no issue with the rate being frozen, and more people paying tax as they earn more money, and whether this is about the party politics of previous manifesto commitments.

[Gareth Davies]

I understand the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but as the spokesperson for the official Opposition, I speak on behalf of millions of people who were told that this would not happen, and who voted for a party that told them that it would not be increasing taxes on working people. The Chancellor repeated that claim at the Dispatch Box just a year ago, but then went back on it, which is unacceptable. Whether I agree with it does not matter; we have to represent the millions of people who were frankly let down and misled by this Government. That is our job—to hold the Government to account for breaking that promise, and for where the money is going. I ask the Government: what is this about? Is it about giving up sovereignty—giving up the Chagos islands—or paying off public sector unions, only for them to go on strike once again? There are two issues here. First, the public were told that this would not happen. Secondly, now that it is happening, the Labour party—the Government—is spending that money recklessly. That is unacceptable, and it is the job of the official Opposition to hold the Government to account.

Finally, there is an elephant in the room. From April 2026, the state pension rises by 4.8%. The new state pension will sit below the personal allowance next year, but that changes in 2027-28, when, for the first time, people whose only income is the state pension will be dragged into paying income tax. The Chancellor, when challenged on this after the Budget, said that she will protect pensioners from paying small amounts of tax, and the Minister just repeated that. Fine, but where is it? It is not in the Bill. It is not in clause 10, or anywhere in the 535 pages of the Bill. As far as I can see, it has not even been costed. I have two straightforward questions for the Minister: what is the Treasury’s assessed cost of that promise, and how will it be delivered in practice?

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.

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

You are quite right, Madam Deputy Speaker; I meant to say the right hon. Member for Islington North and Liz Truss. The Chancellor is not so much the wilting lettuce as a complete liability. How could this possibly have occurred? We have a Government who came to power with one of the largest majorities in the history of our country. One could almost see their majority from the moon. This has happened because of a huge failure on their part.

Let us take unemployment. Unemployment is now at a five-year high, back at a level last seen during the pandemic. The latest forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility show unemployment higher in every single year than in the forecasts from back in the spring. The International Monetary Fund tells us that inflation will be at the highest level of the G7 this year and next year too. Looking beneath the headline figures, the rate of inflation for food is at almost 5%. For a party that claims and professes to stand up for the poorest in our society, that is a disgrace.

When it comes to growth, we know from the OBR’s latest forecasts that, for every year going forward, growth will be lower than the spring forecast set out. Our borrowing costs not so long ago reached a 27-year high, and we are now paying more on our borrowing than Greece.

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

I congratulate the shadow Chancellor on finally working out what apologies are; I know he is demanding them from this side of the House. Before he carries on, will he apologise for the 15% spike in interest rates under Liz Truss, the thousands of pounds that were put on mortgages under Liz Truss, the billions that were cut from local governments under his Government and the fact that he ruined the health service under his Government? If people make mistakes they should apologise. When is he going to start?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I have had many things to say about the mini-Budget, both at the time that it happened and subsequently—and more recently too. Can I remind the hon. Gentleman that on the day of the general election, we had a near record level of employment and a near record low level of unemployment? We had the highest growth in the G7, and we had inflation bang on target at 2%. It is almost double that at present. The reason this Government have failed can be distilled to just two words: one is “deceit” and the other is “incompetence”. In the run-up to the last general election, the Labour party said that it would not put up taxes left, right and centre, and yet, within a few short months, they were to roll out £40 billion-worth of tax increases, including £25 billion by way of increased national insurance contribution taxes on employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right.

There is another change to the inheritance tax regime that will be equally as destructive as the agricultural property relief changes, and that is the business property relief changes—the tax changes relating to family firms up and down the country. I have met many of them. These are sometimes substantial businesses that have gone from having a bright outlook under the last Government to suddenly being concerned about the provisions they will now have to make to avoid being broken up as a consequence of the ruinous changes to the inheritance tax regime for those businesses. This is destroying investment, jobs and growth. That is the story of the Labour party.

[Gareth Snell]

On the right hon. Gentleman’s new-found concern for pensioners in poverty, the one time that the triple lock was suspended was under the Conservatives in 2021. I believe that he is on record as saying that it was unsustainable and should be replaced with a double lock. Is that still his position or does he support the triple lock?

[Sir Mel Stride]

I invite the hon. Gentleman to look back a bit further in time, before the triple lock was introduced by the Government of my party, to the time when his party was last in office. Under the last Labour Government, pensioner poverty was the fourth highest in Europe. That is why we brought in the triple lock—to clear up the mess that his party had created.

Labour also said, during the run-up to the general election, that unlike all socialist Governments in the past, it would not borrow and spend massively, yet the plan set out in its first Budget last autumn was to spend around half a trillion pounds more across the Parliament than under the plans it inherited. That was added to further in the recent Budget. Billions of pounds more are to be borrowed and spent. The consequences of that are that inflation has been stickier and higher for longer, as I have set out. It will be the highest in the G7 this year and the highest in the G7 next year. The consequences of that are that the Bank of England has had to keep interest rates higher for longer than it otherwise would have. The consequences of that—[Interruption.] Yes, there should have been more reductions—if the Government had not fuelled inflation, we would have seen interest rates coming down faster.

The reality is that increased borrowing costs have heaped pressure on people with mortgages and on businesses, and have added to the cost of servicing the huge national debt, to which the Government are readily further adding such that we are now spending £100 billion a year just to service our national debt, and that will rise to £140 billion, according to the latest Office for Budget Responsibility forecast. That is more than double what we spend on defence. If debt servicing were a Department, it would be the third largest in Whitehall, but not one looking after public services or providing the additional teachers, which, apparently the Prime Minister does not realise are not there. This is money being spent simply on paying for the profligacy of the Labour party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

May I give the hon. Member a basic lesson in economics? In 2010, when my party came into office, we inherited a deficit at over 10% of GDP—as any economist will say, that is the amount of money being added to the debt every single year. It was over 10% on the watch of the Labour party, and that is the story of increased debt.

The debt pile as a percentage of GDP was coming down just before covid. Along with just about everybody else in the political firmament at the time of covid, the Labour party urged us to spend ever more to support the economy and to support jobs. That is precisely what we did, and of course that came with a fiscal cost.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Sir Mel Stride]

Three times might be a bit too much—we will come back to the hon. Gentleman later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

I think the less said about the socks the better, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Gareth Snell]

They’re more interesting than your speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this Opposition day debate. I would say that it is the first time I have spoken in a while, but I did so about two hours ago. [Interruption.] I am already getting heckled.

I thank both my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the shadow Chancellor for their different but equally engaging styles of beginning a debate. I was a little disappointed the shadow Chancellor did not give me any Shakespeare quotes, but he did refer to Dickens at the end.

[Gareth Snell]

On Dickens, whom the shadow Chancellor mentioned, Mr Bumble, a minor parish official, was described as having

“a great idea of his oratorical powers and his importance”.

Does that suggest to my hon. Friend anyone in the Chamber?

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend, but I must disagree with him, because my next point was to say, in all sincerity, that I am a little bit disappointed with the Opposition motion, which I feel is particularly targeted at an individual. I recognise that the motion is about the Chancellor’s position and does not name her, so there is an attempt to talk about the role that she holds, rather than the individual. However, I just do not like the way that the motion singles out a particular person. I think it could have been worded in a way that made it more about the Budget process—but that is my view. I say that because I feel very strongly about the importance of political debate, but as I hope the Opposition have seen, I always try to avoid political attacks on individuals, and to be honest, the motion makes me feel uneasy.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

I thank the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray), for his earlier remarks, which framed today’s debate rather well. As he set out, we have here an Opposition day debate, a chance for Members to really interrogate Government policy, to challenge our decisions, to say what they would do differently and to paint a picture of the kind of country that they would build if they were in charge. Oh, what a sight it would be! In short, an Opposition day debate is a chance to be a serious Opposition, but as my right hon. Friend set out in his opening remarks, they have not chosen to do that, instead preferring to rehash their already discredited complaints about process, which we have already addressed extensively, rather than talk about the Budget.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am going to make some progress, if that is okay, because my hon. Friend will know that many other Members have not yet spoken and I might give way to them later.

It is worth recounting just how many times Conservative Members have chosen in the last few days to major on process rather than policy. They are very interested in what was said by whom and on what day, so let us recount it. On Wednesday 26 November, the Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Budget, raised process multiple times, introducing to Hansard the somewhat intriguing phrase “fiscal fandango”. No, me neither! Admittedly, this was immediately after the OBR had dumped the Budget just before the Chancellor stood up, so that is fair.

But then the Tory process paso doble—two can play at this game—really began. Thank you, everyone! On 27 November, the shadow Chancellor raised process in a Budget debate. On 2 December, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury raised it in a Budget debate. On 3 December, the Leader of the Opposition raised it at Prime Minister’s questions. This was the same day that the Opposition called an urgent question on the resignation of the chair of the OBR, which had coincidentally happened during a statement two days earlier by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the OBR and its forecast. Yesterday, the Opposition Front Bench raised this at Treasury orals, and today we are having an Opposition day debate on the same topic after the Chancellor took questions on it this morning in the Treasury Committee.

All this political dancing has denied the Opposition the chance to scrutinise the Budget. I am not sure how much of it they have read. Let me remind them that the Budget will cut the cost of living, raise pay for those earning the least and invest in our NHS. It meets our fiscal rules and delivers £21.7 billion of headroom. It is a Budget that delivers on the promise of this Government and delivers for the British people. By contrast, the Opposition are stuck in the past, playing the songs of old again and hoping for a new audience.

Regional Growth

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important case for the transport infrastructure that her constituents rely on. The case that she makes for her constituency in Greater London is very similar to those being made for other parts of the country. People need to be able to get to the opportunities that we are creating; those opportunities need to be made available to them. The Government are ensuring that by investing in every nation and region across the United Kingdom, including London. I look forward to further announcements in the spending review that will fulfil the promise of change that she and the Government made to her constituents.

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

I genuinely welcome the significant investment in city regions around our country that the Chief Secretary has been able to announce. Stoke-on-Trent does not have a combined authority, and realistically will not have one for many years to come, but my constituents’ aspirations for significant growth and investment are no different from the aspirations of those in other parts of the west midlands. My constituents would like the reinstatement of the number 40 bus from Mount Pleasant to Hanley, for example, and would like lifts installed at Longton train station, to make it accessible. I have absolute faith that the Chief Secretary is aware of the nuances of the difference between mayoral and non-mayoral areas, but will he give a commitment today that when announcements are made next week in the comprehensive spending review, investment in non-mayoral areas will match investment in mayoral areas? What mechanisms will be used to deliver the money to communities? When there is a fragmented local government base, it is quite easy for this money to stick around in pots and not be spent, because people cannot agree on how to spend it.

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for his constituency. As he says, the announcements today are for areas with combined authority mayors. The Government have said that if other parts of the country can get together and agree to have a combined authority mayor, they will be able to benefit from this type of announcement in the future. As for areas that do not have a mayor, this Labour Government are as committed to the people in those communities as to those in any other community across the country. We have already significantly increased funding through the autumn Budget 2024, including for road maintenance and pot holes, for maintaining a bus fare cap, and to support the extension of bus services, which he alluded to. We will continue to support those communities, and further details will be announced next week in the spending review.

Staffordshire: Cultural Contribution

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss, and a pleasure to see so many of my county neighbours, not least those who border my constituency: my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee), the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner). I say “neighbours” because “everybody needs good neighbours”, as the song from the hit—[Laughter.] Hold on: there is a link. Those words were in fact written by Jackie Trent, who was born in Newcastle-under-Lyme and lived in Stoke-on-Trent. She penned the famous words that were on our television screens for so many of our childhood memories.

That sums up the diversity of cultural and creative activities that we have in Staffordshire. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) pointed out, we have a plethora of things to offer. I will not go into the territory of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on breweries, but I will make special mention of Titanic Brewery, a brewery in Stoke-on-Trent with pubs across the area. It is named, of course, because one of the famous sons of Stoke-on-Trent was the captain of the Titanic. We do not necessarily want to parade that around too much, but it is a link to a historic event. More importantly, the tableware on the Titanic was also made in Stoke-on-Trent, and that has a much better story. The backstamps can still be seen at the Spode Museum in Stoke.

It would be remiss of me not to briefly mention ceramics. We in this House talk a lot about ceramics—well, I certainly do—and they are part of who we are. In many parts of the country, if people go to a high-end restaurant or a big hotel—or if Members go to the Tea Room—and turn over the plate, they will probably see something that was made by artisans in Staffordshire, most likely in Stoke-on-Trent, but also in parts of Staffordshire Moorlands, Stone and Stafford.

Those delicate pieces of tableware, the bricks that we see in our buildings, and the tiles on our roofs—indeed, the tiles in the Central Lobby of this Palace—have all been made from the sweat, toil and tears of Staffordshire artisans. It is those things of beauty, made from dirty clay, that I often think demonstrate the power and the ability that we have in-county.

We are more than a city and a county of ceramics, and we are more than just the sum of our parts and our pottery. As was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford, the well-known author Arnold Bennett very pithily and wittily accounted for parts of public life in north Staffordshire through his books. One of his most famous works is “The Card”, which I saw when it was on at the New Vic in a wonderful adaptation. The fact that it had local people in the cast telling the stories of our history made it special.

One of Arnold Bennett’s other most famous works is “Anna of the Five Towns”, but of course everyone knows that Stoke-on-Trent has six towns. I do not want to mislead the House, but it is potentially true—I believe it to be true, so I am comfortable saying it—that Arnold Bennett’s mother-in-law lived in Fenton and apparently he was not a great fan of his mother-in-law, so when he wrote “Anna of the Five Towns”, he left out one of the towns as a long-lasting snub to her. I would not suggest any of us recreate that—I happen to be quite fond of my future mother-in-law—but those small bits of our history permeate through different literary and cultural activities. Many people around the country will not realise that they come from Staffordshire.

I want to talk about a couple of smaller things that are not ceramics. One of the things that I am most proud of relates to a name not well known to history. There was a gentleman called Oliver Lodge. He was from Penkhull, a beautiful part of my constituency, and he was a physicist. Long before it was publicly accepted, and long before Hertz, he discovered electromagnetic radiation. He was a pioneering physicist and scientist who, through his work in north Staffordshire, was able to identify some of the fundamental energy sources of our universe. Sadly, his name is lost to history in a way that Hertz is not. There is a Lodge Road and an Oliver Road in my constituency, which are of course testament to him. He is another Staffordshire-rooted individual who made a rich contribution to our scientific and cultural understanding.

On the other side, we have Thomas Twyford, who was born in Stoke-on-Trent. His contribution to our public life is somewhat more comical, some might say—he invented the first single-piece ceramic flush toilet, which revolutionised public hygiene in this country. It is a toilet, but it revolutionised the way that people lived their lives and the way they looked after themselves. It was a huge contribution to the reduction of unsanitary conditions in public areas and brought down disease rates. Again, it is something that happened in Staffordshire that changed the world, but sadly is now a bit lost to history.

Finally, not to test the patience of the House too much, I want to make a pitch for what comes next. Our contribution has not ended with the history of the things we have done. It is not about the litany of wonderful collective stories that we will all share about the great things that have happened in our county, but about what is coming next.

I want to highlight the fascinating and brilliant work that the University of Staffordshire is doing around gaming and game design. According to The Independent Games Developers Association it is the No.1 destination in the country for students who want to learn game design. I was told that one in five of those who now work in the industry in the UK are graduates of the University of Staffordshire. It is a huge piece of our creative history becoming our creative future, turning real-life ambition into good quality jobs for people, mainly from my city and my county.

While I know there will be more contributions to this debate, the fact that we have been able to come together in the spirit of comradeship and collegiality two days before Staffordshire Day is a wonderful thing. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford on securing a debate that allows us to talk about the place that we love and call home.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I will have to limit speeches to three minutes, as so many Members have asked to speak.

Bank Resolution (Recapitalisation) Bill [Lords]

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Report stage
Thursday 24th April 2025 Commons Chamber

It is worth remembering, however, that the issues we are considering relate to banks and building societies once they have failed. In such circumstances, the alternative to demutualisation as part of a resolution may be insolvency, which may have far more adverse consequences for members of the mutual, as well as for the wider mutual and banking sector.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

I am afraid I am being urged to wrap up. I remind Members that the Bill is fundamentally about protecting the taxpayer—

[Gareth Snell]

We have Third Reading—it’s fine.

[Emma Reynolds]

We have not come to that yet; my hon. Friend can intervene on Third Reading. [Laughter.]

Taking what I was saying into account, although the Government appreciate the point raised by the sector and by the shadow Minister, we do not believe it is necessary to hardwire in legislation a requirement to update the code of practice on this matter. I understand, however, that the mutual sector feels strongly about this issue, and my officials and I will continue to engage with the sector on it. I commend to the House our position on the new clauses and amendments, which is to resist them.

Family Businesses

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is not as if the Government were not warned about these issues. In its reports, the OBR made it extremely clear that while the headline figure to be raised through the national insurance contribution changes is £25 billion, the net figure will be far less because of the behavioural impacts that necessarily follow when jobs are taxed—one does not need to have spent a decade at the Bank of England to know that. National insurance increases lead to fewer jobs, lower wages and higher prices.

Of course, this Government are piling on the regulation with their Employment Rights Bill. We know that this will increase the risk of employing people at a time when the employment market itself is softening and putting an end to flexible working practices, which not only benefit many businesses but suit many people, particularly younger people and those who are more elderly. Given that, it is astonishing that the Chancellor has launched a tax raid on family businesses.

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

I thank the shadow Chancellor for giving way. Will he spell out the specific rights in the Employment Rights Bill that he and his party believe should not be afforded to working people in this country?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman asks a very fair question. The Bill will create a situation where employers are fearful of taking on new hires because of the consequences that may follow, where trade unions are advantaged in the way the Bill suggests—the trade union paymasters who may, perhaps, support the hon. Gentleman, but who certainly support many of his colleagues—and where the minimum service standards legislation that we brought in will, as I understand it, be overturned. None of those things will be good for jobs, for people searching for employment, for businesses or for the UK economy.

[Gareth Snell]

rose—

[Hon. Members]

Declare an interest!

[Gareth Snell]

I will happily declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker, as a proud member of many trade unions. My declaration is up to date and free for all to see.

I very much enjoyed the shadow Chancellor’s answer to my question, but perhaps I could pose it again, taking a lesson from the leader of his party, and say that he might want to answer it this time. What are the specific rights in the Employment Rights Bill that he and his party oppose? The motion says that the Employment Rights Bill should be stopped. Which rights in the Bill does he oppose working people having?

[Mel Stride]

To paraphrase the leader of the hon. Gentleman’s party, I have already answered his questions. I do note his serial offence of being a member of several trade unions at the moment—it is good of him to disclose that.

The changes to business property relief will see the break-up of many family firms. Of course, the Government will say that it will have an impact only on the wealthiest estates because of the £1 million threshold, but how many of those companies will have the cash available to settle those liabilities? The value of many businesses, of course, lies in their assets. Liquidating those assets to pay those kinds of liabilities, given that the assets are often instrumental to the effective working of the firm, is an absurdity. We also know that the changes will damage businesses’ ability to borrow against assets when there is a sword of Damocles hanging over their head by way of a potential future inheritance tax liability.

Research by CBI Economics for Family Business UK suggests that this policy may not even raise any money. The firms that will be impacted have said that on average, they will invest 17% less in their business as a consequence of this measure; in fact, 15% of those businesses have said they would sell their business altogether.

Of course, the rules will be complex. There will be plenty of red tape and legal advice to be taken from solicitors—real ones. Some people will pay through dividends on which they have already been taxed, so they will be taxed twice. Tax on tax, as we know, is the Labour party way. William Lees-Jones of JW Lees, the long-established family brewery and pub operator in the north-west, has said that the family business tax would

“inevitably reduce future investment in the company.”

Importantly, he goes on to say:

“It would also place our business at a considerable disadvantage to our competitors who tend to be listed or owned by private equity, sometimes overseas.”

So it is that British institutions, which, in some cases, have been in the same family for decades, or even centuries, may end up shutting down or being forced to sell to foreign buyers as a result of this single reckless policy.

High Street Bank Closures

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery]

I agree. I have already mentioned the number of closures; I am not sure whether a post office can act as a back-up, because we have seen closure after closure of post offices, until eventually a number of the constituencies up and down the country have no facilities whatever.

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

The towns of Stoke, Longton and Fenton in my constituency will soon have no banking facilities at all. Link’s assessment of a banking hub is that it considers an hour’s bus journey, and a return cost of almost £5, to be acceptable parameters to say that my constituents can access banks in Hanley. Does my hon. Friend agree that, further to what the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we need not only to roll out banking hubs more quickly, but have the criteria change so that every town in every community can access a banking hub or high street banking facility?

[Ian Lavery]

That was the whole idea of bringing the debate to this Chamber. The issue is the inflexibility of Link and of the Financial Conduct Authority regulations, which means that even the smallest, most minute detail can mean that people are not going to have a banking hub. That really needs changing, for the sake of our communities. It impacts local businesses, which are also at risk of adverse effects as a result of bank closures, with reduced ability to manage their cash flows and, of course, reduced productivity due to time spent away while accessing banking services.

In my constituency, the coastal village of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea was left without a bank in 1999, meaning that for more than 25 years, local people have been forced to travel in order to access banking facilities. That is the point I make to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I want to use Bedlington as an example in my contribution, too. It is Northumberland’s fourth-largest town, and in May this year, it will be left without a bank, following TSB’s decision to close its branch on Front Street West. In recent years, bank branches in Blyth and Ashington, the two largest towns in my constituency, have also closed. While they are both currently served by banking providers, I can only wonder how long that will last.

The case of Bedlington is particularly worrying. It is a proud community with a rich and in many ways unique history. During the flight northwards from William the Conqueror’s army, the body of St Cuthbert is said to have been rested at what is now St Cuthbert’s church. The town and its surrounding areas were once an exclave of County Durham, then it developed into an industrial centre, with its ironworks and multiple coal mines. The loss of heavy industry has left a huge legacy, similar to that in many other post-industrial communities. When passing through that lovely place, Bedlington, people might not understand that unique history, with its traditions and cultures, because it has got a picturesque high street. The town contains pockets of significant deprivation, and the erosion of services in Bedlington makes the lives of those who are struggling ever more difficult.

Following the announcement that the final high street bank would close, my office triggered a review with Link into access to cash. Immediately after that, Link contacted my office to apologise about the fact that a review had not been automatically triggered, as would be the normal process. We were told that the review had been fast-tracked through the initial stages and a visit was arranged by one of the Link community assessment managers.

I met with the community assessment manager in Bedlington prior to the general election, following his assessment, and I could not have felt more positive about his reflections. He was an excellent ambassador for Link and, indeed, a good, intelligent man. He had been up Bedlington’s main street and spoken to the people there long before I arrived. He was gushing in his praise for Bedlington high street, describing it as a handsome high street that was well frequented, with a mixture of local businesses. He was unable, at that stage, to confirm that a banking hub would 100% be recommended, but it was heavily suggested that that would be the preferred solution.

I was absolutely delighted at that because, as I think everybody will agree, there is a great place for banking hubs. They are a good, progressive move forward. It is inflexibility that is the huge problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate. We can see from the number of Members who have intervened to raise concerns about their constituencies that this issue is widely felt across our country, and the issue resonates deeply with our constituents.

It is a priority of this Government to ensure that all citizens have appropriate access to banking across the UK. As hon. Members have alluded to, banking has changed significantly in recent years thanks to digital innovations, and many people can now bank more conveniently, at any time and in any place, without needing to go to a bank in person. In 2017, 40% of UK adults regularly used banking branches, but by 2022 that figure had fallen to 21%, and in the same year nearly nine in 10 adults used online banking or mobile apps, including, notably, 65% of those aged over 75.

However, the Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can benefit from banking services. At the autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor announced funding of more than £500 million in 2025-26 to deliver digital infrastructure upgrades through Project Gigabit and the shared rural network. Those initiatives will drive the roll-out of broadband and 4G connectivity to support access to good internet and to plug connectivity black holes across the UK by 2030. More than 86% of UK premises can now access gigabit-capable broadband, which is a huge leap from July 2019, when coverage was just 8%.

Investing in digital infrastructure will improve access to digital banking services, but I assure hon. Members that the Government also understand the importance of face-to-face banking services in communities and high streets across the country. Many of our constituents are particularly concerned about the availability of cash and access to in-person banking services, so the Government are committed to ensuring that people and businesses across the UK have access to those banking services and that everyone can contribute to economic growth in local areas and thriving local high streets.

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the Minister for that point. His brief reference to access to cash is vital, but the word that was missing was “free”: access to free cash. One of the by-products of the closure of high street banks is that the cashpoints that remain tend to have a transaction fee, and that is particularly the case in the communities that can least afford it. That means that people in some parts of my constituency pay up to £3 simply to withdraw their money. For people who do not have a lot to start with, that is a huge barrier to getting the cash they need.

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the barriers to people accessing cash—not merely the location of banking hubs or facilities, but financial barriers. There may also be transport barriers to people getting to banking hubs in the first place. I hope to address that briefly in the remainder of my remarks.