Finance (No. 2) Bill

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

For my constituents, the Finance Bill is more than just a legislative process; it is a statement of who we are as a country and what we believe our future to be. I can say with confidence that this is a Finance Bill for places such as Wolverhampton and Willenhall.

I came into politics after years in the classroom. I know the harm that poverty does to our children. I have seen too many young people believe that a successful career is for someone else and not for them, and not addressing poverty ends up costing society far more in the long run. We inherited a country where we have a rise in food banks—more food banks than branches of McDonald’s. There is no single silver bullet to end poverty, and some of the Bill’s measures might not ever make the headlines, but they show the different choices that a Labour Government will make for our communities.

I support the Finance Bill to enable us to lift the two-child benefit cap. Independent analysis estimates that it will lift around 450,000 children out of poverty by the end of this Parliament. The inaccurate attacks from some quarters, painting families in poverty with a broad brush, are disappointing but not surprising. In Wolverhampton North East, I inherited more than a third of children in poverty after housing costs—higher than the UK average. Lifting the two-child cap will benefit more than 4,200 children in Wolverhampton North East. That is the equivalent of 20 primary schools packed full of children. How could I not support that measure? And for those who are still clinging to lazy stereotypes, did you know that 60% of families in poverty are working families? The rest may be families who have lost a parent or where a parent has lost a job, fallen ill or become disabled. So this, along with the expansion of free breakfast clubs for all families and free school meals for children from families on universal credit, ensures that no child is too hungry to learn. Labour values and choices are clear: children need to come first.

I welcome the Chancellor’s response to calls from MPs like me and others to reintroduce libraries in our secondary schools, with an additional £5 million in funding on top of the £10 million for primary schools. I want all children to benefit from social mobility-boosting libraries and reducing inequalities that saw libraries removed disproportionately from poorer areas. This is a Finance Bill that shows that our children matter.

The Bill goes further. It strengthens the dignity of work. The national living wage will rise to £12.71 per hour from April 2026, putting more money directly into people’s pockets. That money is more likely to be spent in our local shops, precincts and high streets. Targeted cost of living measures continue to make a difference: prescription charges frozen, energy bills likely to fall by around £150, train fares frozen for the first time in 30 years, and continued support to ease everyday financial pressures. Alongside no cuts in capital projects, sustained investment in public services, infrastructure and skills, the Bill is set for stronger long-term growth: a long-term plan with undeniable benefits for Wolverhampton and Willenhall and across the UK.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Sureena Brackenridge Excerpts

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

[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.