Fury as John Healy could force 250 betting shops in UK seaside towns to shut
Chancellor John Healey is facing mounting pressure ahead of the October 28 Budget, amid warnings that a proposed increase in gambling taxes could put hundreds of betting shops and thousands of jobs at risk across Britain’s coastal communities.
Industry representatives have cautioned that as many as 244 betting shops and eight casinos in seaside areas could close if the Government raises taxes on gambling machines. The figures, cited by the Betting and Gaming Council (BGC), have prompted concerns about the future of businesses that provide employment, attract regular customers and occupy premises on high streets already struggling with declining footfall.
The warning comes as Healey considers options for raising additional revenue and bringing public finances under control. With borrowing costs placing pressure on the Treasury, ministers face difficult decisions over where to find money without imposing further costs on businesses or households.
A possible increase in Machine Games Duty has emerged as one of the industry’s principal concerns. The tax applies to certain gaming machines, including machines commonly found in betting shops, arcades and other gambling venues. Any change to the rate could affect the operating costs of businesses that rely on machine gaming alongside other services.
For seaside towns, where employment opportunities can be more limited and some high streets have struggled to recover from years of economic pressure, the prospect of closures has triggered a wider debate about the consequences of tax policy.
The industry insists that betting shops are not simply places where customers place wagers. They can also serve as familiar meeting points for regular visitors, while providing jobs and maintaining activity in commercial areas.
However, the Government must balance those arguments against concerns about gambling-related harm, the social costs associated with problem gambling and the need to raise public revenue.
With the Budget approaching, the central question is whether ministers will proceed with changes that could increase the tax burden on gambling operators, and how they would assess the potential consequences for coastal communities.
Nearly 250 betting shops could be affected
According to the BGC figures cited in the original report, Britain’s coastal communities contain approximately 609 betting shops and 20 casinos.
The organisation warns that a tax increase could put 244 betting shops and eight casinos at risk of closure, with an estimated 1,761 jobs potentially lost.
These figures are industry estimates rather than confirmed closures. They describe a possible outcome if the Government introduces the tax increase and businesses respond by shutting locations or reducing their operations. The final impact would depend on the size of any change, the financial position of individual operators and the extent to which additional costs could be absorbed.
Nevertheless, the scale of the warning has attracted attention because of the concentration of betting shops and amusement businesses in some seaside destinations.
John Healey will present his Budget on October 28 (Image: Getty)
Coastal towns often rely on a mixture of tourism, hospitality, retail and seasonal employment. In places where visitors arrive mainly during particular periods of the year, businesses may already face uneven revenues and higher operating costs relative to the income they generate.
A betting shop that closes can also leave a commercial unit vacant. If replacement tenants cannot be found quickly, that vacancy may add to the impression of a high street in decline and reduce activity for neighbouring businesses.
The risk is not confined to the owners of gambling companies. Employees could face redundancy, landlords might lose rental income and nearby shops could lose some of the customers who previously visited the area.
For that reason, industry representatives are urging the Treasury to consider the local consequences of any tax increase rather than focusing exclusively on the additional revenue it might generate.
‘We’re part of their daily lives’
Jack Pugh, a trainee manager at JenningsBet in Christchurch, Dorset, described the role his shop plays in the lives of some regular customers.
“Betting shops are much more than a place to have a bet,” he told The Sun.
He explained that staff members often know regular visitors by name, with some coming in for a conversation, a cup of tea or football discussion as much as for gambling.
His comments illustrate the social dimension that some betting shop employees believe is overlooked when policymakers assess the sector primarily through tax receipts and gambling activity.
For customers who visit frequently, a local shop can become a familiar part of their routine. Staff may recognise regular visitors, remember their preferences and provide a place where people can interact with others.
Pugh warned that coastal communities could struggle to absorb another economic blow if higher taxes forced businesses to close, particularly where the resulting vacancies proved difficult to fill.
His account does not establish that all betting shops perform the same social role, or that closures would inevitably lead to isolation. However, it highlights a consideration that is not easily captured by headline financial figures: the effect that losing a familiar local business can have on people who use it regularly.
The argument also reflects the broader difficulties facing high streets in parts of Britain. Online shopping, changing leisure habits, rising operating costs and shifts in consumer spending have all affected traditional retail locations.
In that environment, any additional tax burden may prompt businesses to reconsider whether every branch remains commercially viable.
The Treasury, however, will need to determine whether the risks identified by the industry justify changing its plans, rather than assuming that the possibility of closures should automatically prevent a tax increase.
Industry warns of jobs and investment losses
Grainne Hurst, chief executive of the Betting and Gaming Council, argued that betting shops, bingo clubs and casinos provide jobs and investment in coastal towns where employment opportunities can be limited.
The organisation’s concern is that a higher tax bill could reduce the profitability of individual venues, particularly those already operating on narrow margins. Operators might respond by cutting costs, delaying investment, reducing staffing or closing branches that no longer meet their financial targets.
More taxes could hit places like Blackpool (Image: Getty)
The precise response would vary between companies. Larger operators may be better placed to absorb additional costs across their businesses, while smaller firms could have less flexibility. Equally, the effects of a tax increase would depend on whether it applied to a narrow category of machines or formed part of a wider restructuring of gambling taxation.
For coastal communities, the potential loss of jobs could have consequences beyond the immediate businesses involved. Workers who lose their positions may have difficulty finding equivalent employment nearby, especially in towns where much of the available work is seasonal, part-time or concentrated in hospitality.
The BGC’s warning therefore presents the Treasury with a difficult calculation. A tax increase could raise revenue from businesses that remain open, but any closures or reductions in activity could affect the eventual yield.
That does not necessarily mean the measure would fail to raise money. Nor does it establish that every threatened job would disappear. It does mean that the Government will need to assess both the intended revenue and the possible economic consequences.
The industry is seeking to make those consequences a central part of the Budget debate before ministers settle on a final policy.
Budget pressure intensifies as October 28 approaches
The dispute comes at a difficult moment for Healey, who must decide how to raise revenue while maintaining confidence in the Government’s wider economic plans.
The Chancellor is due to present the Budget on October 28, with borrowing costs, public spending commitments and limited room for manoeuvre all adding to the pressure. A Reuters poll published on October 15 found that economists expected the Government to rebuild its fiscal headroom to around £15 billion to £16 billion, although the precise amount remained uncertain. <Cite refs={[“turn542888news22”]}/>
That backdrop helps explain why taxes on particular industries are attracting attention. A measure that raises money from gambling operators may appear attractive to a government seeking revenue without increasing taxes on ordinary earnings.
But the outcome depends on the rate chosen and how businesses respond. If a tax rise causes significant closures, reduces investment or shifts customers towards other forms of gambling, the eventual revenue may differ from the Treasury’s original projections.
The betting industry has been making precisely that argument. The BGC has urged Healey to rule out further gambling duty increases, warning that businesses are already under pressure from previous tax changes and rising operating costs.
In a statement published on October 14, the organisation said that more than 600 betting shops had closed since the 2025 Budget and that 10,250 jobs across online and retail gambling had been lost or announced for redundancy. It also said that the number of betting shops in Great Britain had fallen by around 38% since 2015. <Cite refs={[“turn542888search5”]}/>
Those figures provide important context for the latest warning. The possible closures in coastal communities would not necessarily occur in isolation: they would come against a background of structural change in the gambling industry and a long-term reduction in the number of physical betting shops.
However, the industry figures also need to be interpreted carefully. They do not prove that any future tax increase would cause every threatened closure, or that tax policy alone explains the sector’s decline. Changes in consumer behaviour, competition from online gambling and individual business decisions can also affect the viability of high-street premises.
Machine Games Duty at the centre of the dispute
The main concern in the supplied report is a possible increase in Machine Games Duty, or MGD, which applies to qualifying gaming machines.
HM Revenue and Customs’ published rates for the 2026–27 tax year distinguish between different categories of machines. The standard rate for certain machines is 20% of net takings, while machines allowing a maximum cost to play above £5 are subject to a 25% rate. A lower rate applies to qualifying low-stake machines. <Cite refs={[“turn542888search0″,”turn542888search6”]}/>
Industry representatives fear that the Government could increase the relevant rate to 40%. That possibility has prompted warnings that the cost of operating certain machines could rise sharply, putting pressure on venues that depend on their revenue.
The distinction between an existing tax and a proposed increase is important. The current published rates establish the framework businesses are operating under; the mooted increase is not, on the evidence available here, a confirmed Budget decision.
The BGC has cited modelling by EY suggesting that raising Machine Games Duty to 40% could put nearly 1,500 betting shops, up to 34 casinos and around 16,000 jobs at risk nationally. The modelling also suggested that the Treasury could ultimately be £124 million worse off. <Cite refs={[“turn542888search4”]}/>
These are industry-backed projections, not a guarantee of what would happen. The estimate that tax receipts could fall assumes that the negative effects on businesses and employment would outweigh the extra tax collected from operators that remain open. The Government would need to examine the underlying assumptions before deciding how much weight to give the forecast.
Even so, the possibility of an unintended fiscal consequence presents a challenge for the Treasury. If a higher rate generates less revenue than expected, ministers could face pressure to reconsider the policy. If it generates additional revenue without widespread closures, the Government could argue that the measure has achieved its objective.
The final impact would depend on the rate selected, the types of machines covered, exemptions or transitional arrangements and the response of individual operators.
Banks and gambling firms face competing tax arguments
Gambling is not the only sector under scrutiny ahead of the Budget. The supplied report also points to possible changes to the bank surcharge, a separate tax issue that has attracted support from trade unions.
The Trades Union Congress has backed reversing the reduction in the bank profits surcharge introduced under former Conservative Chancellor Jeremy Hunt. The surcharge was reduced from 8% to 3% as part of a wider change to the tax treatment of banks.
TUC general secretary Paul Nowak argued that major banks were generating substantial profits while households faced high borrowing costs. The union said that increasing the surcharge could raise significant additional revenue and called for a higher rate than the previous 8%.
Healey has not ruled out changes to bank taxation, but the Government faces competing arguments about how to balance revenue raising with investment and economic growth. Reuters reported on October 15 that the Chancellor was keeping his options open, while banking representatives warned that higher taxes could affect lending and the UK’s competitiveness. <Cite refs={[“turn542888news23″,”turn542888news25”]}/>
The two tax debates illustrate the same underlying dilemma. Businesses targeted for higher duties argue that extra costs could undermine investment and employment. Supporters of increases argue that profitable industries should contribute more to public finances, particularly when the Government faces pressure to fund public services.
For Healey, the task is to decide which measures can deliver reliable revenue without creating disproportionate economic damage.
What could closures mean for seaside high streets?
If the BGC’s coastal estimate were borne out, the consequences would extend beyond betting operators themselves.
A closed shop can leave an empty unit, reduce the number of businesses attracting regular visitors and create further uncertainty for neighbouring traders. Where commercial property has already remained vacant for long periods, replacing a tenant may take time.
The employment consequences could also be significant for individual workers. Betting shops employ people in customer-facing roles, including trainees, shop assistants and managers. Losing a local workplace can be particularly difficult for someone whose alternative jobs are concentrated in seasonal tourism or hospitality.
But the wider picture is not entirely one-sided. Gambling businesses also operate in a sector where concerns about addiction, financial hardship and the social costs of harmful gambling are important public policy considerations. Taxation is one part of the Government’s approach to regulating the industry, alongside licensing, consumer protection and measures intended to reduce gambling-related harm.
The Government may therefore argue that the impact on employment cannot be the only consideration when setting gambling duties. Ministers must weigh the industry’s economic contribution against the need to protect consumers and ensure that gambling businesses contribute fairly to public finances.
The question is whether a broad increase in machine taxation would achieve those aims effectively, or whether it would impose the heaviest burden on particular businesses and communities without delivering the expected public benefit.
The decision facing Healey
With the Budget approaching, betting operators are urging the Chancellor to provide certainty and rule out further increases before companies make decisions about staffing, investment and the future of individual branches.
For the communities concerned, the immediate fear is that a policy announced in Westminster could accelerate the decline of local businesses and remove jobs from places where alternative employment is limited.
Yet the warning of 244 potential closures and 1,761 jobs at risk should not be reported as though those outcomes have already been confirmed. They remain estimates associated with a possible tax change, and the Government has not, on the information supplied, announced a final decision to raise Machine Games Duty to 40%.
The October 28 Budget will be the key moment for determining whether the Chancellor proceeds with the proposal, adopts a different approach or leaves the current rates unchanged.
Whatever decision he makes, the debate highlights the difficulty of raising revenue in an economy where businesses are already adapting to changing consumer habits and higher costs. For seaside towns, the stakes are particularly visible: betting shops may represent both commercial enterprises and familiar parts of the local high street.
The final question is whether Healey can meet the Treasury’s financial objectives without placing further pressure on coastal employment and already vulnerable town centres. Until the Budget is announced, the threatened closures remain a warning from the industry—not a settled outcome.