Clause 1

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I have great sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says. He is right that there is a point at which you overtax risk and enterprise, and people stop taking risk and stop being enterprising. The trick in the Treasury is to ensure that the Government can raise enough revenue from a broad base of different taxes to pay for public services. [Interruption.] They need to try to achieve growth, not overtax growth and growth activity. They should incentivise it through other means. I completely agree with him on that point.

I was talking about the increase in tax on dividend income and savings. Together, clauses 4 and 5 will have significant consequences, not just for those who take risks, but for household savers and pensioners, as well as investors in the companies that my right hon. Friend describes. In fact, Hargreaves Lansdown described clause 5 as a “shocking tax rise” for savers. The measures will combine with the Chancellor’s cut to the allowances for individual savings accounts—in the Bill, there is a double whammy tax on savers. It treats saving less like a virtue to be encouraged, and more like a habit to be discouraged. We believe that will have a big impact on savings culture and the financial reality of people across the country. That is why new clause 11 calls for the Chancellor to come to the House to make a statement setting out the impact that the onslaught of this savers’ tax hike will have on all British savers and pensioners.

It is not just savers who are impacted by the Bill. Small and medium-sized businesses are, as we were just discussing, the engine of growth up and down the country, in every constituency. They provide 60% of employment. They will feel the pain from these changes. Indeed, the Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that through clause 4, the Government continue to make investing in your own business one of the least tax-friendly things you can do with your money.

Many entrepreneurs and business owners choose to pay themselves part of their income in the form of dividends. For many years, dividend tax rates have been set below the main rate, not by accident or ideology, but to reflect the fact that dividend income is paid out of profits that have already been taxed through corporation tax. I am afraid that even the largest businesses, never mind small and medium-sized enterprises, are not safe. Literally as soon as the Chancellor announced the changes in clause 4, investment managers were warning that the change completely contradicts the Government’s stated desire to encourage more investors to hold UK equities—many of which, by the way, are pretty good income-paying stocks. International investors come to the UK to buy dividend-yielding stocks, yet these measures will discourage that even further.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the overall thrust of these clauses is to discourage saving and enterprise, and to hit the people who do the right thing, all to fund more welfare spending? That is not a recipe for growth, is it?

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend touches on an important point. What is this for? People know that they have to pay tax. We may disagree on who pays tax and how much, but ultimately, where is the money going? It is going to the surrender of the Chagos islands. It is used to pay public sector workers eyewatering sums, only for them go on strike again. The hard bit for the general public is understanding where on earth all the money that is being raised by record tax hikes is actually going. That is what the Minister needs to be held to account for today. No explanation has been made. We are not in covid times; we are not in times of great crisis. This money is being raised because Labour is in trouble and in the pocket of the unions. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention.

New clause 10 includes further assessments specifically on domestic equity markets and institutional investors. This will have a negative drag effect on the international climate as it relates to getting more investment in UK equities from institutional investors.

Finally, clauses 6 to 8 and schedules 1 and 2 introduce new rates of income tax altogether, this time on property income. Again, those rates are to be set for the tax year 2027-28 at two percentage points higher than the main rate of income tax. Government Members may take great satisfaction in what could be described as a war on landlords, but we should pause and remind ourselves who many landlords are. They are not barons or vast landowners; they are ordinary people doing what we have encouraged them to do for decades: taking responsibility for their future. They are the couple—one parent works long hours in a steady job, and the other juggles work and family life—who save carefully and invest in a small property because they know that the state pension alone might not be enough when they retire. They are the retired couple who inherit a modest flat from their parents—a flat that is not a windfall, but a source of security in later life—and who rent it out to supplement a fixed income. These are not people gaming the system, as many Labour Members have tried to suggest in the past, but people responding to it. They are good people. Forty-four of them are Labour MPs.

This new tax does not just hit landlords, though; it hits renters, too. The British Property Federation and the Office for Budgetary Responsibility have both warned that this measure could restrict the supply of private rental properties, adding pressure to an already strained market. The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the National Residential Landlords Association both say that rents will rise faster as a direct result of the Bill. New clause 12 in my name seeks to force the Government not to rely on their stereotypes about landlords, but to assess the impact of their new renters’ tax on both the supply and cost of private rental properties.

In summary, these clauses represent a new front in Labour’s war on the middle class and aspirational households in Grantham and Bourne, Chipping Barnet and across the country. These clauses impose not one, not two but three income tax rises on the British public, totalling more than £5.5 billion. This is not a plan for change; it is a savers’ tax onslaught, carefully phrased, politely worded and deeply felt—the same old Labour.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

Before I speak, I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It is a pleasure to speak in this packed Chamber, and to the millions of people no doubt watching at home.

I will speak to clause 4, but first I wish to thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson). I seem to recall making a slight mistake last year in a debate on the Finance Act 2025 by not speaking to a specific clause. He very graciously saved me, callow youth that I was, and I thank him very much. I certainly remember that today.

Britain faces an affordability crisis, with record numbers unable to afford a decent living standard. On top of that, we face a military crisis; we have to defend our nation as we have not had to for almost a century. As a nation, we are deeply divided between those who can afford decent lives and those who cannot; because of that, we are unable to stand united as one nation to meet this moment and those challenges. That is why today I speak in favour of clause 4. Yes, it is a tax that hits the wealthiest, but it also ensures that we can help grow the economy, and it is easily implementable. I will cover why that is.

People in this country are deeply frustrated and angry about where this nation is. Record numbers of people cannot afford a decent standard of living; just one third feel comfortable with how much they can afford. That is lower than in the financial crisis, and lower than during austerity—it is the lowest rate in our lifetime. That is why we see such anger on our streets and screens. We constituency MPs feel it viscerally.

Meanwhile, we have also seen the wealth in this nation grow dramatically. We have seen wealth as a proportion of GDP double since the 1980s, the amount of dividends paid out more than doubling since 2010, and owner-managers able to reduce their tax liability by not drawing their income from earnings. That is why it is right that we rebalance the tax burden between earnings and income earned from elsewhere, and especially income earned from dividends.

Our taxation system has not kept up with how our economy has changed; wealth has become far more important in this nation, but it has not been taxed commensurately. While income tax and national insurance have increased as a share of GDP, the same has not happened for taxes on profits. While the amount of wealth as a proportion of GDP has doubled, the income tax from that wealth has increased by only 30%. The income taxes in this nation are being levied on earners, not those who get their income from wealth. That is why it is entirely right that, through this Budget and this clause, we tax dividends at a greater rate. I will set out how this measure will improve growth and ensure that we hit the richest, and will show that it is easily implementable. We know that it improves growth because, as we have seen in France, dividend taxation stops payments going out of companies, instead ensuring that money stays in and is invested. We know that it hits the wealthiest, because one fifth of those who gain dividends are in the top 1%. We know that it is an easily implementable tax, because we are seeing it implemented in this Bill.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that increasing taxation on dividends will result in more entrepreneurs taking risks, employing people and growing the economy, or fewer?

[Dr Sandher]

I believe it will lead to more investment in this country. I will say this as well: the reason why people across the world invest in this nation and create great companies is because they want the return after tax. If an economy is growing and has more investment, that means more sales and more money in people’s pockets. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s proposition that raising this taxation rate somehow means less entrepreneurship and less investment in our economy.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

rose—

[Dr Sandher]

I believe the hon. Gentleman wants to get in again.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time. Is he seriously saying that increasing the rate of tax on dividends will result in more investment in this country?

[Dr Sandher]

To be clear, we have seen this happen in France, where that is exactly what happened. The incentive then was for payments to go back inside the company rather than being drawn out in dividends. In addition, owner-earners in this nation are currently able to reduce their tax liability by 13% by paying out in dividends. It is a form of income that is effectively earnings, but is not being reported as such. So yes, I would say that that is the case. Not only would I say that is the case, but I would say it is shown by international evidence. I take the theoretical point the hon. Gentleman raises, but in practice, we have seen that raising dividend taxes keeps the money in the company and leads to rising investment rates.

This is the most important Parliament in a century. Like those in this House a century before us, we face deep challenges: like those in this House almost a century ago, we are seeing the far right on our streets because people cannot afford a decent living; like those a century before us, we face a military dictator in Europe who wishes to redraw borders by force; like those a century before us, we in this continent must ensure that we defend ourselves. It was almost a century ago in this House that a Conservative Prime Minister increased taxes on the wealthiest to pay to defend our nation. It was almost a century ago that we taxed the wealthiest to ensure that every single person in this country had a good job. It was almost a century ago that we built a welfare state to ensure that every single person could have a decent living and a stake in this nation.

For our nation to meet this moment, we have to be united; to be united, every single person has to have a stake in this country; to have a stake in this country, people have to see and believe that democracy can deliver for them and that they can earn a decent living. That is why, by taxing the wealthiest on dividends—taxing those who gain their payments from wealth instead of earnings from pay-as-you-earn—clause 4 will help to ensure that we raise the revenue we need to get investment and growth going in a way that is easily implementable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

These stealth taxes were started by the Conservatives and are being continued by Labour. When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we made sure to raise the income tax thresholds, taking people out of paying tax, but it is clear that the two biggest parties continue to drag more people into paying tax. According to the OBR, by 2030, an extra 9.4 million people will be dragged into paying the basic and higher rates of income tax, 1.7 million of whom will be dragged into the system because of this Government’s decisions at the last Budget. By 2031, the stealth taxes introduced by the Conservatives and continued by Labour will cost British taxpayers an eyewatering £67 billion a year, some £13 billion of which is a result of last November’s Budget.

To put that into perspective, in a two-person household, where someone earns £26,000 and someone earns £60,000 a year, over the decade of Conservative and Labour stealth taxes, the lower of those earners will lose the equivalent of an entire year’s pay due to frozen tax thresholds. Wiping out an entire year’s pre-tax salary for a typical earner is devastating for household finances. It is staggering to realise that this decade of frozen thresholds will cost what is broadly a typical two-earner family a staggering £26,800. The OBR says that one in four adults will be a higher rate taxpayer by 2031, up from one in seven in 2022. That represents an additional 5.7 million people, including 920,000 dragged into the higher rate band as a result of the Chancellor’s latest three-year extension.

It is really important that people understand that this is happening. The Liberal Democrats have tabled new clause 3 so that people are notified about how they will be affected by these frozen thresholds. The new clause will require the Chancellor to properly communicate to the people the impact of frozen tax thresholds. One of the most damaging aspects of this tax rise is that it goes unnoticed by so many. Unlike other tax changes, the stealth tax does not show up on people’s payslips and too many people are simply unaware that they are paying more tax because of the Government’s decisions. New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to be transparent with taxpayers and directly write to them, explaining in black and white the impact frozen thresholds will have on their pay cheques.

As many other hon. Members have said, there is huge concern among pensioners about what the measures will mean for them. In a recent meeting with the Chartered Institute of Taxation, it was highlighted to me that is not clear who will qualify for which rate of tax. The way that the system is set up suggests that pensioners who receive the same amount of income but from different sources could end up paying different rates of tax. Many of us like Martin Lewis, but the fact that the Chancellor has done a podcast with him does not mean that the impact of the Government changes has been communicated clearly to every single pensioner. I urge the Minister to adopt our simple new clause 3. The Government have said that they want to make the tax system more transparent, so if Ministers truly want to be honest with people, they should accept this simple amendment and write to the people who are affected by these policies.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

A Budget is the most important set of choices that a Government can make, and introducing clause 10 is a choice by this Government. I oppose clause 10 because it extends the freeze on the personal income tax allowance and the basic rate limit for a further three years, from 2028 to 2031. That means that rates will have been frozen for 10 years.

The choice in this Budget, as in all others, was clear: will spending be controlled or will taxes be raised? For the second year running, this Labour Chancellor chose higher taxes. In 2024, the Chancellor said that to extend this freeze would be to break her manifesto commitment not to raise the level of income tax, but at this Budget, she did it anyway. At the last election, the Government promised growth. They promised not to raise taxes on working people and to fund public services through a stronger economy, but from the moment that they took office, they have done the opposite. Labour have expanded welfare without reform, handed out huge pay deals without productivity gains and piled costs and regulations on to employers. When the inevitable bill came, what did they do? They reached into the taxpayer’s wallet.

These tax rises are a political choice. The consequences of these choices are clear. Taxes on working people are at record highs, growth is sluggish and unemployment has risen consistently since the election. Record numbers are now trapped outside the labour market on benefits, with no requirement and no incentive to seek work at all. Those who do the right thing, who work hard to provide for their families, now face higher tax bills to fund an ever-larger welfare state.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that these tax rises are damaging to our middle earners? The number of people who are being dragged into taxation—essentially, a fiscal drag—will increase from 15% in 2010 to 24% by 2030. Does he agree that that is bad for the economy?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point, which anticipates my next point. Teachers in my constituency have written to me saying that they will be pushed into the higher rate tax bracket by 2030, paying 40% on any extra work that they do—marking exams during the summer, for example—and that doing such work is not worth it any more.

Many pensioners in my constituency, who have worked and saved all their lives, and who have done the right thing, are now set to be punished too. Clause 10 will drag more pensioners with modest private pensions into the tax system. Freezing allowances will mean more pensioners paying tax on their income from savings. Anyone with income from a private pension or income from savings will now face having to fill out a tax return, and that number will grow when clause 10 takes effect. Unlike those in work, pensioners cannot put in more hours or ask for a pay rise. They are victims of this Government’s failure to control public expenditure.

Where is all the extra money that clause 10 will raise going to go? Rises in welfare spending. With the uprating of universal credit, the rise in the amount of people claiming health-related benefits and now the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap, more and more families are finding it less beneficial to work. Clause 10 is perverse. It discourages work and entrenches dependency. Labour says it is all about fairness and compassion, but in truth it is the opposite. The best way to alleviate poverty is through work, and that is exactly what Labour’s Budget seeks to discourage.

There is another choice. Had the Chancellor chosen to control public expenditure, then clause 10 would not be necessary. She could have chosen to make work pay. She could have chosen to reduce our welfare bill, to increase productivity in the public sector, and used savings to reduce debt and protect taxpayers, but she chose not to because when faced with difficult decisions, this Government’s guiding principle is their own survival: surviving the next vote, the next headline and the next rebellion by Labour Back Benchers.

This Government have now U-turned on headline policies 12 times. By the Prime Minister’s own admission, that meets the definition of serial incompetence. The people paying for the price for this incompetence are working people, pensioners, and everyone who has ever worked hard and done the right thing to provide for themselves and their families. It is no wonder that my constituents are so livid with this Government, and that is why I shall oppose clause 10, which is the cornerstone of this Budget for “Benefits Street”.

[Dr Luke Evans]

It is a shame that the hon. Member for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) is not still in the Chamber, because he hit the nail on the head. He asked the question that I am keen to get answered and that is the reason why I have come to this debate. It is about the freezing of the thresholds and what the impacts will be on pensioners. I too am worried about pensioners suddenly being brought in to pay tax and having to do a tax return.

I am glad that the Minister saw the interview with Martin Lewis, because the Chancellor was very clear, so he has to try to answer the questions. When Martin Lewis put this case to the Chancellor, she said:

“If you just have a state pension…we are not going to make you fill in a tax return”

at any time. That is great, but how does that work? What does it look like? Where is that written down? The Chancellor went on to say:

“In this parliament, they won’t have to pay the tax…we’re looking at a simple workaround at the moment.”

That was back in November, so my curiosity was pricked to think, “Maybe it will be in the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee.” Yet, as pointed out by the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), the Bill has 535 pages, and there is no answer. I am pleased to have the opportunity to ask the Minister on behalf of my constituents how he will answer that question.

What is the workaround in play? If it is there, we should like to see it. Is there an impact assessment that goes with it to help us to understand whether people will have to do a tax return? How many people will have to do a tax return? If they will not have to do a tax return, how will we know whether they need to pay the tax? Will it simply be part of PAYE? That is a solution; it could be moved, and adjustments are already made. Will we simply say that it is an easement and write it off?

We then get to the problem of the Chancellor talking about small tax. We have no definition of what small tax looks like. This Government’s definition of it is as close to a definition as their definition of “working people” is, and we all know what the definition of “working people” is under this Government—well, actually, we do not, and that is the problem.

I am here asking the question on behalf of my constituents: what does the workaround look like? How will it take place? How will it affect my constituents? That is why I support new clause 15, which would go at least part of the way to understanding the assessment of this decision taken by the Government, but I appreciate that that is outside of the Bill. If the Government turn around and say that they do not need to do primary legislation—the best protection for my pensioners—the Minister can find another way to do it, but I look forward to hearing what that will look like in statements to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of extending the freeze on income tax thresholds on working people.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

18. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of extending freezes on income tax and national insurance thresholds on working people.

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

The Chancellor was clear at the Budget that we are taking the fair and necessary decisions on tax to do all we can to ensure that the contribution of working people is kept as low as possible. We have reduced the gap between taxes on income from assets and on income from work, stopped the unfairness that meant people could pay less council tax for a £10 million property than for a typical terraced house in much of England, and done much more.

[Dan Tomlinson]

I am a bit confused by that question. The hon. Member said there was one word that was important. Let me give him one figure: £150. That is the amount we are taking off energy bills next year to help people to deal with the cost of living in the here and now. We are supporting people because of the mistakes that previous Governments made by not investing in our energy infrastructure and not investing in our future. We are picking up the pieces after the Conservatives did not take the necessary decisions.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Extending the freeze on income tax thresholds will cost working families £900 a year. It will also drag many pensioners into paying income tax for the first time. Why is the Minister hitting these low-income families to pay more for welfare?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I suggest the hon. Member asks his Front Benchers why 75% of the impact of people paying more tax at the lower end is the result of decisions made by the previous Government, who spent seven years freezing income tax thresholds. It is a bit rich for the Conservatives to talk about this Government doing it for three years when they did it for seven years.

--- Later in debate ---

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

The child poverty strategy published last week sets out the steps that we are taking to support families now, as well as the building blocks that we are putting in place for the long term. We will lift 550,000 children out of poverty by removing the two-child limit and through other measures, including the expansion of free school meals.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

T2.   Unemployment is higher today than it was on the day the Chancellor took office. Will she tell the House why that is the case?

[Rachel Reeves]

Employment is up since we took office, and part of the reason for the disparity between those numbers is the fact that people who were economically inactive are now seeking work. That is exactly what we want, for people to be seeking work and to get back into work, but there are more jobs in the economy today than when we took office.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that while Conservative Members are keen to raise points of history, they seem to be rewriting history when it comes to their last few years in office. He asks an important question about cyber-security. The Government will work with the National Cyber Security Centre and the OBR to take forward the OBR report’s recommendation that a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events be carried out. For the avoidance of doubt, I should reiterate that the report found no evidence of hostile cyber-activity, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that information security and cyber-security are important for all of us across Government. Indeed, that was reflected in the spending review.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

For the first time in its history, the OBR was forced to correct the record about the forecasting process in the run-up to the Budget. Is not the reason that the Chancellor selectively leaked information from the OBR to mislead the public and justify tax rises?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to suggest that the Chancellor in any way misled anyone.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful for your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I can rephrase that: the Chancellor inadvertently misled the public to justify those tax rises.

[James Murray]

The OBR set out in black and white that the productivity downgrade reduced tax receipts by £16 billion, and identified the cause of that downgrade as the previous Government’s record in office, whether their slashing of public investment or their mishandling of Brexit. In her speech on 4 November, the Chancellor was clear that this productivity downgrade, combined with the clear need to increase headroom to build resilience in the public finances, would require everyone to make a contribution. That is what happened at the Budget.

Taxes

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

This will be a very simple speech, because it has only a single fundamental point, which is that honesty in politics matters. That should not be a controversial statement. In debates in this place, we are advocates for a political philosophy, and for certain political tactics, and yes, we should put forward our case as attractively as possible, perhaps using statistics that make our case more effectively than others, but if we downright mislead the public, a line is crossed. That is wrong, because it is taking the public for fools.

In the election of 2024, the Labour party had a manifesto on which every single one of its Members was elected. There was an identified £7 billion that they intended to raise through tax rises, but a core promise at the very heart of the manifesto was that apart from that, there would be no tax rises—in particular, no increases to national insurance contributions, income tax or VAT. That is the very basis of their electoral mandate, and even then, they only managed to secure 34% of the vote. The first breach of those promises came in October last year: the tax rises were for not £7 billion, but £40 billion. That was justified by a wholly fictitious £22 billion black hole, a figure that the Office for Budget Responsibility refused to support, and that the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Financial Times, among others, could not identify.

The Government raised taxes on employers; it was a tax on jobs of fully £25 billion. The IFS said that was a “straightforward breach” of their manifesto. We were told that this was a one-off, and that the Government had “wiped the slate clean”. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s words were that they were

“not coming back with…more taxes”;

they had fixed

“the foundations of our economy”,

and she said, “It’s now on us.” Those are not my words, but the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

The second Budget is in just two weeks’ time, and no global event has blown this Government’s plans off course. There has been no pandemic, and there has been no European invasion sending electricity and energy prices through the roof. If things have changed, it has been as a direct consequence of the political and economic decisions of the Government.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Would my hon. Friend agree that what has actually changed is the inability of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to control their Back Benchers, who now feel free to demand whatever public expenditure they think is convenient?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. The Prime Minister tried—half-heartedly, admittedly—to save £4.5 billion from the welfare budget. He put his Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the ridiculous position of starting a debate arguing for £4.5 billion of savings from long-term disability and health benefits, only for her to end the very same debate advocating for a £300 million increase in those same benefits. The Prime Minister has lost control of his Back Benchers, and he has lost control of his Government’s spending.

We have had no global event, but we do have Government policies that have been economically disastrous. Labour is truly the tax-and-spend party. It has raised the tax burden to the highest in history—certainly since the second world war. As for spend, it raised £40 billion in tax, borrowed a further £30 billion, and increased spending by £70 billion. According to the Government’s own plans, they intend to borrow half a trillion pounds extra during the course of this Parliament. And for what? Has there been reform of public services? No. Public sector productivity has declined. We are getting less for our money—even more so in healthcare, where the decline in productivity is fully 8.3%. What they have done is increase wage inflation. For public sector pay, it is more than 6%, whereas in the private sector, it is a third less.

The Government are coming back for more. They intend, we are told through multiple briefings to newspapers, to breach their core election manifesto pledge and raise taxes, because they cannot reduce spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

During the general election, the Labour party said that it would not increase income tax, national insurance or VAT. It repeated that it would not increase taxes on working people. In its manifesto, it said it would increase spending by only £9.5 billion and that that was to be paid for by £7.3 billion in extra taxes and £3.5 billion in extra borrowing. That was a modest plan with a prudent margin. It was a plan put forward to the electorate to show that the party could be trusted with the public finances. My constituents might be surprised to learn, however, that if they now look on the Labour party website, that manifesto is rather more difficult to find than it was a couple of months ago.

It is fair to say that we Conservatives did not believe them, so we were not entirely surprised when, within weeks of moving into Downing Street, the Chancellor told the country that she would have to raise taxes after all. She had apparently found a magical £22 billion black hole. I say “magical” because nobody other than the Government seemed able to locate it—certainly, the Office for Budget Responsibility could not find it. It was, of course, a fiction to give the Chancellor cover for what she always intended to do, which was a massive increase in taxes, borrowing and spending, because that is what Labour does. Dogs bark, cats miaow and Labour increases taxes, borrowing and debt.

In her first Budget last year, the Chancellor did not raise taxes by the £7.3 billion promised in the manifesto. She increased taxes by £40 billion. She increased borrowing not by the promised £3.5 billion, but by £32 billion. And believe it or not, she did not increase spending by the promised £9.5 billion. She increased it by £72 billion. The Chancellor imposed £40 billion of extra taxes on our economy. She increased employer national insurance, stamp duty and capital gains tax and she imposed extra taxes on family businesses and family farms, then she pretended that none of those were taxes on working people.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the hon. Member acknowledge that debt has risen from £0.5 trillion to £2.9 trillion from 2005 to 2026, forecast to March? That is nearly six times as much, and the great majority of that happened under the Conservatives’ watch. Yes, we can talk about covid, but covid is a very small portion of that—about £0.7 trillion—so what about the rest of it? Is anyone going to take any responsibility for that?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the Liberal Democrats joined a coalition Government in 2010 with the Conservatives. We inherited a deficit of £156 billion in 2010—11% of GDP—and it took 10 years, to 2020, to reduce that steadily to 2% of GDP. For all the moaning and whining from the Labour Benches about austerity, what we were trying to do—as a coalition Government for five years and as a Conservative Government for the remainder—was to live within our means, and that is tough. That is really difficult. It is about improving public services, but without necessarily hosing money at them. We see that most successfully in the field of education. In England we have seen a dramatic increase in reading standards and the standards of examination of English pupils caused by genuine reforms. That compares very favourably with what has happened in Scotland and Wales, where those reforms did not take place. The skill of government is in improving public services without always spending more money. The Liberal Democrats used to have a few Members who were called “Orange Book” Members. It is a shame there are so few of them left.

Who does the Chancellor think she is kidding when she says she has not increased taxes on working people? Try telling the farmers in my constituency that they are not working people, or the young family where both parents work and are saving to pay the stamp duty on their first home. As Labour Members will recall, that first Budget was not well received, so to draw a line under her broken promises, the Chancellor said:

“We’ve now wiped the slate clean. It’s now on us. We’ve put everything out into the open, we’ve set the spending envelope for the course of this Parliament. We don’t need to come back for more.”

Except we know that that is not true. She is coming back for more. She is now set to break that promise again by putting up taxes again.

[Jerome Mayhew]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea why the Chancellor has changed her mind or what it is that has affected her decision? Just a year ago, she said that she did not need to come back for more, but now she says she does. Has there been any great global shock, or does he think the problem lies closer to home?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I would suggest two reasons. First, our economy has slowed down as a result of the very tax increases that the Chancellor has imposed. Secondly, the feral Labour Back Benchers have made them lose their nerve. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor therefore cannot control public expenditure in any way at all. The British people are already paying the highest tax burden in 70 years and Labour wants to increase it further. It is sad to say that this Government have no clue as to how the economy works. I genuinely believe that their Front Benchers want to reduce unemployment, but have they ever considered that if they increase employer national insurance charges and the cost of employing labour, businesses might use less of it? If they pass an Employment Rights Bill that increases the cost of labour, might businesses use less labour? Might that be why unemployment has increased every month since they took office? Is that why unemployment increases under every Labour Government?

Labour is just as ignorant on the effects of taxes and spending. If the Government tax entrepreneurs, there will be less enterprise. If they increase benefits, they should not be surprised if it becomes more attractive to claim them. Unfortunately, Labour’s answer to every question is more spending because, of course, it is what they do best: spending other people’s money. We never hear about its plans to improve efficiency or get better value for the taxpayer because there are no such plans.

Labour’s higher taxes and borrowing are leading to higher unemployment and lower growth. We are in a doom loop created by the Chancellor, and if we are to revitalise our economy, the first step is for the Government to control public expenditure. That is why we have outlined our plans to reduce expenditure by £47 billion. We will reduce welfare spending by £23 billion. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, Reform UK and other high-spending left-wing parties, we would keep the two-child benefit cap. We would reduce the size of the civil service to where it was in 2016, saving £8 billion, and reduce overseas aid by a further £7 billion. We would use those savings to cut both borrowing and taxes to bring about a new spirit of enterprise and confidence in our country.

It is ironic that it is the Conservatives calling today for the Government to stick to their manifesto promise not to increase taxes. The British people will notice if they break that promise for a second time.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the shadow Minister.

[Gareth Davies (Grantham and Bourne) (Con)]

I am grateful to be able to respond to the debate on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition.

Let me start by thanking everybody from both sides of the House for their contributions, but in particular those on my side of the House. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) pointed out the impact of the family farm tax on his farms in Shropshire and that 6,000 farms across the country have closed. The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who is sadly not in his place—probably on the phone to his mother—spoke well about Harlow and his mum. I particularly enjoyed the bromance emerging between him and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer).

My hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) spoke well about the impact of the rise in national insurance contributions on the Gosport employment market. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) said a good quote by Margaret Thatcher. As the MP for Grantham, I particularly appreciated it, but it still rings true today about spending other people’s money wisely.

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) rightly highlighted that not a single Liberal Democrat Back-Bench MP has turned up, which I agree is completely shameful. We did hear from the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who had the temerity to talk about our country’s reputation when it is his leader who is prancing about in a wetsuit falling off paddleboards—slightly ironic. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew), who made a number of important interventions, pointed out that every Labour Member should ask themselves the same question every morning when they wake up, “Who voted for this?” None of them have a mandate for further tax rises, just as they did not have a mandate for last year’s jobs tax increase. They must know this. The proof is right in front of them. Labour has over 400 Members of Parliament and fewer than 10 have shown up. I was going to say that they have come to defend the indefensible, but they have not even done that. None tried to defend the indefensible; we just heard more and more speeches about the past, while their constituents are living in the present.

I think that Labour Members know that the upcoming Budget is surely the beginning of the end. The Government have lost control. Just when the Prime Minister should be focused on fixing their mistakes, he is instead having to oversee co-ordinated briefings against the apparent plots to depose him by his own Health Secretary. It is troubling, to say the least, that the Prime Minister seems more worried about the damage coming from inside his own Cabinet than about the damage already done outside it. The truth is that the Labour party will not be forgiven. Socialism has failed everywhere and every time it has ever been tried.

We should not forget that Labour won the last election because it promised not to be a socialist Labour Government. It said that it would not fiddle with the fiscal rules to borrow more money. It said that it would not increase national insurance, income tax or VAT. It said that it would not pursue ideologically driven policies that would push up energy bills—in fact, it said that it would cut those bills by £300. Unfortunately for the country, this has very much turned out to be a socialist Labour Government after all: higher taxes, fewer jobs, lower confidence, and an economy put into reverse—back to the 1970s. That is felt in every boardroom, every workshop, every pub and every place of work across this country. The best thing that the Government can do right now is take responsibility for their actions and show leadership. After just 16 months of Labour, inflation has doubled, taxes are heading for record highs, borrowing has risen rapidly and unemployment has surged to the highest level since the pandemic. And none of that takes into account what may yet be to come.

We know that the Chancellor deliberately picked the latest time possible for her upcoming Budget, in a last-ditch hope that someone, somewhere might come up with something that makes it all better. The date of 26 November is a highly unusual one for an autumn Budget. The last time we had a Budget this late, phones still had aerials, Mark Morrison was “returning the mack”, and we had to rewind VHS tapes before taking them back to Blockbuster. If only we could rewind the past 16 months; sadly, we cannot.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this very long lead-in period for the Budget has caused enormous uncertainty for businesses, which have faced a string of briefings in the media about every possible tax rise, and that the very date that the Chancellor has chosen for her Budget is itself causing more uncertainty and delaying investment decisions?

[Gareth Davies]

I could not agree more. In fact, markets and investors have now endured week after week of reckless and irresponsible speculation, not about whether Labour will put up their taxes, but about which taxes will go up. The endless uncertainty that my hon. Friend mentions has caused relentless Treasury kite-flying that has damaged confidence. There are so many kites in the air but none of them is tied to an actual plan.

My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) said it well: everyone seems to be looking over their shoulder to see who the Chancellor will come for next. That cannot be what Labour MPs want in the run-up to Christmas. They have a chance tonight to reaffirm the promises that they made to all their constituents. It should be their easiest vote this year. Their core manifesto commitment, which won them the election, is printed in black and white in the motion. To fail to support the motion is to confirm to each and every one of their constituents that Labour is content to betray their trust. Be in no doubt, the country is watching.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of alcohol duty on the UK wine sector.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to colleagues for attending this evening’s debate. A bit of background and heritage: the United Kingdom has long been a global hub for beers, wines and spirits. Dating back to 1698, with the founding of Berry Bros. & Rudd, we are the largest exporter of spirits in the world and the second largest importer of wine by both volume and value. The sector represents some of the very best of British enterprise: from heritage distillers to pioneering new producers who continue to innovate and support our economy. Behind every bottle on the shelf is a small family business, a logistics worker or a hospitality employee whose livelihood depends on the trade.

Each year, the United Kingdom imports the equivalent of 1.7 billion bottles of wine, accounting for 99% of all wine consumed here. This vibrant culture of responsible enjoyment sustains our high streets, supports independent retailers and provides essential income for pubs and restaurants that continue to face difficult trading conditions. In 2024, more than £12 billion was paid to the Treasury in alcohol duty, with wines and spirits contributing £8.5 billion—around 70% of that total. The wider wine and spirits sector generated more than £76 billion in economic activity in 2022, supported £22 billion in gross value added and sustained more than 400,000 jobs.

However, when more than 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is tax, we must ask who is truly being squeezed—the consumer, the publican or the common sense of good economic policy? The reality is that the margins for producers and retailers are tightening. There is a limit to what the British public are willing to pay before they simply choose to stay at home. Changes in duty directly alter prices on the shelf and on restaurant wine lists. Every percentage point of duty may appear small in Whitehall, but for many businesses, it is the difference between survival and closure. Treasury Wine Estates, the producer of brands such as 19 Crimes and Penfolds, has warned that further tax increases will deepen pressure on hospitality. Its managing director of global premium brands, Angus Lilley, stated that higher costs mean tougher choices for local pubs, higher prices for consumers and less money circulating through the hospitality sector, which keeps our towns and cities vibrant.

A recent YouGov poll commissioned by the Wine and Spirit Trade Association found that one in four regular drinkers will buy less alcohol from shops if prices continue to rise, and two in five will reduce their consumption in pubs and restaurants. In my constituency, we have excellent local brewers such as Tilford and Kilnside, and craft distillers such as Hogmoor distillery; I had the pleasure of visiting the team recently and sampling their locally made spirits. Those are small creative producers that bring jobs, pride and flavour to their communities, but they will not survive if the alcohol industry continues to face relentless pressure from Government policy that fails to support its long-term sustainability. If we price people out of the pub, we do not just lose the sale; we lose the cornerstone of British community life.

Turning to the current picture, sales data illustrates the scale of the problem. In the 12 weeks to mid-June this year, volume sales for wine were down by 3% in the off-trade, rising to 5% for spirits. The picture in the on-trade is even more severe, with wine volumes down by 7% and spirits by 8%. Hospitality has been one of the hardest hit sectors of the economy since the Budget, accounting for nearly half of all job losses. We are now taxing our way to lower revenues. That is not sound economics; in fact, it is counterproductive. As one industry voice put it:

“Britain is becoming the most taxed place to raise a glass and the hardest place to sell one”.

Colleagues will recall that in 2023, the UK moved from the inherited EU duty framework to a strength-based system taxing wine by labelled alcohol by volume in 0.1% increments. Alongside that reform, the headline rate increased in August 2023, and it increased by a further 3.65% in February of this year. For a 14.5% ABV wine, that represents a cumulative increase of around 44% in just 18 months.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this debate. On the point about excessive tax inhibiting entrepreneurship, I visited Ned Awty and his family, who run the Oatley vineyard in Cannington in my constituency, and they pointed out that it is perverse that the United Kingdom has a duty relief scheme for small brewers and distillers but no similar scheme for small vineyards. Does my hon. Friend agree that a small duty relief scheme for small producers would help English wine producers—and that we could all raise a glass to that?

[Gregory Stafford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely correct, and he pre-empts something I was going to say later about the inconsistencies and unfairness in the current system. Small producer relief is capped at 8.5% ABV, and the Government should look at what they can do for the smaller producers that he mentions.

The TaxPayers’ Alliance has highlighted that the UK has the third highest wine duty in the world, now at £2.44 per bottle—an increase of 9p since 2023. By comparison, France charges the equivalent of just 2p per bottle and Romania 1p, and Spain applies no excise duty at all. In fact, half of the EU’s 27 member states do not charge duty on wine whatsoever. When neighbouring countries impose far lower rates, our competitiveness suffers. We pride ourselves on being a global trading nation, but we have priced ourselves out of the very markets we helped to create. Labour’s current approach is short-sighted and self-defeating: taxing ambition, throttling innovation and penalising productivity. The Treasury cannot build growth by breaking the back of the very industries that deliver it. As Winston Churchill put it in 1904, we cannot tax our way to prosperity any more than we can drink our way to sobriety.

I turn to the inconsistencies and unfairness in the system, which my hon. Friend just mentioned. Products with an ABV of between 8.5% and 22% are taxed at the same rate per litre of pure alcohol, and yet producers of beer with an ABV of between 3.5% and 8.4% pay more than twice as much duty as producers of cider of the same strength. Small producer relief, although it is welcome in principle, is capped at 8.5% ABV and therefore excludes virtually all winemakers and distillers. This policy fails to support small English wineries such as Chapel Down—in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—Nyetimber or Camel Valley, which I am sure Members are all familiar with, and which contribute to rural employment and agricultural production.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bobby Dean]

I think the hon. Member will find that across the country there will be opposition politicians opposing developments. In Sutton council in my borough, where we are in control, we are outstripping all of London in house building, and I am very proud of that record.

In order to fix the housing crisis, we need sustained wage growth, so that wages come up against the increase in house prices. I do not hear that on offer from the Conservative party today. I am sorry to say that we have a Trussite proposal on the table: an unfunded tax cut that lacks real credibility.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the shadow Chancellor, he would have heard him say that half the £47 billion in savings will come from reducing welfare spend. Another significant proportion will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was back in 2016. The proposal is fully funded, and he does himself no favours by inventing other facts.

[Bobby Dean]

I thank the hon. Member for bringing me on to my next point early. I want to address this proposed £47 billion in public spending cuts. If the Conservatives were to hand over that proposal in its current form to the Office for Budget Responsibility, it would laugh them out of the front door. Those cuts are not credible at all. Over half of that figure is based on welfare cuts—a welfare bill, by the way, that rose on the watch of the Conservative Government, not least because of the defunding of the NHS, which caused people to be in ill health in the first place.

The Conservatives are also talking about reducing the size of the civil service. Can any Member hazard a guess as to why the civil service has grown since 2016? It is because we have in-housed a lot of bureaucracy that we used to outsource to Brussels. One of the primary reasons why the civil service has grown is the number of services that we now have to deliver in this country.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Gentleman has not mentioned covid, which is the largest single contributor to the increase in the size of the state. He also did not mention the £5 billion reduction in welfare spending proposed by the Government; the Conservative party supported that, but the Government just gave in on it. There is plenty of money to be saved.

[Bobby Dean]

When the hon. Gentleman refers to covid, I think he is referring to total debt, which has increased. We are talking specifically about why the civil service has increased in size. A lot of that can be attributed to the new functions that the UK Government have had to take on.

On the welfare budget, yes, the Government struggled to get through their welfare reforms, but so did the previous Conservative Government. That is why the proposal that half of the £47 billion will come from welfare cuts lacks credibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

Yes, I should declare that interest.

This amounts to an economic failure, but also to a social failure. Home ownership gives people stability, autonomy and long-term security. It encourages saving, it strengthens families and it fosters pride and a sense of genuine community in our towns and villages. Abolishing stamp duty will save families thousands of pounds and put the many benefits of home ownership back into reach for the next generation.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my hon. Friend agree that cutting stamp duty will not only benefit young people aspiring to home ownership, but act as an incentive for older people to downsize, freeing up larger family homes and making them available for families that need to increase the size of the house they own?

[Rebecca Paul]

I will make that exact same point later in my speech, and I completely agree that that is a relevant change that will come from this policy.

I clearly see in my constituency the way in which stamp duty chokes and distorts the market as it penalises those who move, creates a disincentive for older people to downsize and deters growing families from upsizing into more suitable family homes. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies has put it, in a crowded field, stamp duty land tax is

“the most economically damaging tax in the UK.”

I cannot disagree with that.

My constituents feel that acutely. Stamp duty is all the more painful in an area where the average house price is now above £490,000. The young families I speak to, who have made the move out of London and settled in towns such as Redhill or Reigate, have been hit with eye-watering up-front costs that made those moves extremely challenging. Many more will have found it impossible. That is why our policy matters.

We intend to strip away one of the fundamental barriers to family life in this country. Eliminating stamp duty will save the average first-time buyer in the south-east around £4,000 and as much as £18,000 in London. Unlike the Labour party, we will not punish those looking to move further up the ladder with frozen thresholds and stealth tax hikes.

I would, of course, be expected to paint a suitably positive view of the proposal, but what do the experts think? Zoopla’s Richard Donnell has rightly said,

“More home moves would support economic growth and the ambition to build more homes.”

The Institute of Economic Affairs went further, calling this

“the single best reform any government could make to Britain’s tax system.”

Indeed, the case seems so strong that one has to wonder why the Government oppose us on this.

The truth is that Labour has always been the party of higher taxes on homes. It reversed the Conservative policy that raised the first-time buyer threshold to £425,000. It is freezing stamp duty thresholds in real terms, dragging more and more people into paying this punitive tax each year. While it talks endlessly about house building, its actions tell a different story. Not only is it on track to miss its self-imposed housing targets, but the Housing Secretary tried to block 237 new homes in his constituency despite promising to “build, baby, build”. By contrast, the Conservatives have delivered 2.8 million homes over the past 14 years, including nearly 750,000 affordable homes, and we pledge to go further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul]

My hon. Friend’s excellent point is pertinent to my constituency as well, which is full of amazing and beautiful green-belt land. We are suffering from what this Government have done on housing targets, which have doubled in Reigate and Banstead while going down in London. That means that we are building more homes, but not for local people and not for the children the hon. Member for Hexham mentioned, who want to stay close to home. It is for people living in London who then move out to Reigate and Banstead.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that in the south-west of England, the Government have reduced the building target for Bristol city council, which has a lot of Labour members, and have instead increased the building target for rural Somerset, where there are few Labour members, by 40%? Does she share my concern that Labour is fiddling the housing targets for political advantage?

[Rebecca Paul]

I thank my hon. Friend for yet another relevant and important point. I urge the Government to think logically about what they are trying to achieve. We all support the ambition to build more homes and recognise the problem that needs to be solved. However, the way we do it is really important, and it is important that we have those homes in the right places and that we set the targets in a logical and meaningful way. With this policy, and others like it, we are offering the public a clear choice between a party that wants to unlock aspiration and reward the hard work of our young people and a party that clings to economically damaging taxes because its own Back Benchers refuse to make even the smallest concessions on out-of-control spending.

We on the Conservative Benches are clear that any significant change to tax policy must be properly costed. The public finances are in a challenging place, and reckless commitments only add to the prevailing sense of uncertainty. That is why it is so important to emphasise that our intention to scrap stamp duty on primary residences is costed, fully funded and fully paid for through our £47 billion savings package. Our plan is clear: it is costed and it is rooted in a belief that home ownership should be within reach of the next generation, just as it was for our own.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

In preparing for this debate, I was thinking about my history when it comes to stamp duty. I recall quite vividly going to see a mortgage broker on Dedworth Road in Windsor—I am not quite sure what year it was; perhaps I was in my late 20s. I had been quite dutifully saving for some years in order to achieve my aspiration, which a lot of young people have, to get a foot on the property ladder. I remember that I dutifully took my payslips and bank statements, and the mortgage broker turned to me and laughed. He said, “Congratulations on saving that, Mr Rankin. You have now saved the stamp duty; we just have to save up for a deposit.” It was a joke, but it was kind of true.

There has been lots of criticism of our record, but one of the things we Conservatives did in office that I was most heartened by was removing first-time buyers from stamp duty. That was incredibly powerful for young people in this country.

I might have to declare an interest that is not just historical. I am a father with a young family—we have two boys under the age of four. Housing is incredibly expensive in my constituency, with the average house costing around £750,000. We are considering a third child, and just like families up and down the country we are discussing what that means. The particular limiting decision for my family, despite us wanting a third child, is housing. We live in a wonderful home in the village of Sunninghill that is probably okay for three babes and tots, but it would not be okay for a growing family. That is the kind of decision that is being made up and down this country.

One of the things that has made me proud this afternoon to sit on the Conservative Benches was listening to some Labour Members, because from some there has been a sneering assumption that stamp duty is a tax for the rich. When I think about myself and many young people in their early 20s trying to put together their stamp duty, I do not think that is a tax cut for the rich. When I think about families trying to get another bedroom in order to grow their families, I do not think that is a tax cut for the rich. That is not going into any of the other dynamic effects at all. I am proud that on the Conservative Benches, we stand up for aspirational people.

If we think about the crowded field of all the taxes we might want to cut, to my mind stamp duty is where we might start. We have heard from many Members who have quoted distinguished economists—much more distinguished than anything I might come out with—but it is clear that stamp duty is one of those taxes that destroys almost as much wealth as it raises. It is anti-growth, anti-ambition and anti-free market, and as I have already articulated, I think it is anti-family. It is a significant part of the reason why this country has such a lethargic housing market.

This is all despite the fact that home ownership is not only key to our prosperity; perhaps even more so, it is important to people’s pride and the security of millions of families around this country. It is the foundation of this great property-owning democracy, but as a nation, we are not in a great state when it comes to housing. For my generation and the generation behind me, home ownership sometimes looks quite impossible. To fix this, our focus must be on supply, supply, supply, but we also need a market that flows freely. Frankly, today’s housing market is gummed up.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), used to be part of the Resolution Foundation—that well-known right-wing think tank—which itself has called for the abolition of stamp duty to free up the housing market in the way my hon. Friend is describing?

[Jack Rankin]

I would say that I hope the hon. Member in question is closer to this Budget, but having listened to some of his other utterances, perhaps most of us on the Conservative Benches would not hope for that. Never mind!

The main criticism we have heard from Government Members, which is a fair criticism, is that of cost. There has been some constructive criticism from Labour Members who have agreed that stamp duty is a bad tax, but have then said that cost is the problem. They should be a little bit self-aware about that, because one of the reasons we are in such a fiscally precarious place is that some of the decisions the Government made in their previous Budget have put us in something of a fiscal doom loop, which we do not seem to have any chance of escaping.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

All of us here want to improve the lives of our constituents, though we often differ in how we might achieve that. As a Conservative, I believe we do so by working with the grain of human nature, by allowing people the maximum amount of liberty to live their lives, by supporting families, by rewarding hard work, rather than penalising it, and by incentivising entrepreneurship and the creation of wealth. As legislators, we do that by keeping the size of the state under control, keeping borrowing low and reducing the burden on taxpayers wherever possible.

It is with regret that I see this current Labour Government increasing taxes, increasing borrowing, increasing the deficit and our national debt, and increasing the interest we pay on that debt. It saddens me that we have a Government whose answer, whatever the question, always seems to be more public expenditure. I am pleased therefore that not only will the Conservative party reduce taxes when we form the next Government, but will scrap one altogether.

Stamp duty is a bad tax. The current stamp duty regime means that anyone seeking to buy their first home or to move house faces an additional burden at one of the most important moments in their lives. By eliminating this tax on main homes, the Conservatives would be removing a financial barrier, which for many first-time buyers or young families makes the difference between owning their first home or not. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) alluded to that in his excellent speech. It would mean the dream of home ownership was made more accessible.

While stamp duty has been around since 1694, the current regime was introduced by Gordon Brown in 2003. When it came into effect, it charged a fixed percentage rate depending on the value of a house—the so-called slab system. It meant that when the price went from £250,000 to £250,001, people faced an enormous increase in the tax paid. The coalition Government, to their credit, reformed the tax so as to remove the tax from those purchasing a property for under £125,000. They eliminated the slabs in the model with a slice model. That made the tax better, but the core problems remain. Stamp duty makes it harder to purchase a house. It dissuades people from upsizing or downsizing, and therefore prevents a host of other economic activities associated with moving house. A vibrant housing market is vital to economic health. When more people buy and move, transactions increase, new homes are built, tradespeople are employed, and local economies benefit. The tax on each move discourages those transactions. People stay put because of the cost of moving, and that can lead to the housing market locking up. Scrapping stamp duty on primary homes will free up the market. That will have benefits not just for buyers and sellers, but for builders, developers, local services, and the whole national economy.

There is a fairness argument, too. Buying a home is one of the largest investments that most people will ever make, and to tax that moment seems not just counterintuitive but perverse. Removing the tax on a main residence signals a commitment to giving people a chance to grow, to aspire and to build their lives. Those are Conservative principles, and the announcement made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in Manchester recognised that. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that this change will create

“a fairer and more aspirational society.”

[Dr Evans]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that when supply is tight, if we allow people to move more easily, the right people will be in the homes that are right for their time of life? An elderly couple in a five-bedroom house will make the choice to downsize, while a family can upsize to the right house. When supply is tight, that fits much better for us as a society.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My hon. Friend has made a valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the first-time buyer, but the family moving into a larger home and the empty nesters—I am almost one—seeking to move into a smaller house.

[Graham Stuart]

May I take up my hon. Friend’s point about the dynamic market that we need? People in south-east England may be thinking of moving to, for instance, Beverley and Holderness to take up a job, but may be put off by the costs involved, and the risk that they are taking in moving to an area where there may be only that one job for them, and no other jobs to compete with it. So they do not make that move, and we do not benefit from their input into a business in Beverley and Holderness, purely because of the dampening effects of this tax. They stay in the south-east, although they, the country and Beverley and Holderness would be better off if only they were incentivised to move and take a chance.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

That is another valuable point. This tax cut benefits not just the housing market but the jobs market, and therefore the whole economy. Our politics ought to empower people, not load them with additional burdens. This is an important measure for young people, because, as we acknowledge, they face higher costs and more competition for housing than their parents did.

To be credible, we must explain how we will pay for this measure. That is a valid question, and, unlike some parties in this place, we will not make promises without a plan for delivery. The measure is possible as part of a wider package of economic reform, spending discipline and growth creation. The Government were elected on a policy of “going for growth”, yet everything that they do seems designed to bring about the opposite. A jobs tax makes it more expensive to employ people; higher business rates make it more expensive to conduct business in a property; the changes in agricultural and business property relief—increasing inheritance tax—reduce investment by family businesses; and the Employment Rights Bill makes it more expensive, time-consuming and difficult to employ people. The Government have turned on the spending taps and levied record levels of tax, while at the same time implementing measures that increase unemployment and make Britain less competitive. Every Labour Government has led to higher unemployment, and it is deeply regrettable that in every month since the general election, unemployment has risen. I do not think that the Government are malevolent; they simply have no clue about how business works.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

The Conservative party’s position on the green economy is now to remove some of the support for it. Figures show that the green economy is growing by around 10%; it is fuelling job creation and often provides better-paid jobs. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it is in the economy’s interests to cut the legs out from underneath the green economy?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Well, I am amazed to hear that the real economy is growing by 10%. That must be a forecaster I have not heard of! We believe it is possible to cut welfare spending. In fact, a few months ago, the hon. Gentleman’s party believed it was possible. The Government put forward a modest proposal to reduce welfare spending by £5 billion, which had our support, yet, unfortunately, at the first whiff of rebellion, the Chancellor caved. That shows that the Government have no idea how finance works, how business works or how confidence works. They undermined their credibility by being unable to undertake even the smallest reform.

We can announce the abolition of stamp duty because we have promised to put Britain on a different track. Our golden rule means that, for every pound we make in savings, half will go on reducing the deficit and paying down our debts. We will reduce spending by £47 billion a year, and have announced plans to do so. About half of that will come from cutting the welfare bill, including stopping the ballooning bill for Motability cars for those with mild mental health issues. Some £8 billion of savings will come from reducing the civil service to the size it was before the pandemic. We will save money by closing asylum hotels, reserving other benefits to UK nationals, and coming to a more credible position on net zero.

By taking those tough choices, we can cut taxes and help the economy. We estimate that abolishing stamp duty will cost £9 billion, which is set against the savings we have outlined. By pledging to remove it, we are signalling that we believe in growth, in enterprise and in enabling every citizen to build their future.

Property Taxes

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

This Government were elected on a manifesto to increase spending by £9.5 billion. That was to be paid for through £7.3 billion of extra taxes and £3.5 billion of extra borrowing, all of which was set out in the Labour manifesto. It was a modest plan with a prudent margin—exactly the sort of plan one might expect a party in opposition to put forward to show that it can be trusted to run the public finances. Labour Members might reflect on the fact that had they implemented the plan, the British economy would be in better condition than at present.

In its first Budget, Labour increased public expenditure not by £9.5 billion, but by £70 billion. How those on the Labour Benches cheered with delight at the thought of all the extra spending: pay rises for train drivers, with no conditions; pay rises for junior doctors, with no strings; money for Great British Energy; and more money for the British Business Bank—all so the Government can invest in projects that the private sector does not think will make a return.

We all know how this story ends: Labour will use all the business acumen that the Cabinet has at its disposal to create a modern version of British Leyland. It is what Labour does best: spending other people’s money, and borrowing yet more money that other people’s children can repay. But all this extra spending and borrowing comes at a price, and the Government are now paying 5.7% interest to borrow money for 30 years. That is the highest level since 1998, and this surge in borrowing costs reflects the market’s lack of confidence in the Chancellor’s ability to manage Britain’s finances.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the surge in borrowing costs actually started with Liz Truss’s mini-Budget and has not really stopped since the trajectory started?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I do not accept that at all. This surge is entirely due to the Chancellor losing control of public expenditure, and the increased cost of servicing our national debt adds further pressure on the British taxpayer.

Having presented her Budget, the Chancellor said:

“We’re not going to be coming back with more tax increases, or indeed more borrowing.”

The problem is that no one believes her. The markets do not believe her, and Labour Back Benchers certainly do not believe her. They now know that they only have to threaten to rebel on any item of public expenditure and the Chancellor will cave. We saw that on the welfare reform Bill, which was brought forward to save a modest £4.5 billion. What happened? The first whiff of a rebellion, and the Bill was gutted, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the cost.

In that context, over the summer we saw briefings from the Treasury testing the water on a whole series of potential tax rises: higher rates of council tax, a land value tax, capital gains tax on family homes, lowering the thresholds for inheritance tax and an annual property levy on the family home. No wonder the Deputy Prime Minister is being so careful about which of her many homes is her primary residence.

The Chancellor is clearly desperate to raise more money. It is a cruel irony, is it not, that having invented a £22 billion black hole to justify her taxing and spending, the Chancellor now finds herself facing a black hole entirely of her own making? It is her jobs tax and other tax rises that have caused the economy to slow and unemployment to rise. Her increase in public expenditure has fuelled inflation, which has led to higher wage demands and increased benefit costs.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

That is exactly the problem. Many businesses in my constituency—and, dare I say it, in others—are saying to us as Members of Parliament that they want to but dare not invest in growing their businesses, because they do not know what increases in taxes are coming down the line from this Chancellor. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that businesses are reluctant to invest right now in the projects they want to deliver for the growth of their own enterprises?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I agree. It is the threat of higher taxes that is causing the economy to stall.

Rather than reducing the size of the state so that it is affordable, the Government give every indication of wanting it to grow further. The fundamental reason that this Government need to raise taxes is that they are incapable of controlling the fiscal incompetence of their own Back Benchers. At their core, Labour MPs genuinely believe that the state can spend our constituents’ money better than they can spend it themselves. They do not believe in thrift or self-reliance, and they see no limit on the size of the state.

Opposition Members know that it is businessmen and businesswomen across Britain who create wealth and growth. Success is the result of hard work, taking risks, satisfying customers and employing neighbours. The Government should provide the environment for those businesses to thrive, rather than threatening every part of the economy with higher taxes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

I have been told that we are speculating today, so I do not know whether I have to refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. However, in an abundance of caution, I declare that I am a homeowner and I also have properties for rent.

The kids in Downing Street—whether in No. 11 or No. 10—think it is clever to fly kites about tax rises. We had it last year, from 4 July onwards, with briefings to the press saying there would be tax rises because of a wholly fabricated £22 billion black hole in the economy. That was fabricated as a fig leaf for tax rises that were not in the manifesto. From July to October, those stories dripped in one after the other—and what was the impact? It has been the collapse in business confidence to pandemic levels, the collapse in consumer confidence as a result, and unemployment beginning its inexorable rise month after month for every single month that this Government have been in office.

Now the Government are at it again. They have not realised their past terrible mistake, and they are doing it once more. Despite raising taxes by £40 billion last October and increasing borrowing by another £32 billion, they have created a genuine black hole, which the National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests means that about £51 billion is required in higher taxes or lower spending. The briefings have started again—a property levy on mansions, the replacement of stamp duty with a national property tax, national insurance contributions on rental income and capital gains tax on primary residences with a value of more than £1.5 million. Even Which? magazine has said there may be changes to the in-life gifting regime to reduce inheritance tax.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does my hon. Friend accept that speculation about all those new additional taxes causes more uncertainty, which itself causes the economy to slow further?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Do the Government not recognise that posturing from the Government Benches does not come for free? Construction activity has had a bigger fall recently than in the last five years due to the leaks from No. 10 and No. 11. The commercial property sector is in recession. There are hiring freezes and staff are being laid off. People are losing their jobs because of the Government’s kite flying. Residential property prices had a surprise fall last year.

We are asked to believe that growth is the No. 1 priority of this Government. They say they are going to build 1.5 million houses during this Parliament. Merely saying that does not make it true, when their policies serve to do exactly the opposite. If Members do not believe me, look at the markets—they are not politicians. Look at the 30-year gilts that the Government are paying today. Government debt is now running at 5.73%. That is the highest rate this century. The markets think that further tax increases will damage growth. That means they will damage the fiscal environment in the future. We will have less tax in the future because of the tax-raising decisions the Government are apparently going to take in November. Labour is planning, literally, to rob Peter to pay Paul. This is no way to run an economy.

As someone much more famous than me once said, the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money. Stop now. Stop before it is too late to avoid a vicious debt spiral. I fear—I genuinely fear this—that the Government will be forced to cut spending. They have two options: they can be forced to do so by the markets in a chaotic fiscal event, or they can take the responsibility of government seriously and take the difficult but necessary decisions on spending that the country needs them to take as a responsible Government. Otherwise, they will be swept away by their own incompetence.

Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate.

Our high street shops and pubs are at the heart of our communities, yet many are threatened by big increases in business rates. Our high street businesses are already contending with Labour’s new tax on jobs. The hike in national insurance makes it more expensive to employ someone who works in a shop or a pub on our high street. The Employment Rights Bill will further increase costs, hitting small businesses with new regulations that make it harder and more expensive to operate. In that context, the decision to cut the retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40% is wrong.

I met recently with Mr Paul Davis of Styles Menswear in Bridgwater. His business rates have gone up from £3,000 a year to £9,000 a year. That new cost, before we can even consider Labour’s new jobs tax, puts his livelihood at risk. He will not be alone. Paul’s business has the double misfortune of being based in Eastover, where he has had to contend with extensive and lengthy roadworks. In Liberal Democrat-controlled Somerset, we have had a particular problem with various roadworks being scheduled at the same time and harming local businesses. It seems that the Liberal Democrats know little and care less about the damage that they are causing.

The roadworks in Eastover started in October with a partial road closure. As if that were not bad enough, the council then decided to impose a full road closure in January, which is now set to continue until at least September. Ironically, it is on the council’s “celebration mile” project, although to date there has been very little for local businesses to celebrate. The project has proved a hammer blow to many local businesses, which have seen footfall collapse: footfall in Bridgwater is down 400,000 in the past 12 months, mostly caused by the incompetent way in which Somerset council has handled the project.

I believe that those businesses deserve our support. Businesses disproportionately affected by council actions should have the right to claim rates relief. Will the Minister consider that proposal? The situation in Eastover is now desperate, and I fear that in the coming months we will see more shops and businesses closing their doors for good.

It seems that this Labour Government, with the able assistance of Liberal Democrat councillors in Somerset, are set on destroying those businesses. The truth is that, despite the Government’s claim to be going for growth, everything that they are doing appears designed to achieve the opposite. I say to the Minister, “Businesses in Bridgwater are suffering. They need your help now.”

[Mike Martin]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is confused and in the wrong debate. This is a debate about business rates, but he spent his entire time talking about local government sequencing of traffic works.

Income Tax: Personal Allowance

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 702844 relating to the Income Tax Personal Allowance.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart, and it is a privilege to open the debate as a member of the Petitions Committee.

All colleagues from all parties will recognise the priority that the public place on improving living standards, as our conversations with constituents, polling and the facts of the matter tell us. The reality is that average disposable incomes after tax fell from 2019-20 to 2023-24 —an unprecedented and shocking situation in which people were left poorer at the end of the last Parliament than they were at the start of it. That is the key context for today’s debate, which has been triggered as a result of more than 250,000 citizens signing the petition on income tax personal allowances. It also speaks to wider and entirely understandable public frustration about living standards.

In preparation for the debate, I had the pleasure of talking to Mr Alan Frost, the creator of the petition and a constituent of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). Mr Frost, who is in the Gallery, explained that he has recently retired, having worked his whole life. He feels a sense of injustice that his state pension is considered as income for tax purposes, and that the tax thresholds he faces are not increasing.

The events that led to that situation are as follows. In the 2021 spring Budget, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who was Chancellor at the time, announced that the income tax personal allowance threshold of £12,570 would be frozen until April 2026. In the 2022 autumn statement, the Chancellor at that time, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), announced that the freeze would be extended for a further two years until April 2028. Following the change of Government, the current Chancellor announced in her autumn 2024 Budget that the freeze would not be extended any further, and therefore income tax personal allowances are expected to next rise in April 2028.

Although Mr Frost is a pensioner and his petition reflects a desire to boost pensioner incomes, he also believes that significantly increasing the personal tax allowance would benefit those in work, boosting incomes and reducing the need for benefits. That belief reflects the reality that less than a quarter of the 37 million income tax payers in the UK are over the age of 65. The vast majority of those paying income tax are of working age and are not receiving the state pension.

In their written response to the petitioners, the Government highlighted that making the suggested changes to the personal allowance would cost “many billions of pounds”. I am sure that the Minister will say more about that when he responds, but cost is a key element to discuss in our debate. It is Parliament’s responsibility to agree the ways and means of any policy it makes—that is, how to pay for what we decide to do.

I gently suggest that the events of the last Parliament remind us how serious that responsibility is. The mini-Budget of September 2022 announced tax cuts costing around £45 billion without explaining how they would be funded, and the market reaction to that announcement left ordinary people paying the price. An emergency reversal of those tax changes followed, but not before high inflation and interest rates hit the standard of living. I therefore urge our debate to be conducted in full consideration of the cost and funding of any tax policy changes.

Were income tax personal allowances to rise in the way suggested by the petition, there would be several other linked tax policy choices to be made, and those choices would determine the full cost of the change. For example, would the size of the tax bands above the personal allowance be maintained? Currently, the basic rate of 20% is levied above the personal allowance and up to about £50,000 of income. Would the size of that band be maintained if the personal allowance were increased by £7,500? If so, the point at which the higher rate of tax takes effect would, in turn, increase to almost £58,000, at further cost to the Exchequer.

Similarly, the additional rate of tax is currently levied on incomes above £125,000, so if the personal allowance was to rise, would that level rise proportionately too? Finally, the income tax personal allowance is aligned with the level at which people start making national insurance contributions; should that level also rise to £20,000, or would we return to a more complicated tax system in which income tax and national insurance thresholds were no longer harmonised?

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for introducing the debate. Will he join me in paying tribute to my constituent, Mr Alan Frost, for raising the number of signatures required to achieve the debate? Does he also agree that freezing the level of the basic allowance at £12,570 most heavily impacts pensioners with limited income, who find themselves paying more income tax on small occupational pensions as time goes by?

[Lewis Atkinson]

Of course, I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to his constituent for securing this debate; 250,000 signatures is an extraordinary level of engagement in the democratic process, and that is to be applauded. I will make some points about the distribution of the benefits of income tax freezes later on in my speech.

The cost of the policy requested by the petition depends on the answers to the questions I just posed. Other Members may wish to speak about how they would approach such matters, but, to aid debate, I thought it would be useful to present some indicative costs. At this point, I want to place on record my thanks to the staff of the House, including those from the Petitions Committee and the Library, for their work in helping me to access such information.

The House of Commons Library estimates that it would cost more than £60 billion to increase the personal allowance to £20,000, make corresponding increases to the higher rate tax threshold, and raise the national insurance threshold to £20,000 to maintain alignment. That figure is consistent with the range of costs expected by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which I also met in preparation for this debate. The IFS estimates that increasing the personal allowance to £20,000 would cost somewhere in the range of £40 billion to £90 billion, depending on the choices made on the related tax matters that I have outlined.

To put those figures into context, at a minimum cost of £40 billion, the proposal would be at least as large as the tax measures proposed by the September 2022 mini-Budget, which were then quickly reversed after the economy crashed. At the higher end of the estimates—£90 billion—the cost of such a change would be around the same size as the entirety of public revenue spend on education, or two thirds of the total cost of the state pension. It is not for me, in introducing the debate, to advocate one way or another, but I urge Members contributing to speak frankly about the costs and funding of any tax changes they favour.

I hope it is also useful briefly to provide some context about how individuals throughout the UK would be impacted by increases in the personal allowance. The IFS notes that the income level of one third of adults is already below the existing personal allowance. That group—those with the lowest incomes in society—would not benefit from the changes sought by the petition, while the greatest benefits would be received by those who are best off. That is to say, in net, such a change would be regressive, increasing inequalities of income.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

To ensure that we protect the country from the devastating impacts of flooding, we have committed £2.65 billion over 2024-25 to 2025-26 to improve flood defences, and we have established a flood resilience taskforce to feed into our decisions on future spending, which will report in due course.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

T8.   Bridgwater’s 77 pubs, including the Crossways Inn in West Huntspill, are at the heart of our local communities, yet the sector overpays £500 million in business rates relative to turnover. Will the Chancellor commit to the British Beer and Pub Association’s call for a 20p cut in the small business multiplier and 15p off the standard multiplier, in order to secure the future of British pubs?

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

We have frozen the small business multiplier this year and we will be introducing permanently lower multipliers for retail hospitality and leisure premises from April 2026, which will benefit pubs. Meanwhile, they also benefit from our decision to increase the duty relief for draft products.