Clause 1

Luke Evans Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

On that point, a tax information and impact note has also been published in the standard way for UK-wide changes to the tax system The Government keep tax changes under review—[Interruption.] I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) would like to intervene; I would welcome that.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

indicated dissent.

[Dan Tomlinson]

Maybe later.

I turn to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough. His speech—I had hoped it would be even longer; I am somewhat disappointed not to have heard more from him—provided a clear exposition of the benefits of the modest changes the Government are setting out in this group of clauses, which are being considered by the Committee of the whole House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

In opening debate on this second group of clauses, I want to reflect on why we are making changes to the tax system. I am looking forward to no interventions at all on this speech from Opposition Members—their interventions seemed to dry up in my last speech, so maybe they have now finished with them. Of course, we make these changes to modernise the tax system, to make it fair and fit for purpose and to adapt to a changing world, but we also make these changes so that we can raise the revenue to fund our public services. Yes, the Bill holds thresholds constant till the end of the decade, but in doing so contributes to our being able to renew our public services while maintaining the highest levels of public investment in four decades to stimulate economic growth and ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share.

[Dr Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will; it is good to see that the interventions are back on.

[Dr Evans]

When the Chancellor looked at these measures for her first Budget, she said that they would breach her manifesto commitments. Does the Minister believe that they breach the manifesto commitments?

[Dan Tomlinson]

This Government have stuck to their manifesto commitments. We were very clear about not wanting to change the rates of income tax. I have been in discussions with Opposition Members about the wording of our manifesto; I am glad that Conservative Members have taken such interest in it. We are sticking to our commitments. The tax changes that we are discussing now, and others, will allow us to do things such as lift 550,000 children out of poverty this Parliament, by removing the two-child limit and expanding free breakfast clubs and free school meal eligibility. They allow us to cut waiting lists and cut the cost of living by delivering £150 off energy bills. All that would be threatened by Opposition Members, who do not support the taxes needed to fund decent public services.

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 10 maintains the income tax thresholds for three years from April 2028 to April 2031. As we have already discussed, the Government are freezing the thresholds to maintain funding for our NHS and to enable us to reduce debt, and we are doing that, in part through this decision.

[Dr Luke Evans]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will make a little progress, if I may. I have already taken two interventions on this exact point.

We know that there will be a broad-based effect, but as I have said, we are making other changes so that we ask as little as possible of those who will be affected by the change. We are making lots of changes to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share. I think that that is a fair and necessary decision to raise tax revenue in order to fund public services and restore economic stability.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

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

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

[Dr Evans]

The other point is: what is a small tax? What is the definition? Are we talking about £100, or £1,000? The Government have not even set that out. The Chancellor has just come up with a term that we have no reference for, no use for, and no understanding of when setting tax policy for this country.

[Gareth Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why I want to ask the Minister, as he does, how this will be delivered. What is the definition of what the Chancellor has described, albeit to the media? How will this work, and why is it not in the Bill? We know that when the Government have spoken before, they have not stuck to it.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I will not make myself very popular by asking this question, but I will do it anyway. The Minister took me to task earlier because I talked about the total increase in the Department for Work and Pensions budget, which includes pensions. I think all three main political parties are traipsing around the issue of the triple lock. Frankly, if we did not have the triple lock—if there was a serious debate and we could get consensus in this House—we would not have to freeze income tax thresholds, and we could divert more resources to those really, truly vulnerable pensioners. I know that that is not a very popular point, but it is a question that we all seriously have to debate in a rapidly ageing population.

[Dr Evans]

I know that my right hon. Friend has been a stalwart in making that point. That leads on to the wider point of thinking about social care and how we will fund it. These sticky points are really important, so we need to ensure that we have this debate. The fact is that we are dealing with the Finance (No. 2) Bill in Committee. When the Government are making these choices, I am really keen to try to understand the direct impact they will have on my constituents.

At the last general election, the last Government—now the Opposition—had a solution in our manifesto to deal with this issue, which was the “triple lock plus”. That would have negated the issue at source. There is a ready-made solution if the Government would like to go for it, but I understand the difficulties of the associated cost, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has pointed out.

That brings us full circle to where the hon. Member for Poole started. How exactly are we going to solve this issue for pensioners? Do the Government just need to be up front with them and say that they will have to do a tax return? Will they be pulled into this tax? If they will not, how?

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I completely recognise that the extension of the frozen tax threshold will not be felt immediately. We are all here worrying about it, but most of our residents will not see the difference probably until the next general election. However, it is on us to resolve this issue once and for all.

In the Minister’s opening speech, he talked about asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more. Let me speak briefly about three groups of people—apprentices, graduates and pensioners—who do not have the broadest shoulders and instead feel completely targeted.

--- Later in debate ---

Time and again, young adults who have invested in their futures, done everything right and tried to make the world a better place are being targeted by successive Governments. I am the parent of two recent graduates and an undergraduate, so I see those daily struggles. I see many young people saying, “What is the point of going to university?”

[Dr Luke Evans]

Is the hon. Lady as concerned as I am about the fact that plan 2 student loans seem to be particularly impacted by the thresholds? I am concerned about the impact that that will have on the way in which people will have to make their repayments.

[Vikki Slade]

I will be honest and say that, not having been to university, I do not know the details of the different groups. My students are all very recent graduates, so they went in knowing that they would have enormous debt and recognising that they would be more than £50,000 in debt, with probably no prospect of ever paying it off. I do not think they went in realising that they would get such a bad deal when they were at university, with eight hours of contact time a week and PhD students doing their lectures, rather than actual lecturers, some of whom cannot even speak English and are here only for their visas. Students are having a really rough time, and this measure is just rubbing salt into the wound.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Tonight’s debate is not just an opportunity for the Opposition to have a go at the Government. Many people who are getting cynical about politics will say, “Well, of course you would expect them to have a go about taxation and the Government’s behaviour on that issue.” However, this debate goes far beyond that, because the implications of what we are discussing tonight are very serious.

First, there are the macroeconomic impacts of the decision not to make work pay, because of higher taxation. The Government have hung a lot of their predictions of economic success on obtaining economic growth, but one thing we will not do is tax our way to growth. This will be an anti-growth measure, which will have implications not just for this year but future years and future Budgets. Secondly, it will have personal consequences for many people facing the current cost of living crisis and finding it difficult to stretch their income to meet their needs.

Lastly, the decision will have an impact on people’s confidence in the democratic system. The Government will get this Bill through tonight. They will get it through because they have a massive majority, and they have a massive majority because they made massive promises. They promised that people would not face income tax increases, and I have no doubt that that influenced how many working people voted. However, the Minister has accepted tonight that by the end of this period, £28 billion will have been raised. One reason I support new clauses 3, 13 and 14 is that they at least give people an opportunity to realise what the Government are doing to them, and they show that politicians in this House want there to be honesty with the people. If there was not honesty when the manifesto was written and presented, let us ensure that there is honesty when the implications of the decisions that this Government are making become clear to the citizens of this country. These are confidence measures.

Let us just remind ourselves of what the Government promised—we have been around this a number of times tonight. They promised that they would not increase taxes on working people. They then went on to define “working people” as people who go to work every day, yet we know that by freezing the thresholds, people who go to work every day and are therefore subject to income tax being charged on the money they earn will pay more. Working people know that a promise to them has been broken.

[Dr Luke Evans]

I think the Chancellor knows that, given her statement at the first Budget that changing the thresholds would be a tax on working people.

[Sammy Wilson]

Of course she does. That is one reason why I believe that the new clauses are important—they recognise the need for people to be made aware of the consequences, and the impact on them, of decisions that are being made in this House by a majority Government who got there by making promises that are not being kept.

What is that impact? The Minister has already told us: £23 billion more tax will be paid. He justifies that by saying—I think he mentioned this twice—that the Government have sought to be fair, and to place the burden on those with the broadest shoulders. When 750,000 people who are currently earning £12,500 per year are dragged into the tax system, that does not strike me as fair. It strikes me as placing a burden on people who go out to work every day, do not earn a great deal of money or have a great reward for it, and now find themselves having to pay tax when they never thought they would have to.

As I said in an earlier intervention, people might be willing to pay taxes if they thought it would lead to things that would improve their lives. We had that promise at the first Budget—that the Government were putting up taxes by £40 billion, or whatever it was at that stage, to improve public services. Have public services improved? No, they have not. Has the money been spent on public services? No, it has not. Yes, wage increases have been given, but as the OBR has said, there have been no productivity increases as a result of the extra money that has been spent. If taxpayers thought they were going to get some benefit from these changes, they might have been willing to accept them, but of course, they are not getting that benefit.

What are we getting? We are getting wasteful expenditure. As has already been mentioned, £5 billion will be spent on taking money from those who go out to work and paying it to those who do not go out to work. That is not fair, and it does not make any economic sense, either. Then, of course, there is all the other wasteful expenditure that the Government have engaged in, such as the Chagos deal. We had the Chagos islands—we had our bases there and so on. We are now going to pay somewhere between £38 billion and £47 billion to the Government of Mauritius to give the islands back and then lease them back again. You can understand why people ask, “Is that what I want my taxes to be spent on?” Of course it is not.

The Government estimate that their ID cards system will cost £1.8 billion, while the London School of Economics says that the cost could be £10.7 billion. The Government say that it is to stop illegal immigration, when we know full well that it would not matter if we had six ID cards—those who come into this country illegally will seek to work illegally, and there are other means of checking up on them anyway. There are also the new bureaucracies that the Government have set up. One of their first actions was to set up a huge bureaucracy, Great British Energy, at a cost of £9 billion. Again, what benefit will we get from that? The Government have said that it will deliver their net zero policies, but is it necessary to have a bureaucracy of that nature? I know that many Members do not agree with me on this issue, but we are spending billions of pounds on restructuring our economy to meet net zero targets when many other countries are saying, “We are not prepared to damage our economy in that way.”

Given the proposals we are debating tonight, the new clauses I have spoken to are not all that demanding. All they say is, “Let’s have some transparency about what all this means to the people who are having to pay the money.” That is not too much to ask. I hope that people will consider that when they cast their vote tonight.

The one thing I say in conclusion is that we seem to have a Government who, as their first choice, will spend taxpayers’ money, rather than looking at how the money they already take from taxpayers can be used more effectively.