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.