Clause 1

Sammy Wilson Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

rose—

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

rose—

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and come back to the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh).

[Sammy Wilson]

The Minister is putting on a brave face because a manifesto commitment has been broken. People are going to pay more in income tax despite the promises that were made. Does he recognise that, for many people, this is not money to renew public services, but money squandered on giving compensation to foreign Governments for land that we owned—the Chagos islands—and are now paying for; money that will be spent on an ID system that is totally unnecessary and will not serve the purpose it is meant to; and money spent on net zero commitments that have destroyed our economy and added little in benefits to the public?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The right hon. Gentleman is welcome to express his views on a range of policies. On the final issue that he raises—net zero and our transition to a cleaner and greener economy—independent analysis, the Government’s Climate Change Committee and the long-term fiscal risk report of the Office for Budget Responsibility have set out clearly that not making that transition, both in the UK and internationally, comes with larger long-term costs for the public finances because of the growing costs of adapting to climate change. It is clear that we need to make that change, for the environment and for the long-term health of our public finances. The OBR’s fiscal risks report is always a good read; I hope that he is, like me, looking forward to the next edition in the summer.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that regardless of whether we are talking about a small tax or a large tax, the Chancellor promised that there would be no tax on people who went out to work every day, and no increase in tax on pensioners? It is not really a question of degree; it is about whether the promise is being broken. Clearly, from what the Minister said tonight, the promise will be broken.

[Gareth Davies]

Exactly. I have nothing to add to that; the right hon. Gentleman puts it perfectly. New clause 14 would require a proper assessment of clause 10’s impact on state pensioners, and new clause 15 would require an assessment of the cost of the Chancellor’s so-called exemption from small amounts of tax—let her define that in a piece of legislation; I do not think she will be able to. Clause 10 is simple: another Labour tax promise has been broken and pensioners will pay the price. I hope that Members from across the Committee can see that and that they will vote with the official Opposition tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vikki Slade]

I always value the interventions of the hon. Member. As the aunt of a young GP, Bethan, who has more than £100,000-worth of debt, I think it is ridiculous that our young people are being saddled with this situation. I have constituents who have deliberately gone to study in Wales so that they are able to get that benefit. It is time for us to look collectively at analysing the cumulative impact of the issues faced by our young, aspirational adults, because we will see more of them deciding to go abroad, and we desperately need our home-grown talent to stay.

Thirdly, I turn, as most Members have done, to pensioners. The older age group will have been pleased to hear that they are due to be exempted from the tax threshold if their only income is the state pension, but two constituents—Colin from Wareham, who is a regular correspondent, and John from Lytchett—have written to suggest that the Chancellor may have inadvertently misled Martin Lewis. I will not use their other accusation, as I will get into a lot of trouble. One said that most pensioners are expected to survive on a weekly state pension that is four times lower than the average wage, and that mandating that they be taxed will plunge many older people into desperation and poverty. They have suggested that it is not quite accurate that the state pension alone will not be taxed—I am using my words very carefully—so can the Minister assure me and my constituents, like others, that from April, those with no income other than the state income and modest savings will pay no income tax, particularly because there appears to be nothing in the Bill about that?

Finally, given that millions of people with tiny private pensions and, in particular, many pensioners will be dragged into tax, will the Minister consider the Lib Dem proposal for a pensioners’ “red phone” to ensure that they do not spend hours hanging on the telephone?

[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.