Taxes 2025-11-12

Agrees that the Chancellor's choices have led to economic difficulties and blames her for failing to keep tax pledges.

Highlights the government's failure to control benefits spending, suggesting it has contributed to fiscal instability.

Explains the cumulative impact of increased borrowing on inflation, interest rates, and debt servicing costs.

Critiques the government's expansionary fiscal policy, arguing it is crowding out private sector growth.

Defends investment in public services as necessary for social returns, challenging the opposition's focus on spending efficiency.

Expresses concern over middle and working-class families' economic struggles due to rising costs and wage stagnation, warning against further tax hikes.

The previous government oversaw a reduction in real living standards over five years, and the difficult cost of living situation is partly due to their decisions. The previous government also had a record on welfare spending that included an £8 billion increase under Sir Mel Stride’s tenure.

The previous government reduced the deficit by 80%, enabling them to spend £373 billion supporting households and businesses during difficult times. Labour Members have not mentioned covid, but without this support, many businesses would not have survived.

The shadow Chancellor previously said that if he were in the Chancellor's position, he would raise income tax. This contradicts his current speech where he criticises raising taxes and instead suggests controlling government spending.

I hear what the Minister is saying about us waiting for the Budget. Could he reassure the House that he has not discussed anything that might be in the Budget with any journalist, and certainly that he has not authorised any members of his office or anybody within the Treasury press team to brief out some of the kites that have been flown about the Budget in the media over the past few weeks?

As somebody who has been around a long time and remembers when Chancellors used to have to resign for leaking things about the Budget in advance, may I ask the Minister to explain how it has been possible for the present Chancellor to make speeches about what may or may not be in her Budget in advance with no consequences forthcoming whatsoever?

The Minister just said at the Dispatch Box that national insurance contributions for employers were raised “to support the NHS”. Was that hypothecated or not? While our plans are a credible way to settle the public finances, get public services back on their feet and support the economic stability so vital for investment and growth, the Conservatives come up with numbers out of thin air.

The Minister talked about difficult decisions, but what about an obvious one? Two thirds of the British population are now backing wealth taxes. Is it not time for the Treasury to abandon its self-imposed fiscal straitjacket and commit to lifting children out of poverty, to investing in our public services and to future-proofing our communities by transforming the tax system so that it better serves ordinary people and so that those with the broadest shoulders pay their fair share?

My constituents, of course, remember Liz Truss’s devastating mini-Budget, when those rules were not followed. That had a massive impact on not just our public services but the mortgages and cost of living that my constituents are still feeling today. Does my right hon. Friend agree that going back to that irresponsible financial management would be a disaster for this country?

Anderson criticised Labour's previous fiscal policy, noting that when they were last in power, national debt increased from 36% to 76% of GDP. He questioned the government on potential redundancies and costs associated with merging NHS England and the Department of Health.

Evans inquired about the redundancy payments that would result from a proposed 50% reduction in integrated care boards, asking whether these costs would be covered by the Health budget or Treasury budget.

Maynard criticised the government's previous fiscal policies and their impact on public finances. He called for practical measures to ease the burden on households, such as an emergency VAT cut for hospitality and reducing household energy costs.

Mayhew questioned whether the Liberal Democrat amendment would allow the government to break their promises regarding public expenditure control.

Supports her colleague's proposal to tax banks, citing the negative impact of previous Conservative policies on mortgage costs.

Questions the relevance of discussing a three-year-old Budget and suggests focusing instead on the upcoming autumn Budget.

Raises concerns about immigration consequences if rejoining EU customs union includes freedom of movement.

Contrasts Labour's vision for growth, modernisation, and public service investment with Conservative austerity and waste. Criticises previous government for reversing NHS satisfaction levels and increasing waiting times.

The hon. Gentleman noted that winter fuel payments cuts led to an increase in absolute and relative poverty, citing a report by the Exchequer Secretary stating that such cuts would lead to 4,000 deaths.

The hon. Member responded to accusations about his voting record on winter fuel payments, clarifying he had always been against a universal benefit and argued for targeted policies instead.

The hon. Member criticised the Government's tax increases and their impact on economic growth and employment in South Shropshire, arguing that higher taxes stifle wealth creation and harm local businesses such as pubs.

The hon. Member questioned the Government’s stance on lifting the two-child benefit cap, which costs £3.5 billion annually.

No extracted contribution text available for this contributor yet.

The tax on family farms is damaging the agricultural sector. Over 6,000 farms have closed due to this policy. The high street has seen a thousand pubs and restaurants close at a rate of two per day. Council tax in rural areas is increasing significantly while funding decreases. Businesses are losing confidence and struggling to trade.

The debate on taxes should consider the impact on low-income families who rely on public services, which have been underfunded. While supporting tax cuts in principle, maintaining essential services is crucial for those unable to afford private alternatives.

Mr Vince discussed his mother's career at HMRC, highlighting that she helped collect taxes for the Government. He pointed out that an estimated £5.5 billion was lost to tax evasion and urged the Minister to consider the impact of previous cuts on HMRC's ability to collect revenue.

Mr Turner supported Chris Vince, noting that HMRC employees have told him that budget cuts affected their agency's capacity to collect corporate taxes. He questioned the Minister about the impact of reducing civil servants on tax collection.

Mrs Dinenage highlighted the economic challenges faced by her constituency, particularly in relation to defence and job density. She argued that employer tax rises deter businesses from investing and employing staff. She cited a £40 billion tax rise as an example of such measures damaging the economy and leading to fewer employment opportunities for young people.

Dr Evans agreed with Dame Caroline Dinenage, stating that uncertainty about future tax policies was causing businesses to delay investments and hiring decisions. He emphasised the real-world consequences of such delays on local economies.

Slinger criticised the Conservative party for breaking their manifesto promises, crashing the economy, and causing austerity. He stressed that Labour would ensure fiscal policies reflect fairness and opportunity, focusing on protecting public services like the NHS, reducing national debt, and improving living costs.

Jopp questioned when the Labour Government would take responsibility for running the country and expressed frustration at the lack of accountability from Labour MPs regarding their economic policies.

Suggested that the Government might be setting up a strawman to deflect criticism about breaking manifesto promises. This would involve making some terrible Budget decisions and then appearing to stick to their promises.

Reiterated that the Chancellor has lost confidence among Back Benchers due to the £30 billion black hole. The shadow Chancellor offered £47 billion in savings, which could include cutting welfare benefits and reducing civil service costs.

Asked how many teachers, doctors, and police would be involved in the proposed £47 billion of cuts. The speaker noted that these savings were identified by the shadow Chancellor but not detailed.

Critiqued the brevity of the opposition motion, suggesting it is a euphemism for austerity and cuts to essential services. Challenged the opposition's claim of £47 billion in savings without providing specifics.

Asked if the opposition would keep or scrap the two-child benefit cap, indicating support for scrapping it based on previous statements.

Questions if it is interesting that Conservatives have put forward many unrealistic proposals but failed to mention any of the missing covid money during their watch. Criticises the Conservative government for its inconsistent record on manifesto commitments.

Asked if the hon. Gentleman would be content if income tax, national insurance or VAT were to rise in the Budget.

Discusses trust issues with the government regarding their promise not to raise taxes but has since broken it. Argues that raising taxes affects families, pensioners, and small businesses and borrows money for future debt repayment. Mentions Margaret Thatcher's quote about pennies not falling from heaven.

Questions the hon. Member's position on past Conservative promises to not raise taxes which were broken due to circumstances.

Emphasises the importance of honesty in politics, citing Labour's promise not to raise taxes above £7 billion but did so for £40 billion. Criticises the fictitious black hole justification and highlights that no global event has blown their plans off course.

Agrees with my hon. Friend on the inability of the Prime Minister to control his Back Benchers, leading to demands for public expenditure increases despite promises made during election campaigns.

Defends Labour's healthcare achievements by stating that NHS appointment numbers have increased despite waiting times. He acknowledges a recent ONS report on declining productivity but argues for the necessity of spending to improve services and outcomes.

Clarifies and supports Jerome Mayhew's points regarding NHS productivity decline, referencing an Office for National Statistics report, urging Rushworth to retract his claims on healthcare improvements.

Asserts that Labour's economic policies have led to high spending, debt, and taxes, harming growth and business investment. He criticises the opposition for not delivering on manifesto promises and highlights local businesses' anxieties over upcoming budget changes.

Expresses hope that the Chancellor will adhere to her commitments, though does not commit to supporting the Conservatives' motion. Indicates disagreement with Stafford on motion's applicability.

Questions Conservative stance on climate change policy, citing business leaders concerned about economic and environmental impacts of scrapping the Climate Change Act.

People from all walks of life are looking at what has happened to them as a consequence of decisions taken in the last Budget, leading to difficult financial decisions. The speculation fuelled by anonymous briefings is damaging our economy.

Business confidence has plummeted to the worst level on record due to speculation and fear generated by media speculation about potential taxes or schemes that could affect different walks of life.

The aim of this debate is to fuel speculation and anxiety among people worried about the financial situation in the country, which affects both private individuals and business investment decisions.

Asked if the Government would raise the two-child benefit cap or leave it as it is, with a cost of £3.5 billion. Criticised for creating uncertainty through speculative media briefings about potential taxes and schemes.

Called out Dr Spencer on the past spending by the Conservative party in government and expressed satisfaction that this Government has stopped such profligate spending, welcoming him as a convert to their cause.

Tragedy is that we are stuck with this Government for the rest of the decade while they talk about previous decades, leaving constituents and others worried and uncertain about future decisions.

Suggested opening up a customs union with Europe to get money into the Exchequer, move the economy forward, and get growth back into it. Criticised the debate's focus on past issues instead of looking towards future economic opportunities.

Critiqued the Chancellor's approach to taxation, highlighting that she had promised not to increase taxes but is now set to break this promise. Emphasised that increasing national insurance and income tax rates will lead to higher unemployment and lower economic growth.

Asked the Chancellor why she had changed her mind about taxation, suggesting two reasons: a slowing economy due to previous tax increases and pressure from Labour backbenchers. He criticised Labour for their ignorance on taxes and spending.

Responded to the debate, thanking contributors and highlighting Labour's failure to deliver on promises made during the election campaign. Criticised the delay in announcing the Budget and the uncertainty it has caused for businesses.

Minister Dan Tomlinson from the Treasury argues that his government is dedicated to reducing the debt and deficit inherited from the previous Conservative administration. He emphasises investments in NHS, introduction of new taxes on non-doms, free breakfast clubs, HMRC reforms, and setting up Great British Energy among other initiatives.

Mr Robertson presses the Minister to confirm that his Government will stick to their manifesto pledge. He challenges the Minister’s response strategy during the debate, indicating constituents' seriousness about the matter.

Questions the importance of manifestos and seeks confirmation on whether the resident doctors’ pay rise was linked to productivity increases.

Discusses public sector pay settlements, referencing his experience with ambulance workers' strikes. He notes that previous government negotiators lacked suggestions for productivity links.

He criticised the Conservatives for their failure to manage civil service numbers as promised, highlighting that under their leadership, there was an increase of 130,000 civil servants between 2016 and when they left office. He also pointed out inconsistencies in promises made by former Prime Minister Sir Jeremy Hunt, noting a pledge to cut the number of civil servants but seeing numbers rise instead.

He called for more contributions from other MPs after Dan Tomlinson's speech.

Tomlinson concluded by stating that the Conservatives need to stay in opposition longer due to their lack of understanding of current realities and failure to provide a plan for Britain’s future. He highlighted the Government's success in achieving rapid growth, raising wages, and providing economic stability as compared to the Conservative party.