Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting)

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to see the Exchequer Secretary in his place. Some Committee members may have felt that his ministerial colleague the Economic Secretary dealt with some clauses rather briefly in our earlier sittings, so we look forward to the loquaciousness that the Exchequer Secretary displayed on the Floor of the House the other day.

I shall speak to clause 55 and to amendment 41 and new clause 10 in my name. The clause is about clawing back the winter fuel payment from anyone whose total taxable income is above £35,000. According to the Budget costings, this measure will cost about £1.8 billion in 2025-26, settling at £1.3 billion the year after, but overall the changes that the Government have made with the removal of winter fuel payments will save £450 million.

However, the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have raised concerns about the potential complexity of the clause; about how it could cause anxiety for people who have not had to navigate tax rules before; and about how the £35,000 per year cap will only diminish over time as inflation eats away at it. I have therefore tabled new clause 10, which would require the Government to review the case for uprating the £35,000 threshold by CPI each year, ensuring that it retains its value. I have also tabled amendment 41, which would go further and put that commitment squarely on the face of the Bill so that there can be no ambiguity about whether the level will increase.

The Minister skated over a bit of the background to the clause. The measure flows from one of the Chancellor’s first political choices, which was to remove the winter fuel payment from all pensioners except those in receipt of pensioner credit. That meant that pensioners living on incomes of around £13,000 a year lost their winter fuel support. Vital support was pulled from millions of pensioners across the country. In my constituency, 22,000 pensioners lost their entitlement overnight; the figure may have been similar in your constituency, Mr Efford. It was a deeply damaging move, which is why organisations such as Age UK and my party campaigned against it, and the Chancellor was forced to come back to the Dispatch Box to perform one of her U-turns. In response to the pressure, the Government announced that everyone would get the payment but that it would be clawed back.

I turn to the points that the Chartered Institute of Taxation and the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group have raised about the clause and the schedule. If a pensioner’s income is £1 over the threshold, they will lose the entire winter fuel payment; there is no taper. Unlike other income-related charge-backs, such as the high-income child benefit charge or the tapering of the personal allowance, the winter fuel payment is based on total income, not adjusted net income. It will affect pensioners who are seeking relief on their charitable contributions. Will the Minister explain why the Government have opted for a system that measures income in inconsistent ways, with different rules from similar income-dependent clawback schemes?

The Bill sets out that the Government’s approach relies heavily on data sharing between the DWP, devolved social security bodies and HMRC. There are some exemptions, for example for those who have been on means-tested benefits during the qualifying week or who have opted out of receiving the payment, but if that information is not shared swiftly and accurately, instances may occur of administrative issues causing distress and financial loss. Pensioners could also see an unexpected tax code on their pay slip, clawing back money that they should never have been charged. That might lead them to have to fight through an appeals process just to claim what is rightfully theirs.

The plan to collect the charge through PAYE, as is set out in the clause, brings its own issues. From 2027-28, HMRC will move to in-year coding, meaning that pensioners could start paying back a benefit that they have not even received yet, based on HMRC’s best guess at their income. As we all know, the winter fuel payment is a one-off payment that is usually paid in November, but PAYE collection is spread throughout the year, so pensioners could be having money clawed back that they have not yet received. If that estimate turns out to be wrong, they will have money taken off and refunded later. That is a recipe for potential confusion and hardship, and it could lead to more calls to HMRC that may go unanswered. In the year of transition, some pensioners could face being charged twice in a single tax year. That is not a minor administrative issue. It needs to be addressed.

We all know that any fixed monetary threshold in legislation loses its real value over time, but if Ministers believe that £35,000 is the right level today, surely they accept that uprating in line with inflation is only fair. If the Minister will not support that principle outright, perhaps he will commit to supporting new clause 10, which simply asks for a review of the impact of doing so. Schedule 10 allows for the alteration of the limit, but there is no obligation on Ministers, as there is for other benefits, to review the level or uprate the limit.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend talks about fairness in relation to amendment 41 on uprating in line with CPI. Is it also worth considering the importance of certainty, particularly for people on fixed incomes who will benefit from this measure? Uprating by CPI would give them certainty into the future that they are not going to fall into fuel poverty.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We want more certainty within the system, as far as possible. On earlier clauses, we debated the uncertainty that can come from having administrative rules that HMRC can interpret. Our amendment would give people confidence that their income and the benefit they receive would continue in real terms.

Nobody disputes the need to focus support on those who need it most. Where the Chancellor got it wrong was in taking it away from people who are just over the £13,000 income threshold. If the Government insist on recovering payments, they need to get the fundamentals right, with clear definitions, robust data sharing and a simple route for challenging any mistakes that may have been made.

Let us be clear. We welcome the Chancellor’s latest U-turn, reversing the very first decision she took in office. She was wrong to remove the benefit from millions of pensioners. This clause helps her to correct her poor political choice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I thank the hon. Members for North West Norfolk and for Maidenhead for their remarks and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for his enjoyable intervention.

In response to the point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, we believe that total income is a reasonable way of assessing income. There are other ways of making that assessment, but we think that in this instance total income is appropriate.

[Blake Stephenson]

The Minister says that the measures that the Government are using are appropriate, but can he explain, in response to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, why adjusted income was not used and why it is not appropriate?

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 29th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

[James Wild]

It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair presiding over our proceedings this afternoon, Mrs Harris. I will speak to amendment 42, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends, along with clause 79 and new clause 14.

Clause 79, which many are already calling the taxi tax —that is certainly what people in the industry are calling it—changes the way VAT is applied to taxi and private hire vehicle journeys. Currently, under the tour operators’ margin scheme, VAT is charged only on the operator’s margin—that is, the difference between what the operator charges the customer and what it pays the underlying provider. The clause will remove taxi and private hire vehicle transport from the scope of the tour operators’ margin scheme.

The clause is being brought forward following a defeat for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on precisely this point. The tribunal rejected HMRC’s claim that ride-hailing services do not qualify for TOMS, although I understand that there is still an appeal, which is due to be heard in March. Perhaps the Minister can explain how much money is being spent preparing for that, if this legislation is going to make the question moot.

In practical terms, the clause means that drivers and businesses now have to charge VAT at 20% on the fare paid by the customer—taking, for example, a £20 fare to £24. The measure took effect from 2 January this year. The Labour party promised in its manifesto not to increase VAT. It is true that it has not increased the rate, but it has certainly expanded the scope of its application through this measure. According to the Government’s own Budget policy costings document, the change will raise about £190 million in 2025-26, rising to some £675 million a year by 2031. That strikes me as a significant new burden—a significant new tax—on private hire and taxis, hence the “taxi tax” sobriquet. It is passengers who will ultimately end up paying the bill.

Industry bodies have warned that fares could increase by double-digit percentages in some areas. Every penny of extra VAT will be passed on to passengers who rely on these services because they have no viable public transport alternatives. That is particularly the case in rural areas and among disabled and elderly passengers, women wanting to get home safely at night and workers on early shifts. They are the people who will be affected by this taxi tax.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Like quite a few members of the Committee, I represent a rural constituency. We have a lot of villages that are not connected to our towns, and a lot of elderly people who need to get to appointments. There are also a lot of children with special education needs and disabilities who get to school via taxis. Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in fares, which will be passed on to our vulnerable constituents, is unacceptable, and that a charge will be passed on to local authorities, which is not fair to our local taxpayers?

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend, like me, has a very rural constituency that spends tens of millions of pounds on this. I think Norfolk spends around £30 million or £40 million a year on taxis to transport pupils with special education needs to school. That is a huge proportion of the money that is spent on special educational needs, and potentially adds to the burden and costs of councils who are struggling, particularly in rural areas. They have been—I will be polite—disadvantaged by the latest local government settlement and the way that the Government have skewed the formula against rural areas, having already removed the rural services grant, which we had come to rely on.

What is the Government’s estimate of the average fare increase for passengers as a result of this measure? How can the Treasury justify raising the transport costs at a time when families are already struggling and the Government claim that the cost of living is their priority?

The charge in this clause will not only hit passengers. Operators will face new administrative burdens as they try to account for VAT under far more complex rules. That creates uncertainty—this Committee has discussed the need for certainty on many occasions—and increases the costs for local businesses that operate on relatively small margins. As one operator of a private hire vehicle firm said, rather starkly,

“a 20% VAT hike would hit the elderly, disabled and rural passengers hardest. Businesses cannot plan, invest or grow while uncertainty remains.”

The places most exposed are those with limited public transport networks and a consequently high reliance on the use of taxis and private hire vehicles. That is why we have tabled amendment 42, which proposes to exempt rural communities. It is a simple and fair way to protect those most affected. It would amend clause 79 so that the charge does not apply to journey by private hire vehicle or taxi in rural areas.

If the Minister refuses that limited relief, will he at least commit to supporting new clause 14? It would require a proper impact assessment of the effect of the measure on the taxi and private hire industry, driver earnings, vulnerable passengers, rural communities and passenger fares.

There is a practical problem with clause 79, as with so many clauses that we have debated. Some major operators, including Uber, have reclassified themselves or are exploring ways to reclassify themselves as technology platforms rather than transport providers. That seems to be happening in cities outside London already. If they succeed, the VAT liability would shift from the company to the individual drivers, many of whom are not VAT-registered owing to their earnings level. What is the Minister’s response to that shift, which is already taking effect in parts of the country?

Concerns have also been raised by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales that the list of qualifying services in proposed new subsection (3A) in section 53 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 is too narrow. The institute contends that the list excludes other key designated travel services, most notably trips, excursions and the services of tour guides. That creates a genuine issue for tour operators who supply day-trip packages, whether to the coast of North West Norfolk or to other parts of the country. A lot of small, often family firms provide these services.

For example, if the package consists of a private car transfer, picking up someone from King’s Lynn station and taking them up to sunny Hunstanton, and that is combined with a professional tour guide or excursion ticket, under the clause the private hire element will fall out of TOMS while the guide or excursion will remain in it. What will that do? It will add considerable complexity, forcing the unbundling of a single commercial package. It will require changes to systems and changes to invoicing.

If the intent, as the Minister will no doubt tell us, is simply to go after taxis and private hire vehicles, this is a glaring example of where the drafting is wrong and goes too far. The ICAEW contends that the existing ancillary tests are robust enough to avoid any obvious attempt to dodge paying the tax that is due.

This is a tax rise that will increase fares, hurt rural and vulnerable passengers and create fresh uncertainty in a vital sector. In my constituency, the funding that has been provided for buses is reducing in comparison with the funding provided by the last Government. I expect that that position is being replicated across the country. People in my constituency do not have the luxury of the regular services that I am sure the Minister has in his Chipping Barnet constituency, with maybe three an hour. In parts of my constituency, three a day would be frequent.

I hope that the Minister recognises the points that are being made on behalf of rural areas; I am sure that other hon. Members who represent rural areas will not sit silently when the issue is being discussed, but will speak up for their constituents.

As I say, this is a tax that will increase fares, hurt rural areas and vulnerable passengers and create uncertainty. It will also add to the cost of living. The Office for Budget Responsibility has forecast that real living standards will increase by 0.25% in each year of this Parliament, which is a staggeringly low figure when the average has been 1% in each of the past 10 years. That is not a great record—no wonder the Government are cancelling elections left, right and centre.

If the Government are intent on pressing ahead, the very least the Minister can do is agree to review the measure, looking at fare levels, passenger numbers and any reduction in service availability. Otherwise, I look forward to pressing to a vote my amendment, which would protect rural areas.

Finance (No. 2) Bill (Second sitting)

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 27th January 2026 Public Bill Committees

Some of the issues I have highlighted have straightforward solutions, which our amendments address. The Government claim they want to simplify our tax system—the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest were hurrahing that earlier—and encourage investment in Britain, yet they produce legislation that is complex, sometimes retrospective and riddled with unintended consequences. We need tax law that is clear, fair and progressive, not a compliance minefield that catches the unwary while sophisticated advisers find ways around it. I listened carefully to the Minister’s response, in particular on the TRF issues that I raised, but my intention is to press my amendments.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I will speak to amendments 1 and 2 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor. The Government and those of us supporting the amendments are trying to achieve the same outcome. The aim of the amendments is simple: to enable the Government to achieve their goal of raising billions in tax revenues from former non-doms—money that is needed to pay for public services, as the hon. Member for Burnley said earlier.

The Government set out the policy intention to replace non-dom status with a UK residency tax to raise more tax from those with the greatest capacity to pay, while simplifying the system. They introduced the temporary repatriation facility—or, given that we like three-letter acronyms, the TRF—as the central part of that strategy. It is designed to encourage people to remain in the UK, to come to the UK and invest in the UK, and to bring historically offshore capital into the UK tax net. The TRF offers a reduced rate of taxation of 12% on all non-UK assets brought into the country as an incentive to do just that. We all want the same thing: we want the TRF to work, because if it does not, the money does not come here and the Exchequer and the public lose.

The Government are relying on the reforms to raise very substantial sums—about £34 billion overall. The concern I express is not ideological or about the tax rate; it is about legal certainty and deliverability. The problem is that a number of the wealthiest people have left the country, and many more are doing so as we debate these amendments. Why? Odd as it may seem, it is not because they are unwilling to pay more tax; it is because of the legal uncertainty in the Bill as drafted.

Using the TRF as set out in the Bill exposes people to serious legal uncertainty. First, they are subject to double taxation through double counting of the same economic value. Secondly, they are vulnerable to retrospective taxation. Thirdly, they face allegations of tax avoidance simply for using a scheme that Parliament itself has created. Fourthly, they expose themselves and their families to potentially decade-long investigations into arrangements that were entirely lawful at the time they were entered into. That is why they are watching this Bill proceed with their bags packed, waiting to see if it will fix the problems.

The advisers of such people are warning them to leave, but I know that the Government’s intention is not to drive them away. We need their taxes, fairly paid, to fund the renewal of our public services. That is why amendments 1 and 2 were tabled, in a constructive spirit of co-operation, as my hon. Friend the shadow Minister mentioned. Amendment 1 would stop double counting; and amendment 2 would ensure that retrospective and unfair action does not continue. Had amendment 49, which goes further, been selected for debate, I would have spoken to it as well, but I will resist doing so because it has not been selected.

Amendments 1 and 2 would provide the needed certainty and make the TRF usable in practice, not just in theory. I hope that the Minister can give me some assurance that the Government recognise some of the technical problems highlighted by the amendments and intend to resolve them. I noted earlier that the Minister rejected amendments 1 and 2, giving a brief reason why, but given the representations, certainly by the Opposition, a more detailed response as to why the amendments have been rejected by the Government would be worthwhile.

Much careful work has gone into the construction of amendments 1 and 2. Again in the spirit of co-operation, I am sure that Conservative Members would be happy to provide input to the Minister and officials as they consider how best to address the issues. With that, I commend the amendments to the Committee.

[Lucy Rigby]

A criticism of complexity has been made. The aim of these reforms is, of course, simplicity. I think it is recognised across the House that in matters of taxation, simplicity is better. We are ensuring that the legislation works as it is intended to do. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, referred to the Chartered Institute of Taxation. It is important to note this quote from the institute:

“Moving from domicile to residence as the basis for taxing people who are internationally mobile makes sense.”

As well as being a major simplification, it is a fairer and more transparent basis for determining UK tax. Residence is determined by criteria far more objective and certain than the subjective concept of domicile. Replacing the outdated remittance basis is sensible, and the temporary repatriation facility offers a helpful transition.

Another criticism is retrospection. In this instance, the Government feel that a retrospective change is a proportionate response to protect revenue, which, as the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, is essential for public services. This change will prevent taxpayers from benefiting from unintended windfalls and promotes consistency in the application of rules, bringing the capital gains position into line with the income tax provision. In most cases, trusts will not yet have made capital distributions, meaning that beneficiaries and trustees will have advance notice and can plan their affairs.

A further topic that that came up is the reporting of every element of FIG. I have a note on that somewhere, so I will come back to it. I will deal first with the suggestion that restrictions on the TRF are arbitrary. The position of someone who is temporarily abroad arose. The TRF is designed to encourage people to be UK-resident and bring funds into the UK economy. Allowing non-residents to use the TRF would let individuals benefit from the reduced charge without living here or contributing to the UK economy, which would reduce the incentive to become or remain UK-resident.

As I said, I reject amendment 1 because there are already measures in place that prevent double counting. I have dealt with amendment 2. I want to deal with the reporting of every element of FIG, which I have a note on, as I said. [Interruption.] That is the wrong note. I will have to come back to that.

Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The Chancellor obviously spoke to Cabinet on the day of the Budget, as is the normal process, to let them know what was coming in the Budget later that day.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury failed to answer a critical question raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor and a similar question raised by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), so I will ask the question in a slightly different way. Does the Minister agree that the FCA must urgently investigate whether conduct has fallen short of, in particular, part 7 of the Financial Services Act 2012 and article 12(1)(c) of the UK market abuse regulation, and does he agree that no stone should be left unturned in that investigation?

[James Murray]

The Chancellor has now delivered her Budget, and the Office for Budget Responsibility has published its figures. We have been clear that we were focused on cutting the cost of living, cutting NHS waiting lists and cutting Government borrowing.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Stamp duty is the worst kind of tax; there seems to be cross-party consensus on that point today. It stands in the way of the aspiring young couple who want to buy their first home, or move on and bring up a family. It punishes the older couple who want to downsize to a more suitable home once their family have flown the nest. It stifles growth and restricts mobility, and it has become so complex that it confuses even Deputy Prime Ministers. It is in all our interests to simplify it, and we can do that by abolishing it, so that we can get the housing market moving once again.

Members on both sides of the House have said that the market is bunged up, and it absolutely is. So many properties have been on the market for many months, not selling. That applies to houses at all points on the housing chain, not just multimillion-pound houses; but if those multimillion-pound houses do not sell, houses throughout the chain will also not sell, which has an impact on young people, families and old people throughout the country.

We have made a commitment to unshackling our housing market by abolishing stamp duty on primary residences. I was extremely pleased when that was announced at the Conservative party conference a few weeks ago. I was also pleased by the honesty of my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) when he said that this debate had been ongoing in the party for some time, and I am very pleased indeed that we have settled on this position.

In my constituency, the average house price is about £372,500. Purchasing a property at that price—if the online stamp duty calculators are accurate—would require a stamp duty outlay of £8,625. When the stamp duty land tax was introduced on land transactions by the then Labour Government in December 2003, the average house price in my constituency was £169,000, which meant a stamp duty outlay of just £1,090. When stamp duty is taken together with increasing house prices, there has been a 224% increase in the cost of buying a home; average earnings have risen by just 190% in the same period. Abolishing stamp duty will not fix that overnight. We still need to do more to build warm, dry homes in the places where people want to live, and I am pleased that today’s debate has been broadened slightly to cover the subject of house building.

I think that parties across the House want to build good-quality homes in the right places to enable young people to get on to the housing ladder. We do not seem to be at odds on that. However, those homes need to be in the right places, and I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire that their quality is incredibly important. If we improve the quality of new build homes, our communities will be much more open to accepting house building, which will increase supply and improve opportunities for young people. That is critical for all Members on both sides of the House.

In places like London, however, this Government and their Labour Mayor of London have utterly failed to tackle a severe housing crisis; there are lower targets, and there is reduced aspiration, rather than ambition. Building more houses will help to arrest the charging growth in house prices, but we know that just building is unlikely to bring prices down. Some 20% fewer 25 to 34-year-olds are homeowners today than in the year 2000. Average first-time buyers are almost a decade older today than in the 1980s. Our property market is failing our young people.

We must therefore do more to make it more affordable for people to make that next move. The Chancellor, desperate to raise more money following her economic vandalism, wants to drag more people into paying stamp duty, or into a higher rate of stamp duty, by freezing thresholds. Reform, which is reportedly about to scrap its half-baked stamp duty plans, is looking to concrete over our green belt, as it lacks any credible plans to deliver homes at all. The Conservatives are the only party with a sensible plan to unlock our housing market and give young people a stake in society and roots in their communities.

By abolishing stamp duty on primary residences, we can make it more than 2% cheaper for families to buy the average house in my constituency overnight. We can save prospective first-time buyers in London an average of £18,000—and I am sure that at least one hon. Member on the Government Benches, the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake), might wish to comment on the savings that she could deliver to her constituents by supporting this motion and pushing this policy through within her party.

That is the sort of real impact that people will feel in their pockets, and that they will feel while unboxing their prized possessions in the living room of their new family home. It will enable a new generation of young people to achieve the dream of home ownership, enable families to move up the housing ladder into more suitable family homes, unlock our housing market, and knock down a barrier to social mobility, stimulating our economy and abolishing the drag on growth. That is what I got into politics to deliver: less Government red tape, fewer taxes on aspiration and mobility, and families in homes of their own.

[Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on stamp duty, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think there is a lot of agreement on both sides of the House that, if we could just abolish stamp duty, we would. The question is not about abolishing stamp duty, but about how that would be paid for, and what we have seen from the Conservatives’ so-called costing is £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion that they could not deliver while they were in office. Those cuts would lead to rising destitution, and not just for those who are out of work or for children, but for those who are in work as we speak.

It is worth thinking about how the social security system has changed over time and what has happened in our economy, and indeed in high-income nations across the world. Technological change has resulted in a divide between high-paid and low-paid jobs, so that some jobs—mostly done by graduates—pay enough to live on, but a lot more do not. For a two-parent household with two kids to afford just the basics, each parent needs to earn £35,000 a year. Some 40% of full-time workers earn less than that.

So that people can afford to live, we have used the social security system to top up wages. That is what we did with working tax credits, and it is what the Conservatives did when they reformed that system to become universal credit. However, they built a huge amount of cuts into the system. What did those cuts mean? They meant food banks in our nation, which we had never known previously. They meant kids going hungry. They meant parents unable to afford the basics. They meant that people across this country who worked hard and did the right thing could not afford a decent life.

Today, the Conservative party are once again suggesting £23 billion of cuts to social security. That is £23 billion out of the pockets of families, including working families. It is shocking; it should mean something to them—it should mean something to all of us. Our nation does better when every single one of us can afford a decent life. People who work hard should be able to have a decent life, yet those cuts would mean the opposite.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member is making a powerful argument. I just wonder whether he has reflected on the size of the welfare budget. Is he making the argument that welfare spending should not come down at all?

[Dr Sandher]

That is not at all the argument I am making. My argument is: how can we ensure that people live a decent life through £23 billion of social security cuts, given the huge amounts of destitution and increased unaffordability for families? I say this to the Conservatives as well: I worked in the Treasury under George Osborne, and even he would not have come up with something like this. When he tried something similar, he did not get it past this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Bool]

I will make some progress.

Labour Members sneer when we talk about living within their means. That is something that every single constituent of ours has to do. They have to make those tough decisions not to spend at certain points, or to save, or to work harder, but this Government do not even follow the principles that they ask their own constituents to adhere to.

[Blake Stephenson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful if the Government were much more ambitious in finding the savings in their Budget, in order to deliver this ambitious policy that would support young people up and down our country?

[Sarah Bool]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point and I really wish that the Government would be able to find that, but unfortunately, given the current Chancellor, I do not think that will be a possibility.

The Government should be creating an environment for people to thrive; they should not be fixing people in an environment. Stamp duty is one of those taxes that literally locks people in place. We must learn that we need to be able to trust individuals, give them those opportunities and see true growth. So I fully support, as I hope everyone would, this motion on stamp duty land tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

Ask any economist, or indeed most Members in the Chamber today, and they would say that stamp duty is a bad tax. It creates friction in the market, whether we are talking about someone in a one-bedroom flat who is trying to take the step up to a family home, but who finds that their savings goal is now that much more, or whether we are talking about someone whose kids have flown the nest, and who is considering downsizing but finds the bill a disincentive.

It is important that we do not overstate what abolishing stamp duty will do. There have been lots of claims about how it will help millions of young people on to the ladder. For most people, this would not be the case. There is an exemption for first-time buyers of properties worth up to £300,000, and a further discount all the way up to half a million. It is important that we recognise that the proposal would not make a difference for huge numbers of people, including young people. I appreciate the points made about the fluidity of the market as well, but that is not the critical point.

The central problem in the housing market is the disparity between people’s wages and house prices. People have said to me, “I had to save hard to get my home,” and “You should have seen the interest rates back in the day.” I have no doubt that it has always been hard and a struggle to save up to buy a property, but the extent to which it has become out of reach today is not properly understood. Around the time I was born—1990, if Members are interested—the difference between the average wage and the average house price was about three times a person’s income, but today that average difference is eight times a person’s income. I represent a London constituency, and for people in London, that difference is 15 times the average income. That means that people in the top 10% of earners in the capital cannot afford the average home. It is an absolute disgrace that we have allowed ourselves to get to this situation.

[Blake Stephenson]

The hon. Member is making a powerful point in support of our motion. Does he intend to support it this afternoon?

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We are proud as a Government to back Rolls-Royce, and to have it as our preferred provider for the small modular reactor programme, resulting in lower bills and more good jobs, particularly in Derbyshire.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

From responses to my written parliamentary questions, we know that the median earner can expect to pay £273 more in tax this year under Labour. When the Chancellor sat on the Opposition Benches, she described freezing tax thresholds as “picking the pockets” of working people. Does the Chancellor accept that she is now the one picking the pockets of working people?

[Rachel Reeves]

In the Budget last year, we increased taxes by £40 billion, but without affecting the pay packets of ordinary working people. We did not increase their national insurance, their income tax or their VAT, and we did not go ahead with the wrong-headed increase in fuel duty that was put in place by the Conservative party. We are protecting working people; the Conservative party picked their pockets time and again.

Finance Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sandher]

This Budget is investing in the future, and indeed changing this country. This is a Budget that is moving forward, but I want to cover the bits covered in the Finance Bill. It is a Budget, a Finance Bill, that is investing in labour-intensive sectors such as early years childcare and the warm homes plan.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am enjoying the hon. Member’s speech, and to give him a few moments to gather his thoughts, I remind him that new clause 1 would require a review of how many people receiving the new state pension at the full rate are liable to pay income tax this year and in the next four tax years, and specifically what the tax liability of state pension income will be. Would he care to provide the House with his thoughts on new clause 1?

[Dr Sandher]

I thank the hon. Member for his help and assistance. The aim is not only to improve pensioner incomes. On one side there is the tax change, and on the other side, the triple lock will ensure that the amount going to those pensioners increases by £400 from April. As Members on both sides of the House would agree, the triple lock has helped pensioners immeasurably.

It is right that I now draw my speech to a close. I thank all hon. Members for their help, and I also thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Growing the UK Economy

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

Pithy, Madam Deputy Speaker! Yes, I completely endorse my hon. Friend’s question. He knows very well that in the technology space there are huge opportunities for investment in the UK. Our AI investment zone announcement will be the first of many such announcements in the years ahead.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I thank my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for campaigning so tirelessly to bring Universal Studios to my constituency. Constituents in Mid Bedfordshire and across the country will be surprised not to hear the Government back Universal Studios. Will the Minister confirm when he intends to conclude negotiations with Universal Studios and come back to the House with an update?

[Darren Jones]

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date, because negotiations are, as he will know, negotiations. They are ongoing, but I am hopeful that we will be able to come back shortly with updates to show that we are able to deliver deals much faster than his party, when it was last in government.

Finance Bill (First sitting)

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[James Murray]

I thank the shadow Minister for his questions and his support for the clause. He mentioned a question that the ATT raised about the interaction between the extension of the 100% first-year allowance we are proposing, particularly for charge points, and the context of full expensing in the annual investment allowance. For businesses that are investing over the annual investment allowance limit, there may be circumstances where, if the first year allowance were not extended as it is by these clauses, some investment in EV charge point equipment would qualify for only a 50% first-year allowance rather than 100% full expensing. The Government want to support investment in EV charge point infrastructure by providing full relief for investment in equipment for EV charge points. That is why we have introduced this measure.

The shadow Minister asked for a specific figure. I do not have that to hand, but I am happy to look into what information is available and get back to him. More broadly, the 100% first-year allowance was due to expire in April 2025. This conversation has echoes of an earlier discussion we had around retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, and reliefs or allowances that we inherited and which are due to expire in April 2025. We have decided to extend this, and the reason why is to help support businesses and individuals who are buying or making electric vehicles and associated infrastructure. We see this as one of a series of measures to support the EV transition. It has come up in relation to a number of clauses, so I think it is clear to the Committee that the Government are pursuing a range of different interventions and policies to carefully calibrate the right level of Government support.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In the interest of providing certainty, would the Minister explain why the Government did not choose a multi-year allowance on this, rather than going for an extension of only one year?

[James Murray]

As I was saying, we are seeking to calibrate the incentives carefully for the transition to EVs to support manufacturers and consumers and to give as much certainty as possible, while making sure that we have the right support in different parts of the tax system to provide value for money and support the transition in the right way. It is not a question of a single measure being responsible for supporting the transition. This relies on manufacturers and consumers playing their part, but the Government need to play their role, too, which is why this measure sits alongside others we have debated, including those that are not part of the Finance Bill but are part of the Government’s broader agenda. Collectively, they will support this transition.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Commercial letting of furnished holiday accommodation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

The Professional Association of Self Caterers UK points out that traditional holiday lets businesses provide critical bedstock in visitor economies, and estimates that the holiday lets that will be impacted contribute some £9.3 billion in economic activity and support 230,000 jobs. Even Labour’s Environment Secretary has recognised the economic value of holiday lets. In his speech to the Oxford farming conference this year, he spoke about supporting farmers to “innovate and diversify” their businesses by making it easier to convert large barns into holiday lets.

[Blake Stephenson]

Does my hon. Friend think that, by suggesting that farmers should diversify into holiday lets, the Environment Secretary intends that farmers should pay even more tax to the Treasury?

[Gareth Davies]

It is clear that the Government have launched an attack on farmers across rural communities in our country. The family farm tax is a disgrace. Farmers have protested and tried to make their voices heard, but still cannot get a meeting with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I urge the Minister, who is very open to meetings, to have a word with his Chancellor, who is consistently in hiding and running out of the country when things get difficult as a result of her decisions.

Perhaps it is true that the Environment Secretary wants farmers to pay even more tax. Why else would he say to farmers in Oxford, “Convert your barns into holiday lets,” while over the road the Treasury is taking away these reliefs and making it more tax inefficient for them to do so? This is yet another area where the Labour Government seem intent on cancelling out genuinely pro-growth deregulation, which we welcome, with anti-growth taxation.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sandher]

I absolutely understand the benefits of early years childcare, which is why we are so proud that it is a key part of this Government’s opportunity mission and is one of our milestones. We know that money invested today will pay dividends in the future. Labour Members we are absolutely committed to expanding and investing in early years childcare.

More broadly, this measure is also about investing in our young people. One in three young people is experiencing mental health problems, and one in 20 is too sick to work. That number is only rising. There has been a threefold increase in health problems that make it too difficult to do day-to-day activities. This generation of mine is without hope and without health. For those who have been struck down by hopelessness, and who are now too sick to work, our “Get Britain Working” programme, combining health, skills and employment support, is rebuilding confidence. It is helping people into good jobs, and is restoring dignity, purpose and sense of community to every person and place in our nation.

This Bill speaks to our governing philosophy, which is that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. As we have seen, we are changing our nation and rebuilding hope in our communities, our country, and indeed our democracy. We are building a country that gets better, rather than worse; where every person can get a good job; where every person can afford a decent home; and where every person can get the skills that they need, so that we can all live once again in a country where working hard means a decent life. That is what we are investing in, and that is why we are proud to raise revenue through the measure that we are debating today.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I rise to support the amendments and new clause 1 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies). If this Government’s goal was to fix the foundations, I am afraid the result has been subsidence. Business confidence has plummeted, and two thirds of firms think that Labour’s Budget, including the NI increase, will damage investment.

An economy grows on the back of hard-working people investing, taking risks and employing local people in constituencies like mine of Mid Bedfordshire. How does the Labour party reward those people for their hard work? It raises their taxes, it makes it harder for them to employ people, and it reduces the amount they take home at the end of the month. It justifies that by telling them that they are not really working people.

Conservatives understand that growth is created from the hard work of entrepreneurs up and down our country, driving our economy forward. Across the country, millions of people want stronger economic growth. That is what they voted for, but they now have a low-growth, high-tax, job-cutting Labour Government. They were promised change, but they did not expect that change to be to Labour’s manifesto commitment not to increase national insurance. That change hikes the cost of employing someone by £800, reduces the number of jobs in the economy, reduces the wages of working people and increases prices in shops.