Finance Bill (Second sitting)

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I think Opposition Members are somewhat confused. The Chancellor committed to bringing an amendment forward. I know that the Minister says it will be tabled at a later stage, but why is it so complex that it cannot be considered today, so that it can be scrutinised by the Opposition?

[James Murray]

At the risk of repeating myself, amendments are routinely brought forward in Committee and on Report, and they are scrutinised at both stages of the Bill. The intention is to make sure that the legislation is in the best possible place by the time it gets to Third Reading and receives Royal Assent.

The focus for us is to make sure that this legislation works as well as possible. We are pragmatic about that; we want to make sure that it functions effectively. That is why we are making technical changes by way of Government amendments today, and why there will be further amendments on Report to make the system simpler and more generous, in the way that the Chancellor has set out.

This is about achieving a system that makes the tax system both fairer, in the ways that we have set out, and as simple and attractive as possible for people who want to come to the UK and bring their money to the UK, to invest and spend it here, which will help us to grow the economy.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 9

Income Tax and Capital Gains Tax: Remittance Basis and Domicile

Amendments made: 55, in schedule 9, page 208, line 24, leave out “sections 56(5)(a), 61G(5)(a) and 61R(5)(a)” and insert “sections 56, 61G and 61R”

This amendment together with Amendment 56 omits subsections that have become redundant in light of the ending of the relevance of domicile to income tax.

Amendment 56, in schedule 9, page 208, line 25, leave out from “payment)” to end of line 27 and insert “, omit subsections (4) and (5).”

This amendment together with Amendment 55 omits subsections that have become redundant in light of the ending of the relevance of domicile to income tax.

Amendment 57, in schedule 9, page 210, line 34, at end insert—

“Premium trust funds

21A In section 174 of FA 1993 (premium trust funds), omit subsection (6)(a).

FOTRA securities

21B (1) In section 22 of F(No.2)A 1931 (Treasury power to issue securities with a FOTRA condition)—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), for “persons who are neither domiciled nor resident in the United Kingdom” substitute “exempt persons”;

(b) after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following persons are “exempt persons”—

(a) individuals who are not resident in the United Kingdom, and

(b) persons who are not individuals and are neither domiciled nor resident in the United Kingdom.”

(2) In section 154 of FA 1996 (FOTRA securities), in subsection (1)—

(a) after “applies,” insert “where the person with the beneficial ownership of the securities is not an individual and”;

(b) for “the person with beneficial ownership of the securities” substitute “that person”.

(3) Any security issued before 29th April 1996 with a FOTRA condition shall be treated in relation to times on or after 6 April 2025 as if—

(a) it were a security issued with the post-1996 FOTRA conditions (and with no other FOTRA condition), and

(b) the post-1996 FOTRA conditions had been authorised in relation to the issue of that security by virtue of section 22 of F(No.2)A 1931.

(4) In sub-paragraph (3) —

“a FOTRA condition” means a condition about exemption from taxation authorised by section 22 of F(No.2)A 1931;

“the post-1996 FOTRA conditions” means the conditions about exemption from taxation with which 7.25% Treasury Stock 2007 was first issued by virtue of section 22 of F(No.2)A 1931.”

Amendment 58, in schedule 9, page 210, line 34, at end insert—

“Reliefs in respect of income from investments etc. of certain pension schemes

21C In section 614 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (exemptions and reliefs in respect of income from investments etc. of certain pension schemes), in subsections (4) and (5), omit “not domiciled and”.”—(James Murray.)

This amendment removes references to domicile in provisions of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 relating to relief on income from investments of certain pension schemes.

Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10

Temporary repatriation facility

Amendment made: 59, in schedule 10, page 214, line 6, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

“(a) Part 2 of this Schedule (exemptions etc for designated qualifying overseas capital),”—(James Murray.)

This amendment corrects an incorrect reference.

Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 11 agreed to.

Clause 43

Trusts: connected amendments, transitional provision etc

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

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. What is the hon. Gentleman standing for? I hope he is not. I call Blake Stephenson.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

15. What taxes she classes as taxes on working people.

[Mr James Frith (Bury North) (Lab)]

16. What steps she is taking to minimise taxes on working people.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

As hon. Members know, any changes to tax policy will be set out in tomorrow’s Budget. Members will also know that our approach to fixing the foundations of the economy will be one that protects working people. This Labour Government will honour our commitment to protect working people by not increasing national insurance, basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT.

[Blake Stephenson]

The Government have got into an absolute pickle over the definition of working people. People deserve certainty. In Mid Bedfordshire, we are proud of the hard work of the owners of nearly 5,000 small businesses. They are working people creating jobs and growing our economy, and all while providing for their families. They are lying awake at night worrying about yet higher taxes. Will the Chancellor give them a peaceful night’s sleep ahead of tomorrow’s Budget and confirm that she will honour her manifesto commitment not to raise taxes on them?

[James Murray]

I do not think I am pre-empting anything tomorrow by confirming that the Chancellor will absolutely stick to our commitment not to raise taxes on working people through national insurance, the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, or VAT. And I might add that what people and businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency might want is stability in the economy, a Government who support investment in the economy, and a Government who will get the economy growing and make people across Britain better off.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Blake Stephenson Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) for securing this debate. I should declare that I am a governor at Shillington and Stondon Federation, and a Central Bedfordshire councillor.

Labour Members are notable by their absence. I can only imagine that they are ashamed of this policy to charge VAT on education. Parents across the country and in Mid Bedfordshire deserve to be able to send their child to the best school for them. Parental choice is crucial to ensuring that our children get the best start in life, but too many parents in Bedfordshire are already struggling to get that for their children. The Department for Education has acknowledged that Bedford borough’s secondary schools are effectively full. A new school will not come along until 2027, and it is anticipated that even that school will be filled by future housing growth.

Just over 15% of children in Bedford borough, and nearly 10% of children in central Bedfordshire, did not receive an offer for their first choice secondary school. That situation will get worse as our population grows. Across Bedfordshire, 19 independent schools currently support 5,744 pupils. It is a policy of envy—the Labour Government want to drive pupils away from the independent sector and into state schools. That means less choice for parents and bigger class sizes, reducing the quality of education for all.

The Government have talked about growing the economy, but imposing VAT on independent schools will fundamentally damage the economy in Bedfordshire. Independent schools contribute £800 million to the east of England’s economy, supporting 47,000 jobs. In a recent visit to Orchard school in Barton-le-Clay in my constituency, I was struck by its wider economic impact. It employs local people, uses local suppliers, and supports local businesses.