Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

As my hon. Friend says, defence has an important role to play in the growth mission as well as keeping our country safe and secure, and on Friday the Defence Secretary and I hosted a roundtable at RAF Waddington in Lincoln to announce a new defence innovation hub to harness that potential. Defence has a strong presence in many of our constituencies—indeed, according to the most recent data, Ministry of Defence spending in the east of England accounted for £1.5 billion—and down the road from my hon. Friend’s constituency is the historic MOD Shoeburyness range, which, along with other sites, is operated by the MOD and QinetiQ as part of a long-term partnership worth more than £5 billion. In the years to come, there will be more investment in defence from both the public and the private sector.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

As part of their pursuit of the ever-elusive goal of economic growth, the Government have rebranded the UK Infrastructure Bank as the National Wealth Fund. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility has cast doubt on the effectiveness of that as a driver of economic growth. Can the Chancellor tell the House how much the rebrand has cost?

Family Businesses

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I return to my point that three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, or agricultural property relief and business property relief, will not pay any more inheritance tax in 2026-27 as a result of these changes. In terms of the extra inheritance tax liability, which is what the data about claims points towards, the data is clear that the majority of estates will not be affected. As I mentioned to several of the hon. Member’s colleagues on Conservative Benches, the data is set out in quite some detail in the letter that the Chancellor wrote to the Treasury Committee. If she has a look at the data in that letter, that might answer some of her questions.

I will briefly finish my comments in relation to business rates. I was thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin) for intervening to point out what we inherited from the previous Government: a situation where relief for retail, hospitality and leisure was chopping and changing year to year. Indeed, from April this year there was to be a cliff edge, so it would have gone away entirely—according to the plans we inherited from the previous Government, there was to be no relief at all after April. We therefore decided to extend the relief at a fiscally responsible level for a further year, ahead of our permanent reforms coming in.

While we are on the subject of hospitality, let me address the absurd notion in the Opposition’s motion—I do not believe the shadow Chancellor mentioned this in his comments—that the pint is under threat. The pint is part of our nation, and we do not need a new law to protect the pint any more than we need a new law to say that the sun must rise in the morning—I wonder whether the Opposition Members who drafted that part of the motion may have been close to a number of points when they did so. In any case, I am proud to reject the insinuation in their motion and to put on record—if it needs to be said—that pints are at the heart of our nation and, under Labour, they will stay that way.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

The Government continually talk about how the Chancellor has shaved one penny off a pint, but many publicans in my constituency tell me that they are having to find an extra £2,000 a month for additional costs as a result of the Government’s Budget. Does the Minister accept that a penny off a pint is futile if there are no pubs left to drink in?

[James Murray]

What I accept, as I said earlier, is that our difficult decision on employer national insurance contributions will have impacts on different businesses across the country. But the hon. Member should welcome—businesses across the country will welcome this—the extra support that we have provided through draught relief to support those pubs to succeed. That is an essential part not just of our economic activity across the country, but of our social lives and enjoying pints. I know that enjoying pints matters very much to Opposition Front Benchers.

I will try to make some progress, because there is quite a lot to cover in the Opposition’s motion. On employment, the motion seeks to undermine the Employment Rights Bill, so let me directly address those points. The Bill is the first phase in delivering our plan to make work pay, supporting employers, workers and unions to get Britain moving forward to bring greater predictability to the lives of working people. While I recognise that the flexibility offered by zero-hours contracts, zero-hours arrangements and low-hours contracts can benefit both workers and employers, without proper safeguards that flexibility can be one-sided, and it is far too often the workers who end up bearing all the financial risk.

That is why we have committed to ending this one-sided flexibility, to ensure that all jobs provide a baseline of security so that workers can better plan their lives and their finances. That includes ending exploitative zero-hours contracts. We will deliver the commitment through two measures: first, a right to guaranteed hours where the number of hours offered reflects the hours worked by the worker during a reference period; and secondly, new rights to offer reasonable notice of shifts, with proportionate payment for shifts that are cancelled, moved or curtailed at short notice.

I will try to draw this to a close. [Interruption.] Opposition Members might not want to hear it but, out of respect to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will bring my remarks to a close. The motion exposes a Conservative party that is happy to object to the difficult decisions that we have taken but totally unable to offer an alternative plan of its own. The debate has also allowed me to set out, on behalf of the Government, how we are moving fast to take the sometimes difficult but necessary decisions to deliver our plan for change.

We are taking the right decisions to fix our public finances, to restore stability and fiscal responsibility, and to ensure that both businesses and their employees can work productively and securely to drive economic growth. The changes that we have begun making are essential for economic growth, so we reject the Opposition’s motion. We are determined to move further and faster to make people across the UK more secure and better off.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to stand here on behalf of dozens, probably hundreds, of businesses across my constituency, many of which are run by families. It is discomforting to sit here and hear the sense of sheer denial and arrogance from Labour Members about what actually drives growth in our economy. What makes me most despondent is that the Government’s default ideological position and mentality is one where they ask, “What taxes can we raise?” Rather than asking how they as the Government can cut their cloth accordingly and pass on the benefits to the economy in the form of reduced taxes, their default position is to ask, “What taxes can we increase on the businesses that provide the very backbone of our prosperity?”

In that vein, family businesses provide employment for almost 14 million people across the country and contribute £575 billion to the national economy. These businesses are founded on principles of entrepreneurialism, which I am proud that my party has championed for decades. Labour is showing once again that it does not understand the value of business; it knows only how to tax and regulate enterprise, which ultimately makes our economy weaker and poorer.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

Labour Members may speak of their support and passion for small business, but they never speak of their experience of setting up and running one. There is very limited experience of that on the Labour Benches. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is part of the problem? Having never set up and run a business, they have no idea of the impact of their policies on one.

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly. That strikes at the heart of the Government’s lack of appreciation for what fundamentally drives the economy.

[Dr Luke Evans]

To be fair to the Government, we may not know what their CVs show, so there could be business experience but it is just not on their CV.

[Bradley Thomas]

My hon. Friend raises a very valid point, but let us look at the facts. The Government will attempt to tarnish the Conservatives’ record, but in July Labour inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7, with unemployment at near-record lows and inflation at the Bank of England’s target. We have seen a complete reversal of that, in part because the choices the Government made in the Budget have destroyed that progress. The Government’s Budget and fundamental overall approach threaten the future of family businesses through new red tape—we have the family business tax, the family farm tax and the national insurance job tax. Businesses know that they are paying more and the Government know that businesses are paying more, and I do not know how some Labour Members have the gall to sit there and think that their position is one of honesty and credibility when it comes to growing the economy.

A business in my patch has got in touch with me. Jack and his family run an apprenticeship training provider. Jack said,

“My parents left school with no qualifications and over the last 50 years have worked hard paying their way getting on and building a good life and business for us as a family. Since 2007, they have been majority shareholders and owners”

of a business called Birmingham Electrical Training, for which Jack is also a director. He goes on to say that they

“currently are the 2nd biggest provider of electrical apprenticeships in the UK”

and

“train 700+ apprentices in partnership with 275 local and national…contractors, many of which reside and work within”

the west midlands region. They

“hold a department of education contract and are recognised by the Electrical Industry in providing a crucial role in training the next generation of electricians”.

That is a pertinent point when the Government are pursuing policies like the ludicrous clean heat market mechanism, which will require a step change in the number of electrical contractors to deliver on the Government’s net zero folly.

Jack makes this point:

“There is no way that I would be able to afford £800k worth of tax to access the business I have helped build and grow over the past 10 years”

as a result of the changes announced by the Chancellor to inheritance tax. He will personally be liable for £800,000 that he will not be in a position to pay. That jeopardises one of the family businesses that form the backbone of the country’s economy. He asks,

“Why would the government want to destroy family businesses, which are crucial to helping local people and provide the growth in the economy in the years to come?”

That is not an isolated case. The Confederation of British Industry and Family Business UK have warned that changes to business property relief could lead to up to 125,000 job losses and reduce economic output by £9.4 billion, as their analysis found that average family businesses would cut investment by a staggering 16.5%, reduce headcount by 10.2% and lose turnover of 7.4%. That recognises the fact that the Government do not appreciate the fundamental positive benefits to wider society of promoting small businesses and their long-term financial viability. The Government are making the UK a hostile destination for investment, both large and small. They must work to ensure that our country is the most attractive destination possible for businesses to invest and grow and to make us wealthier.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

For some family businesses like those in my constituency, their main competitors are international companies. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government have not considered how increasing costs for UK businesses are making some of our family businesses less competitive?

[Bradley Thomas]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. What rings in my ears are the words from the Chancellor just a few months ago when she said that businesses need to cut their cloth accordingly. I go back to my initial point: Government must also cut their cloth accordingly. The default position of the Government in supporting business should be to spend taxpayers’ money—the funds generated by the very businesses we are talking about—in the most efficient way possible, so that we can have the lowest possible tax base in our economy to make the UK a great destination for inward investment.

[Kanishka Narayan]

The hon. Member talks of cutting one’s cloth. Perhaps he can tell the 14 million people employed by family businesses how he would cut the public services they rely on to fund the unfunded tax cuts he is talking about making.

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is a good one, in that he demonstrates that his party believes philosophically that it has to either tax or cut. The Government have no appreciation of the fact that money could be spent more effectively in the first instance. It is a fundamental ideological weakness of the Government.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. You have 10 seconds left, Mr Thomas. Do you want to finish?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will finish by saying that I will always be proud to stand up for small businesses in Bromsgrove and the villages, and across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am pleased the Opposition are using our time today to debate the importance of businesses large and small. It is the private sector that creates the wealth on which our society depends, and it is the taxes businesses pay that fund our NHS and other important public services. The policies of this Labour Government, from raising taxes to imposing additional regulations, are putting those businesses at risk.

Having promised during the general election not to increase NICs, the Chancellor immediately broke that promise in the Budget. This national insurance hike will cost employers £900 for every employee earning the average salary. The tax rise disproportionately affects employees on low wages. Someone earning £9,000 a year will cost their employer an extra £600 a year in tax. This is not just a tax on businesses; it is a tax on jobs. Labour has introduced a £25 billion jobs tax that will increase the cost of hiring workers. It has also increased business rates by £2.7 billion. Under the Conservatives, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors received a 75% relief on their business rates; Labour has reduced this relief to just 40%.

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the reduction in hospitality rate relief and the lower earnings threshold, which he has just acknowledged, create a perfect storm for hospitality businesses—not just because of the additional rate pressure, but because they will be less incentivised to recruit part-time workers? As has been acknowledged by other Members, that is often a route for young people into their first employment opportunity.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My hon. Friend is right: all Labour’s measures will increase unemployment. Although Labour will say it has reduced the multiplier of business rates, this does not fully compensate—it leaves an average pub paying an additional £5,500 a year. This is not a sustainable burden for many businesses that are already struggling with inflation and rising costs. These taxes add up, and will lead to closures, job losses and harm to our communities.

Another troubling decision from the Labour party is the reduction of the cap on business property relief. BPR, introduced in 1976 by Denis Healey, was designed to protect family-owned businesses from being broken up and to ensure these businesses could continue to provide jobs and contribute to the economy across generations. It is extraordinary that Labour has found a Chancellor less sympathetic to businesses than Healey. This decision is a blow to those who have worked tirelessly to build and sustain their businesses, and will force families to sell their businesses or take on crippling debts just to pay the taxman. For many, this will be the end of their family businesses.

The Employment Rights Bill will require employers to spend £150 per employee on additional administrative costs to comply with new rules, including a ban on zero-hours contracts and potential liabilities for third-party harassment. At a time when businesses are already under strain, this is a further unnecessary cost, especially for small businesses that do not have the resources to navigate the red tape.

Having spent 11 weeks going through the Employment Rights Bill line by line, I know just how damaging it will be to SMEs in Bridgwater and elsewhere. Let us take just one example: the so-called day one rights. These rights would mean that if, after less than a week, it became apparent that a new employee was the wrong fit for a company, a complicated process would have to be followed to dismiss them. Speaking as a former—though fully qualified—solicitor, I know that this will have a disproportionate effect on small businesses without an HR department. If they do not dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s, they will be left exposed to being taken to court for unfair dismissal.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what we are discussing demonstrates quite a perverse contradiction, in that the sums are huge for the businesses involved—as he describes, they are catastrophic—but the overall net receipt to the Exchequer in the grand scheme of the Government Budget is so small, and that that is further testament to the Government’s lack of economic and political nous?

[Robbie Moore]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the excellent point that the likely revenue—albeit I challenge the Treasury’s figures—is only £500 million, yet the impact that it will have on many of our family businesses is catastrophic. That includes those in the hospitality sector, and manufacturing, engineering and tech-based businesses in my constituency. Ultimately, the Government need to listen to the concerns being raised about business property relief, because it will undermines the stability and growth of the many family businesses owned by our constituents. The Government need to rethink the policy and axe it, which is what we are calling for. The Conservatives have been very clear that not only will we reverse the changes to agricultural property relief, but we will put back 100% business property relief, providing certainty for many family businesses.

Many other challenges have been brought about by the Budget. The increase in employer national insurance is impacting many family businesses, not least Hi Energy, a gym in Keighley in my constituency, which openly tells me it has calculated that its employer national insurance bill, coupled with the challenges of its business rates bill, which is likely to increase down the line, will have catastrophic consequences. Its overheads will increase, but it will not be able to increase its gym membership fees while keeping the business competitive among the many other gym organisations across Keighley. The same narrative is reiterated by all our family businesses.

For family businesses, the Budget was yet another instance of the Labour Government saying one thing but doing another. They claim to be pro-growth, yet they directly tax employment. They claim to be pro-business, but they tax wealth creators and family firms. Growth cannot be magicked up out of thin air, as the Government stipulate. The Conservative party is on the side of family businesses and I am pleased to support the motion today.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

8. What assessment she has made of the potential implications for her regulatory policies of recent trends in levels of money laundering in retail businesses.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

This Government are committed to tackling money laundering. Money laundering through cash-based high street businesses is a known issue, and the Treasury works closely with law enforcement agencies to monitor trends in criminality and ensure resources are deployed towards the most significant threats.

[Bradley Thomas]

Hard-working shopkeepers and entrepreneurs across the country, including in Bromsgrove and the villages, play by the rules and pay their taxes. What is the estimated loss of revenue to the Exchequer from money laundering in retail environments in towns and villages across the country, and what are the Government doing to crack down on this?

[Emma Reynolds]

It is right that we take a robust approach to money laundering, and we have a tailored approach to cash deposit limits to reflect the differences in needs and risk profiles across businesses’ customer bases. I am committed to working with the Financial Conduct Authority and others to ensure we strike the right balance—one that allows businesses to continue their operations but also ensures that we assess the risk posed by those who might be using their businesses to launder money.

Oral Answers to Questions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten the cost that working people paid as a consequence of his party’s actions in government, with inflation on house prices racing to 11%, the cost of living crisis, higher energy bills and a loss of grip on public spending. People suffered a direct cost in their disposable income because of the actions of the Conservative party. This Labour Government have wiped the slate clean, and we are getting a grip on public spending, fixing the foundations and delivering for working people.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor admit, as she has already done in the media, that wages will be lower because of her jobs tax?

[Darren Jones]

This Government’s commitment to economic growth will improve living standards for people right across the country. I refer the hon. Member to my previous answer and suggest that his party might want to apologise before trying to lecture this Government on the change that we are delivering.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

There appears to be a glaring omission on the part of the Government: without a thriving private sector, there is no public sector to fund at all. I wish that Labour would acknowledge that much more vehemently and clearly than it appears to.

The Government talk a lot about public services and how the proposals they have put forward in the Budget will support a thriving public sector, but we do not hear about the public sector needing to deliver much more, in terms of productivity gains. If we keep throwing money into public services without a serious plan for structural reform, we fail every single stakeholder—the taxpayer, and, if we are talking about the NHS, the patient and the doctor.

[Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)]

We have heard a lot this afternoon about investment in the public sector and what the proposals will do to small businesses, but we have not heard the Opposition recognise that this country needs a healthy workforce. The Bill proposes a sustainable and manageable approach to funding that healthy workforce. Will the hon. Gentleman describe to the House how damaging the previous Government’s treatment of the workforce was, and the long-standing and growing number of people claiming out-of-work benefits? Does he not see that the Bill will make a sustainable contribution?

[Bradley Thomas]

I think the hon. Lady misses the point that I am making. If we are to have a thriving, sustainable set of public services, it is not just a case of funding them; we need structural reform, so that we can deliver the best-quality services at the point of need. Take the NHS as an example. It is fundamentally different from how it was at its inception. People live longer and suffer from different illnesses. It is incumbent on Government, the whole of the public sector and this Parliament to focus on how money is spent to deliver value for money for everyone involved.

A few weeks ago, the Chancellor said that businesses that were concerned about the impact of proposals in this Budget should “cut their cloth accordingly”. Well, the same should apply to Government. Every single one of us should challenge Government to spend our money much more effectively. Once we do that, the tax burden will come down, and when that happens, we can pass on those savings. It is those savings that will ultimately underpin and provide the foundation for an economy that will grow and incentivise businesses across the board.

The Government talk a lot about the climate and the context that they inherited, but they repeatedly fail to acknowledge covid—one of the biggest public finance interventions this country has seen, which took place only a few years ago.

[Tom Hayes]

I agree that there needs to be reform of the NHS alongside this investment, and I welcome the point that the hon. Gentleman is making. In a recent speech, the Secretary of State set out what some of those reforms could be; I would welcome hearing what the hon. Gentleman thinks the reforms to go alongside the investment ought to be. Would he acknowledge, too, that one of the reasons why the NHS was in such a difficult position when dealing with the pandemic was that it was starved of funding and left under-prepared?

[Bradley Thomas]

Absolutely not. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Under the previous Government, the NHS received record levels of funding. The Government have committed additional funds to the NHS, but they have not put forward a productivity improvement plan. The Government are unable to deliver structural reforms because they are in the pocket of their union paymasters. They have zero incentive at all to structurally reform the public services that they claim to care about so dearly. I touched on covid and the financial climate that this Government inherited. Over 14 years, the previous Government delivered 800 jobs per day. The previous Government also delivered a direct cut of £900 in national insurance to the pocket of every “working person”.

Governing is about choices. In this Budget, the Government are borrowing £40 billion of additional spending. In reality, we are seeing the same old tax-and-spend Labour. Let us look at some of those choices. National insurance contributions are up. The Chancellor said that NIC increases for employers would be a jobs tax. The Institute for Fiscal Studies said that would be a straightforward breach of the manifesto. Rate relief is down. A typical pub is paying £6,000 more in business rates per annum. There is the family farm tax, which I desperately hope this Government will do a U-turn on, and the education tax.

Let us look at the impact of all those decisions. The economy is flatlining—there was 0.1% growth in quarter 3. Inflation is up, from 1.7% to 2.3%. There was a 64% increase in business closures the week after the Budget. Asda has said that the Government’s decisions in the Budget risk price rises. John Lewis has said that it is worried about the impact of the national minimum wage increase. Two thirds of businesses claim that they are looking at freezing recruitment or making job cuts. We have already heard hon. Members talk about the impact on the charity sector. In fact, during this debate, I received an email from YMCA, which said that because of the increase in national insurance that it will have to pay in Worcestershire, it will look to freeze all recruitment and probably make redundancies. It will not be able to give a pay award to any of its staff, and it will look at cutting services. That is damning. We see from the Government an ideological pursuit of a policy that is really a false economy. Labour is failing the very working person that it claims to be protecting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I think we will see productivity increases in the NHS, because part of the reason that it has struggled for productivity in recent years is that it has not had the necessary investment, so doctors and nurses have not had the beds and capital expenditure that they need in their hospitals. I have been to Barnet hospital in my Chipping Barnet constituency and spoken to the chief executive of the trust. They were clear that what has happened nationally, and has filtered through to their hospital, is that capital spending budgets have been raided to fund day-to-day spending, and that has made it more difficult for the NHS to be productive. More beds and £3 billion for scanners and other capital equipment will make a difference to productivity in the NHS. [Interruption.] Conservative Members know that that is the case.

Let us just go back to the inheritance that the Labour Government face. We have high public debt, low productivity and wage growth. Our economy has also been hampered because the Conservative party has made it much more difficult for us to trade with our nearest neighbours. That has been bad for competition and productivity across the country. I could go on about the economic inheritance, but I do not wish to make hyperbolic statements or overdo it; we can just look at the facts presented to the Labour Government.

[Bradley Thomas]

When the Conservative Government headed by David Cameron were elected in 2010, the circumstances that they faced following Labour’s trashing of the economy meant that it took two and a half to three years to get the public on board. That stands in great contrast to what happened this summer, when Labour inherited good economic circumstances, with the economy growing and inflation down. In fact, has the electorate not been deceived?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The economy was not growing at a fast pace when we took over; we were growing slower than five other G7 countries in the quarter before the Conservative party lost power. That is the truth. Conservative Members can deny it if they want, and come up with a fancy way to analyse the economic statistics in order to claim that we were the fastest-growing economy in the G7, but in the final quarter before they lost office—and in 2023—we were growing slower than five other G7 countries. We were growing faster than other countries in 2022 only because we were recovering from the pandemic. They know that that is the case.

I fear that, in their stance today, Conservative Members are again covering themselves in the pong of the Liz Truss Administration. That Administration made the mistake of not making efforts to balance day-to-day public spending and tax increases. That is what caused interest rates to rise and the economy to be in much turmoil. The Labour Government are ensuring that increases in day-to-day spending are matched by increases in tax revenues—[Interruption.] I said increases in day-to-day spending are being matched by tax revenues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient and listens carefully to my speech, I will come on to the Scottish Government, so he does not need to worry.

The increase in employment NICs raises revenues for the NHS and increases funding for contributory benefits such as the state pension, easing wider pressures on public finances. It is part of the Government’s announcement of an additional £22.6 billion of day-to-day spending over two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the NHS.

[Bradley Thomas]

Can the Minister tell the House which decision was harder, giving an inflation-busting pay rise to union paymasters or cutting the winter fuel payment?

[Tulip Siddiq]

The best decision that we have ever made in government is putting money back into the pockets of working people.

Questions were raised by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The hon. Lady asked a number of questions about the NHS. The Government will provide support for Departments and other public sector employers for additional ER NICs costs only. That will apply to central Government, public corporations and local government. Primary care providers—GPs, dentists, pharmacies and eyecare provider—are valued independent contractors who provide nearly £20 billion worth of NHS services. Every year we consult each sector both about what services they provide and about the money to which providers are entitled in return under their contracts. As in previous years, this issue will be dealt with as part of that process.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the removal of VAT and business rates exemptions for independent schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. This debate matters for various reasons. I have always been and will remain committed to supporting education across the board, including our excellent state schools. I want all schools to be adequately funded to present opportunities for children from all backgrounds. I say that as someone who was proudly educated in state schools and who cares about the life chances of everyone.

I have secured this specific debate to highlight how Labour’s ideologically driven plan to remove VAT and business rate exemptions for independent schools is an inherently flawed policy. If Labour will not abandon the education tax I will also suggest some improvements that the Government could make to lessen the impact of the policy on pupils, parents and school staff in Bromsgrove and across the country.

[Dame Caroline Dinenage (in the Chair)]

Order. We seem to have a problem with the sound—it seems to be everybody’s microphones. I encourage the hon. Gentleman to plough on while we see whether we can change a few plugs and get it rolling again. In case he was put off by the tinny quality of the sound, we are trying to get it rectified. Please plough on.

[Bradley Thomas]

Thank you, Dame Caroline. Education is an investment in our future. It is in everyone’s best interests that children are well educated so that they can make an engaged and positive contribution to our society. We do not charge VAT on many types of private healthcare, as that is beneficial when people use their own money to pay for a service that the state would otherwise provide. We do not charge VAT on university or nursery fees, so why should schooling be any different?

There are approximately 2,500 independent schools in the UK educating more than half a million children. They are often small schools: more than 40% of independent schools have fewer than 100 pupils according to Department for Education data. The reality is that the policy will not fulfil its aims and will displace children mid-education. State education must be funded by the state, supported by taxpayers. The VAT exemption encourages greater use of independent education, reducing the number of state school pupils, meaning more money available per pupil in the state sector.

The Times recently stated that 71% of parents felt that rising school fees would influence their future decision about independent schooling. Additionally, 26% of parents said they would have to withdraw their children from independent schools if VAT is introduced.

An Adam Smith Institute report provides a detailed examination of the potential economic impacts. If 10% to 15% of students transfer, the net revenue could be negligible. Alarmingly, in a scenario where 25% of students switch from the independent sector to state schools, the tax could cost the Government £1.6 billion.

Currently, independent schools’ significant economic benefits include supporting 328,000 jobs, saving £4.4 billion from the education budget, and supporting £5.1 billion in additional tax revenue. They do this while saving the state £4.5 billion by removing the requirement to fund the education of 7% of children as the result of parents exercising this choice. Furthermore, independent and state boarding schools are a unique subset of the schools system, with the additional feature of attracting overseas students to the UK. Some 62,700 pupils are international students in independent schools, making up 11% of the population. This is a key export for the country, adding £2.1 billion to our economy annually.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will not give way. Independent schools should be seen as a British success story, both culturally and economically, instead of being discouraged and punished with the imposition of an education tax for socialist ideological principles. Most importantly, the human impact of the policy is stark. The failure of this education tax will not just be academic or financial; it will have a serious impact on families.

One parent wrote to me:

“As a widowed single mother who works full-time, I make enormous financial sacrifices to ensure my child can attend the same school from age 3 to 18. This stability is not only essential for my child’s development but also enables me to work and contribute to society. This proposed VAT would be devastating for families like mine.”

Another mother wrote to me and said,

“We also have a daughter who will need to start secondary school in two years. We had hoped for her to attend the same school as her brother but, with no scholarship likely and the addition of VAT, it is simply impossible. This is a painful realisation, and I worry that she will resent the opportunities that we couldn’t give her (but we could give her older sibling).”

We have yet to talk about the impact on special educational needs and disabilities education. This measure will cause particular problems for children who are in receipt of such bespoke education. Nationally, at least 130,000 pupils in independent schools receive SEND support in mainstream and specialist settings. That is 20% of the pupils in UK independent schools, which is slightly higher than the state school average. Independent schools help to provide additional value-adding capacity to SEND education.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. On special educational needs, this measure will devastate many families around the country who make huge sacrifices. When the Minister sums up, will he tell us what mitigations and support will be given to local authorities to cover the cost and the pressures they face, particularly with shortages in special educational needs provision across the country?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will touch on later, and I hope the Minister will address it. Independent schools provide additional value-adding capacity to SEND education, as has been acknowledged, and VAT on fees risks their ability to do that. There is simply not the capacity in the state sector to accommodate all those extra pupils, particularly when SEND services are already under pressure.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. My city of Edinburgh has the highest proportion of independently educated children in the country, at between 20% and 30% every year. According to the local Labour authority, 16 schools will already be over capacity at the end of this year. If the predicted percentage of children drop out of independent education into the state sector, it will not be able to cope. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this measure is ill thought-through and that the Labour Government must come up with a way to support education, particularly as the matter is devolved in Scotland and VAT is reserved?

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree with the hon. Member. The examples she cites highlight the situation perfectly. The Government have failed to consider that the capacity is not there. We have already seen, in the few months since this Parliament began, several debates highlighting issues of SEND capacity.

Another mother wrote to me to outline the benefit that independent schools can have for children with SEND needs:

“We moved our autistic child to a small independent school and the transformation was immediate. Classes are small and quiet, and the school is very nurturing and family oriented. It has been wonderful to see her blossom and slowly get more and more involved in school life. We would not have chosen for our daughter to go to private school but there was no suitable state provision available. We are paying a significant amount of money to be able to do this. Adding VAT on top feels like we are being punished twice for having a child that doesn’t fit into the state system, either in mainstream or specialist schools.”

[Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)]

Nobody here is not interested in a positive educational experience for all children in all our constituencies, in all establishments. My own youngsters have enjoyed brilliant learning in both private and state schools, while one is currently in an independent school. Would my hon. Friend agree that the heart of this policy of bringing in taxation on education is stoking division, creating harm to aspiration, and stopping the sharing of facilities and opportunity? It is exemplified by the Education Secretary’s proclamation on social media. Despite the impact on jobs and community harm, the Government still want to introduce this policy.

[Bradley Thomas]

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. The comments made by the Education Secretary on Twitter over the weekend epitomise the way in which the mask of this Government is slipping—socialism is revealing its true face—and how reprehensible the policy is.

Adjacent to SEND schools, we must consider faith education. This education tax will make independent faith schooling unaffordable for many families, hurting the 370,000 pupils who attend independent faith schools in England according to Department for Education figures. It is important that the House notes that fees at those schools are frequently below the independent school average, and sometimes below state per-pupil funding levels. Often the schools have a suggested fee, but the community supports those who cannot afford the full fee by themselves.

[Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate. In Birmingham Perry Barr there is an all-girls faith school where parents earning just above minimum wage secure places for their children. We already have an enormous problem in the constituency with the secondary school sector, where waiting lists are somewhere in the region of 100 places. Does the hon. Member agree that not only does it not stack up financially but we simply have not got the infrastructure to deal with this policy?

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member. We have yet to talk about military and diplomatic families, who need boarding schools to provide a stable education while parents are deployed overseas; 4,700 children are funded by the Government under the continuity of education allowance, which assists service personnel and diplomatic families in educating their children at boarding school.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. The Government say that they are pursuing economic growth. In his excellent speech I hope that my hon. Friend will highlight the value of export earnings to the United Kingdom from the fantastic independent school sector, which is a key part of growth. No other western economy taxes education.

[Bradley Thomas]

My right hon. Friend echoes the point that I made earlier that this is about not just a service that is provided but a key segment of the UK economy that bolsters the value of UK plc and UK GDP.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Bradley Thomas]

I will not; I will make progress. Labour committed in the House of Commons in 2023 that armed forces families need not be concerned about proposals to charge VAT. With the current retention crisis in the armed forces, and the current volatile state of world affairs, the Government need to confirm what impact analysis has been carried out on the effect of taxing education on military personnel.

We then get into issues around the implementation of the policy. Implementation in January will put pressure on local authorities to find rare and academically disruptive in-year placements. Those will be difficult, as state schools will be full and many will be oversubscribed, with areas that have a high number of pupils attending independent schools having some of the busiest state schools.

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is speaking eloquently about the impact on children’s education, on children with special educational needs and on children being ripped out of their schools, perhaps in the year of their GCSEs or A-levels. This is obviously a debate about education. There are Members of Parliament in the Chamber from the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats, as well as independent MPs and Members from Reform—

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

It is not always about the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). The Labour party has marshalled all but two of their MPs, one of whom hates the policy—I do not know what the other thinks.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) think that it is shocking that not a single member of the Education ministerial team of the Labour Government has bothered to show up today, yet they continue to use the airwaves to spew out spiteful and divisive messages about this Labour policy? The Minister present, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), does not care about education; he cares about money—he is a Treasury Minister. He knows that the policy will not raise any money, but it is going to cost taxpayers.

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The Government have shown the true intent of the policy over the weekend with the divisive, “us and them” mentality that was revealed on social media.

I call on the Government to pause and reconsider this education tax, with a view to abandoning it. It is unethical and will damage a British success story. It will not fulfil its stated aims. The policy will not raise significant money, but is being forced through at the expense of state and independent schoolchildren to further the Government’s divisive ideological agenda that so many in this House have recognised.

If the Government refuse to abandon the policy, there are some sensible and practical steps that they can take to minimise the impact that it will have on parents and children. First, delay the imposition of VAT until September and the start of the next academic year. There has been no proper impact assessment of these policies on state schools, SEND provision or faith schooling; a full consultation and impact assessment is needed before changes are announced. Secondly, assess how very small schools can be protected from VAT and tax changes. They are a vital community resource and charge much lower fees; that should be acknowledged. Thirdly, exempt service families on continuity of education allowance from VAT. Those who rely on independent education to serve our country should absolutely not be penalised. Furthermore, the Government should protect children currently applying for an education, health and care plan, as parents should not be penalised for the delays in the process.

I would like the Minister to provide clarity on the following points. Will the Government be issuing guidance for state schools on how to deal with applications from parents, to prevent parents from being asked to prove that they cannot afford to fund independent education? During the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) commented that state sector classes must increase and that they will just have to cope. What assessment have the Government done to determine whether state sector classes have the resources available?

When it comes to students transitioning from the independent to the state sector, what provision will there be to prevent disruption to their education in subjects that may not be taught at their new state schools? In the event of academic performance failures due to the disruption caused by transitioning between schools, will academic leniency be granted to students? I also seek clarity on what funding and support will be made available for students with special educational needs who are transitioning between the independent and state sectors.

I hope that the House will clearly appreciate that this short-sighted policy will hit hardest those in society who it claims to be supporting, that it will damage the wider education sector as a whole, and that it will worsen academic and social inequalities while being a net cost to society, the education sector and the British taxpayer.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

I thank every single Member who has spoken today in this debate, and I particularly thank the families in attendance who are affected by this policy. We have heard Members talk about the concerns of the impact of the policy on capacity, SEND and simply the element of choice, as well as human stories of how this policy will impact many families and children across the country. I am disappointed that an Education Minister has not attended and instead a Treasury Minister has. The Minister has demonstrated that he can read Labour’s political script but has sadly lacked the courage to answer the points that have been raised in this Chamber.

To sum up, we have heard words such as “cruel”, “sacrifice” and “disruptive”, as well as concerns from families that their children’s performance will suffer in schools. In short, this is a joyless, mean-spirited policy from a joyless, mean-spirited Government, and I think it is evident from the lack of Labour Members present that they probably agree with the sentiments expressed on this side of the Chamber.

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).

Winter Fuel Payment

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stuart Anderson (South Shropshire) (Con)]

I am sure Labour Members never thought in the general election campaign that they would be giving pensioners the choice between heating and eating. Many Labour Members have not even bothered to turn up for a debate on something so critical for many pensioners across this country. We have talked about choices, and this is all about choices. The Government have made a political choice. Labour Members will all have to make a choice, and face their constituents whether they vote for or against. I urge them not to cut the winter fuel allowance.

Let me go on a journey and set out the narrative. The Government say there is a debt and imagine there is a black hole they have to fill, so let us have a look at the numbers. They say they have to find £22 billion, so let us cut £1.1 billion but in the same breath add £9 billion for the pensions. At the same time, the red herring that is the Great British Energy flop adds another £8.4 billion. That is a decision that the Government have made, but why would the Labour party let numbers get in the way of a good story? The numbers show the Government have no issue making decisions against pensioners.

I am a proud veteran. In November, on Remembrance Day, we ask people to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in the service of their country. I challenge Labour Members to look at pensioners who have served and say, “We will never forget,” because those pensioners have already been forgotten.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

In the spirit of what my hon. Friend describes, I will cite the example of Betty Webb, a constituent of mine who received an MBE for her work as a codebreaker at Bletchley Park. She is 101 years old. She is a widow who lives alone. She is living in fear not just that the Government will take away the winter fuel allowance, but that in future they will snatch away the 25% single person’s discount on council tax. Many other constituents of mine are fearful of the same thing.

[Stuart Anderson]

My hon. Friend makes a great point. Pensioners, including those who have given a life of service to this country, are living in fear of what is coming next. Almost a third of residents in South Shropshire are pensioners, and they have been writing to me and they are absolutely livid. They feel like they have been led down the garden path—taking away this payment was not what was promised. It is cruel, heartless and callous. This policy needs to change.

The Chancellor has made a rookie error. She has gone into the Treasury and, with everything in front of her, said, “Do this,” and she has removed the personal view. She has made a political decision—[Interruption.] Of course it is a rookie error. This is a massive error. She has listened and removed people from the equation. When people are removed from politics, it is a road to nowhere. Will the Chancellor go and see the Downing Street chief of staff and ask for permission to reverse this proposal?

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Bradley Thomas Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to make my maiden speech here in the mother of Parliaments, a global beacon of representative democracy. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh) on her election and on making her inaugural contribution in this House.

I am humbled to serve the people of Bromsgrove and the villages in my home county. I have some esteemed and worthy predecessors, most recently Sir Sajid Javid. He was the first ethnic minority Member of Parliament to become a Secretary of State, and went on to hold not one but two of the great offices of state, serving as Home Secretary and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Sir Sajid is a man whose north star is his integrity, and he has devoted much of his time to supporting and championing good and noble causes, including, as many in this House know, suicide prevention.

Bromsgrove constituency is, for the unfamiliar, in Worcestershire. Bromsgrove town, its namesake, is proud of its history and traditions, which include a historic court leet centred around the parade on fair day, held on the closest Saturday to midsummer and in celebration of the 1199 charter granted to the town by King John. This heritage goes further, and Bromsgrove’s proud sons and daughters include the poet and scholar A. E. Housman and his sister Clemence, who I could not fail to mention here in this House, given the role that she played in the suffrage movement.

My constituency, however, is much broader than just one town. There are many more villages and hamlets and, being 79% rural, Bromsgrove epitomises the very best of Worcestershire. There are rolling hills and thriving villages where the community spirit is strong, including Clent, Dodford, Stoke Prior, Belbroughton, Romsley, Finstall, Barnt Green, Cofton Hackett, Tardebigge and Alvechurch. There are other communities on the fringe of the constituency whose identities are rooted proudly in Worcestershire, including Hagley, Rubery, Wythall, Major’s Green—and there is even a touch of glamour in Hollywood. I commit myself to representing them all. Our villages are home to rural enterprises, and to farmers who we all rely on three times a day and who are guardians of our countryside, often working in isolated or harsh conditions, both physically and in a competitive marketplace.

It would be easy to be lulled into thinking that Bromsgrove is somewhere quiet and without ambition, but hon. Members must not be fooled. The Sunday Times recently highlighted how South Bromsgrove high school is a powerhouse of aspiration and entrepreneurship, producing young high achievers who have gone on to found leading companies in their sectors, including Gymshark and AYBL. It is in no small part down to the attractiveness of rural Worcestershire that Bromsgrove is a fertile place for aspiration and ambition to bloom. As a Conservative, I believe in respecting the tradition and heritage that anchor our institutions and values, as society evolves to meet the needs of the present day and into the future.

Prior to my election to Parliament, I spent many years as a councillor in Worcestershire, including as leader of Wychavon district council, where I championed the importance of design codes and the role of beautiful design in delivering quality communities that inspire a sense of pride, nod to our past and catalyse the economic and social investment that allow our towns and villages to flourish. We must do this by shifting our collective focus away from beautiful design being seen as a cost, and towards seeing it as an investment that pays dividends in the form of thriving communities and vibrant places where aspiration can bloom. This is critical across Bromsgrove, a place that is 89% green belt and is the rural buffer between Worcestershire and the urban sprawl of Birmingham, to ensure that we protect our green open spaces and do not build identikit monotony all over the countryside, instead focusing on delivering quality homes, with appropriate landscaping and a mix of textures and colours, with genuine local support first.

Over the coming years, we must never forget that the single biggest driver of our economic success is a thriving free market—an environment where businesses are incentivised to invest, creating the prosperity that will underpin our national success. The Government must exercise restraint as they seek to create new bureaucracies, which increase the size of the state under the veil of public service reform, and they should be cautious as additional spending, funded through taxation or borrowing without serious structural reform of public service delivery, will fail every stakeholder who interacts with public services.

In my constituency, Bromsgrove school, founded in 1553, employs over 600 local people and contributes £43 million to the GDP of the UK. While every Member of this House would surely agree that education is the foundation of prosperity, the Government’s proposal to impose VAT on these schools is not only an ill-conceived affront to the children and families who currently exercise choice in education provision but an attack on the wider education system that will undoubtedly do little to enhance the quality of state education and will instead level down education standards across the board. I say that as someone who was proudly educated in excellent state schools.

We must also show determination in delivering vocational skills in agriculture, manufacturing, technology, engineering and trades, which will bolster our prosperity, raising our baseline level of industrial resilience in a world where our adversaries want to blunt our competitive edge. Food and energy security are two of the most significant and interlinked contemporary challenges that we face. The Government must remain pragmatic in their efforts to deliver on both, ensuring that in everything they do, they do not worship at the altar of ideological purity and inadvertently sacrifice our own long-term economic success in the process. In the words of A. E. Housman,

“The house of delusions is cheap to build, but draughty to live in, and ready at any instant to fall.”

I look forward to playing an active role in this House, delivering on behalf of my constituents and in the long-term national interest of our country.