VAT Registration Threshold: SMEs

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of the VAT registration threshold on SMEs.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. It was Napoleon Bonaparte who once said that “England is a nation of shopkeepers”. As is often the case with Napoleon, he was wrong. England, and indeed the UK, is a nation of entrepreneurs. Across the UK, early risers and late-night grafters—the men and women who channel their entrepreneurial spirits into businesses and serving their communities—form the backbone of our economy. However, we in this place sometimes let them down. That is certainly the case with the current nonsensical VAT registration threshold.

Right now, businesses in the UK have to be VAT registered when their turnover reaches just £90,000—an arbitrary figure. Once a small business has crossed that cliff edge, it is hit with added regulatory compliance costs and the need to charge their customers 20% more for their services. I do not want to pre-empt the Minister’s response, but I am well aware of the fact that the UK has one of the highest thresholds in Europe—that is not the point. I am arguing for the boldness to unleash the Great British entrepreneurial spirit once again.

Increasing the threshold to £90,000 was a positive move by the previous Conservative Government. I recognise the complexities surrounding the Windsor framework, but when we voted to leave the European Union in 2016, we wanted to take back control of our money, our borders and our laws. We should look at this again, and seek to also include Northern Ireland businesses with an increased VAT registration threshold.

As a chartered accountant by profession, I have seen first hand the implications that the UK’s tax regime can have for businesses. I enjoy conversations about the economy and business growth, and one recent example from my constituency surgery stands out. I met with Chris and Annie Ensell, talented entrepreneurs running a thriving wedding photography business called Bloom Weddings. Joined by their daughter, they told me of their success and their frustration. They had both become increasingly concerned about approaching and potentially surpassing the VAT registration threshold cliff edge.

They now face the agonising decision between limiting the number of weddings they agree to service or passing on increased costs to their customers, which would limit their competitiveness. I ask the Minister—who is part of a Government that say they are going for growth—is that fair? How will this encourage more people like Chris and Annie to build up their businesses?

In the Government’s manifesto, they claimed they understand that small firms, entrepreneurs and the self-employed face unique challenges, but we have seen them eat into small to medium-sized enterprise profit margins by increasing national insurance contributions and the national minimum wage. We have also seen them add more regulatory burdens with the Employment Rights Bill, which is set to add £5 billion to the costs of UK businesses. However, today is an opportunity to for the Minister to show real support for small businesses, such as those in my Mid Leicestershire constituency, by committing to review the VAT registration threshold.

I regret to say that I am not overly optimistic. When the previous Government rightly increased the threshold, Sir Edward Troup, a Labour tax adviser, ridiculed the idea, claiming that halving the threshold would somehow encourage growth. Perhaps even more shockingly, the current Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), has proposed slashing the threshold to a derisory £30,000.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this demonstrates that the Labour Government do not understand how our small businesses operate, and are not on their side? We see the impact of not only VAT registration, but employer’s national insurance, minimum wage and business rates increases, among other things. Does he agree that this Government do not understand how small businesses want to grow, operate and thrive?

[Mr Bedford]

I absolutely agree. Over the last year, particularly in the Budget and recent announcements, we have seen measures that stifle the growth of SMEs and small businesses. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that today because I am passionate about supporting them, not only so that the economy can grow, but so that we can create jobs and opportunities for all. I will always support small family businesses, and I will never support proposals to slash the VAT threshold to such low levels.

What is even more frustrating is the fact that the voice of industry has not been heard; its calls have fallen on deaf ears. The Federation of Small Businesses has previously highlighted that the extra bureaucracy of being VAT-registered adds £4,100 on average to the running costs of a business. UKHospitality also notes that there have been missed opportunities to be bolder and to alleviate regulatory burdens on the hospitality sector.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I do not know if the hon. Member is aware, but just this morning the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland released a report about the complications that the Windsor framework is creating for small businesses in Northern Ireland. Does he agree that SMEs are the backbone of the UK economy in all regions and that we need to try to do whatever we can to reduce bureaucracy rather than increase it, which is what the Windsor framework has achieved?

[Mr Bedford]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and I absolutely agree. As a Unionist myself, I want to see all parts of the UK thrive and grow, and that obviously includes Northern Ireland. This debate equally applies to Northern Ireland as it does to everywhere else in the Union.

I was talking about UKHospitality, which says it would like to see the VAT rate cut to 12.5% for the industry. I think that proposal has merits and I encourage the Minister to consider it.

Finally, I recently met the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and it was clear that confidence among small businesses is in decline. The ICAEW would like to see the whole VAT system simplified and the registration threshold reviewed. That would reduce compliance costs, but it would also enable small businesses to grow beyond the restrictive cliff edge that is currently in place.

The Minister may not be a fan of Margaret Thatcher, our first female Prime Minister, but she believed that if people work hard, they should have the opportunity to succeed, and that the Government’s role is to create the conditions for that success. That was why she launched the enterprise allowance scheme, which helped to create now-famous brands such as Superdry and Creation Records.

However, if the Minister wants a more contemporary example of a state supporting businesses to grow, he should look at our good friends in Singapore. First, as is well-documented, corporation tax in Singapore is low, but in addition small businesses in Singapore have the pioneer certificate incentive, which encourages start-ups in undersubscribed industries. I am not asking the Minister for such a scheme here—I know that that would perhaps be too bold—but what I am asking for is a modest and sensible change that would make a real difference to entrepreneurs across the country. Raise the VAT registration threshold; push it beyond £90,000. Do it for the small businesses that want to grow, to diversify and to serve their communities, but also do it for the economy and for consumers, who will benefit from lower prices and greater choice. Above all, do it for the spirit of enterprise that has always defined the United Kingdom.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called during the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bedford]

I thank the Minister for his speech. I ask him to take back to the Treasury the various arguments that have been put forward today, particularly about the benefits for the broader economy and for our local communities that could be achieved by reviewing the VAT registration threshold.

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Dunbartonshire (Susan Murray), who spoke about the benefits of doing so. She said that local businesses foster community pride, but that the tax system is very complicated for them.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who said he is frustrated that the current system does not have a taper mechanism. I ask the Minister to look at that and consider my hon. Friend’s arguments about how that would benefit small businesses—particularly those that wish to grow.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), particularly for his arguments about the fish and chip shop industry and similar small businesses that are holding back their growth because they are on the cusp of the registration threshold. If they surpass it, additional costs and burdens will be placed on them.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke about his frustrations, which I share, about how the Windsor framework constricts businesses in Northern Ireland and prevents them from being more competitive and on a par with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I appreciate the intervention of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on the same point.

I thank the hon. Member for Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire (Mr MacDonald), who has particular expertise with VAT. As someone who holds apprenticeships and skills training in high regard, I appreciate his point that reviewing the threshold could enable smaller businesses to take on additional employees and train them in the trades that we need. Plumbers, electricians and other trades would really benefit from apprenticeships and similar types of training.

I thank the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who spoke about the need for small businesses to be better supported, particularly by the Treasury, in dealing with the bureaucracy. She said that small businesses do not have the advantage of large HR functions or support networks to get them through the bureaucracy.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) for his points. He said that three fifths of employment in this country is in a small business, and that, particularly over the last year, businesses have had to contend with significant challenges posed by the new Government’s economic plan, including the national insurance hike, the business rates increase and the additional burdens placed on businesses by the Employment Rights Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of the VAT registration threshold on SMEs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

Cash savings provide a vital source of savings for a rainy day, and we recognise that. Equally, we want to build a better investment culture in our society, so that it is not just the 8% of people who can afford financial advice who can have the opportunity of better rewards by investing in British companies and others in our economy.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

On that point, it has been widely reported that the Chancellor is planning to slash the amount of cash that savers can save in ISAs from £20,000 to £4,000 a year. Will the Chancellor rule out this punitive measure, which will see savings drop and push even more people into income tax?

[Emma Reynolds]

We are committed to promoting savings and investment, as I said in an earlier answer. One measure we are looking at is the Financial Conduct Authority’s review of the advice guidance boundary. As I said in a previous answer, I do not want it just to be the 8% of people who can afford financial advice who reap the rewards of investing in our economy. We keep all taxes under review.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jerome Mayhew]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sorry that she waited so long to intervene. I quite agree with the point that she makes. We need to have an impact assessment on another issue, which is the provision of boarding facilities for children in care, which again are provided in my constituency. The school provides full boarding for not just children in care, but the boarding pathway programme put forward by Norfolk county council for children on the edge of care. Their education is the single point of continuity in their lives, and this policy has a real risk of reducing that support and removing them from their school and their friends halfway through an educational year.

What assessment have the Government undertaken before the Budget on these policies and their costs, and what mitigation will they put in place? We have already heard about the impact on military families. Is it right to target the children of our servicemen for this hypothecated tax? Was targeting poor pensioners not enough for this Government?

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the policy disproportionately affects families on lower and middle incomes, which the vast majority of these students come from? Parents I have spoken to in my constituency are really concerned. They have forgone foreign holidays, a new car and a bigger home because they have chosen to invest in their children’s education. Should the Government not encourage people to make those right decisions on behalf of their families, rather than penalising them?

[Jerome Mayhew]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It feels as though the Government have a cartoonish characterisation of what a private education looks like—top hats and tails—but that is not the real experience of the modern private educational sector.

That brings me nicely on to the impact on bursaries. At the school in my constituency, 20% of fee revenue goes on bursaries. It is exactly that level of support for people with greater financial disadvantage that will be the first casualty of this unfair and ill thought-out policy. Again, it is an odd target for a tax take. What about the impact on local businesses? The school employs 286 people of all different types in my constituency, and job cuts are already under way. I ask the Government to think again. Surely the introduction of this ill thought-out policy halfway through the academic year needs to be revisited.

Then there is the impact on children who are sitting for public examinations. It is always bad when children have to change schools because of circumstances that are forced on them, but even more so when they are sitting for their GCSEs or A levels. At the very least, the policy should not be implemented for people in those years. For pupils applying for education, health and care plans, the delay in the Government process of undertaking those assessments should not mean that costs are forced on parents who are taking active steps to support the education of their children. For military families and for specialist music and dance schools, the Government have put forward no evidence to support their stated policy objectives. The policy feels rushed. The only people here to support it are those who are paid to do so, and it is vulnerable children in our society who will pay the price of these internal Labour politics.

Winter Fuel Payment

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

The Government’s choice to remove the winter fuel payment from 21,365 of my constituents is cruel. The payments have been a lifeline for so many pensioners, helping them to stay warm during the harsh winter months. Most pensioners live on fixed incomes, so having almost no notice—no time to prepare—means that the impact of this loss of income on many pensioner households will be that it is increasingly difficult for them to afford basic necessities.

A number of Labour Members have talked about difficult choices, but the reality is that the Government have run away from difficult choices. They have ducked the difficult choices. The difficult choice would have been to be upfront with voters during the election campaign, to explain why they felt this was necessary, appropriate and, as some have said, morally right, and to trust voters to decide whether to give them that mandate. Instead, they ran away. There are difficult choices, but unfortunately the difficult choices are the ones that they have left our constituents to face.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this choice sets a dangerous precedent? Free bus passes, prescription charges and, indeed, access to healthcare itself are all now at risk because of the logic being put forward by the Labour party in respect of pensioners’ ability to afford them.

[Mike Wood]

My hon. Friend is clearly correct. Many people, but particularly pensioners, will be worried about what this Chancellor will take away from them next. Without these payments, many will be forced to choose between heating their homes and other essential expenses such as food or medication—people such as my constituent Linda, who wrote to me:

“My husband has several medical issues this year and I am very worried about the heating situation…I think it is likely that we will cut back on nourishing food.

I cannot believe that a British Government would penalize our generation like this.”

Another constituent, Dawn, wrote:

“Now I fear the winter months, and afraid…of hypothermia.

I personally am just above the threshold to qualify for pension credits. I am a single person claiming state pension and also have a small NHS pension…I can foresee me not using my central heating this winter.”

Those are difficult choices that this Chancellor and this Government have forced on too many of our pensioners, and they are choices that no one should have to make, and particularly not those who have contributed so much to our society.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

1. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the level of tax relief for occupational pension contributions.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

I welcome the hon. Member to his place.

The Government encourage savings to ensure that people have decent incomes in their retirement, for instance through pension tax relief. I welcome the strong cross-party support for automatic enrolment that has been received since 2005, and the fact that 11 million more people are now saving as a result. The Government have also launched a pensions review which will ensure that money set aside for retirement is working both for pensioners and for the UK economy.

I appreciate that Members on both sides of the House will have questions for me about the tax system today. I remind them that tax announcements will be made in the Budget on 30 October, alongside an independent forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. This will be a Budget to fix the foundations, to rebuild Britain, and to ensure that working people are better off.

[Mr Bedford]

Do the Government recognise the importance of workers’ saving for their later years? Do they recognise that any moves to reduce the 25% tax-free drawdown, or reductions in tax relief on pension contributions, would be a disincentive, and would actually lead to more pensioner poverty?

[Rachel Reeves]

I recognise that for many people who work hard and save for retirement, that money is not enough. I believe that every penny saved in a pension should produce a decent return. Billions of pounds of investment could be unlocked in the UK economy and could work better for those saving for retirement, and we believe that the reforms we seek to introduce through the pensions review could increase their pension pots by £11,000. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is leading the review that I mentioned to ensure that pensioners receive a good deal in retirement, and that people who sacrifice and work hard to save for their retirement have a decent return on their investment.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for the question. Everything in Labour’s manifesto was fully costed and fully funded. We now know that on top of the £22-billion black hole that the previous Government left, they made unfunded commitments during the election. That was deeply irresponsible and the country was right to reject them.

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

Does the Chancellor think that one of her first decisions to cancel infrastructure projects is consistent with her desire to grow the economy?

[Rachel Reeves]

There is nothing pro-growth about making commitments that we cannot afford. There is nothing pro-growth about having £22 billion of unfunded commitments. We saw that when Liz Truss did her mini-Budget less than two years ago, and right hon. and hon. Opposition Members would do well to learn that lesson.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Peter Bedford Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and Members on both sides of the House who have given their maiden speeches with such passion today.

I thank my long-standing friends, family and supporters who have worked so hard to enable my election to this place. Although there are far too many to name, I want to put on record my sincere thanks to Richard Milburn, Paul Taylor, Jon Humberstone, Ravinder Taylor and Ross Hills for their herculean efforts over recent months.

It is customary for new Members to pay tribute to their predecessors. However, I am in the unusual position of my three immediate predecessors being sitting Members of this House. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar), and my hon. Friends the Members for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa), and for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans), for their assiduous work in the last Parliament for the residents of my constituency. I look forward to working with them collectively for all the residents of Leicestershire.

The new Mid Leicestershire constituency is formed from parts of Charnwood borough, Hinckley and Bosworth borough and Blaby district. The Charnwood villages comprise Anstey, Birstall, Cropston, Thurcaston, Swithland, Rothley, Mountsorrel, Woodhouse Eaves and Old Woodhouse, and the borough is home to the UK’s only mainline heritage railway, the great central railway.

At the heart of the constituency is Bradgate Park in Newtown Linford, a place I call the jewel in the crown of rural Leicestershire. No matter your troubles, you will be able to take a peaceful, tranquil walk, admiring the deer and their fawns, while taking in breathtaking views of the beautiful green surrounds, before looking up at Old John and quietly reflecting on one’s physical fitness; it is a 212-metre climb to the top of that hill.

It would be remiss of me not to mention the ruins of Bradgate House, which is believed to be the birthplace of Lady Jane Grey, who ruled as Queen for a mere nine days; hon. Members can be assured that my maiden speech will not last that long.

The Blaby district areas of Braunstone, Thorpe Astley, Leicester Forest East, Kirby Muxloe and Glenfield also form part of the new constituency. Although they extend from the city, they very much value their unique identities as independent county settlements. Indeed, I put on record my support for the campaign spearheaded by Glenfield resident Steve Walters and local residents to protect Glenfield from the ever-increasing urban sprawl.

The Hinckley and Bosworth villages include Ratby, Groby and Field Head, in addition to Markfield, Stanton under Bardon, Bagworth and Thornton, which for the last seven years I have had the immense honour of serving as a Leicestershire county councillor.

Many of my constituents have legitimate concerns about overdevelopment and the lack of infrastructure to cope with the strains that population growth brings. I think of villages such as Ratby, which has seen its population almost double over the last 10 years, and where, even today, developers are willing to take advantage of the borough council’s lack of a local plan. I urge the incoming Government to ensure that local communities, not faceless bureaucrats in Whitehall, always have the final say on development across our green and beautiful countryside.

I turn to the issues that I will champion during my time in this House. The first is social mobility. As the eldest of three children in a single-parent family, I passionately believe that it does not matter who you are or where you were born; it is what you do with your life that matters. Life chances, owning your own home, getting a career and having a family should not be the exclusive preserve of the wealthy, but should be opportunities available to all.

I believe that the best path out of poverty is through education and training, and I will work constructively with Members from across the House to ensure that reform and investment in these vital tools is the Government’s top priority. The motto of my secondary school is “Aspire, Achieve, Acclaim”, a sentiment that I want to see promoted far more widely across society.

Secondly, I came through the ranks as a local councillor, so I cannot give my maiden speech without referring to fairer funding for local authorities; that is another issue that I wish to spearhead. The system is fundamentally broken, with allocations still linked to historical spending levels. The result is a poorly funded system in which need and funding do not match. For example, the core spending power of Leicestershire county council is a mere £900 a head, compared with almost £1,500 a head in the inner London boroughs. Reform in this area, by Governments of all colours, is long overdue, and I shall be a vocal advocate for fairer funding in this place and beyond.

Finally, dignity towards the end of life will continue to climb up the political agenda, particularly given our ever-ageing population. My election to this House is tinged with sadness that my grandparents are not around to see me give my maiden speech. Both were diagnosed with incurable cancer and, like millions across the country, they wanted greater control of their lives in their final days.

I am here to represent all my constituents, and I pledge to be a vocal advocate for those who are often disillusioned with the political process, or feel that their voice is not heard by those with power. It is the highest of honours to be elected to this place, and I intend to do my very best each and every day to repay that trust.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Christopher Chope)]

I call Jonathan Brash to make his maiden speech.