Summer Jobs

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for his excellent speech. I agree with everything he just said. This is a really important debate, and the motion put forward by His Majesty’s Opposition is so significant for young people. I am the most worried I have ever been for young people and their prospects. Although I do not doubt the intentions of many Labour Members who have spoken, I sense a massive disconnect in Government policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about the triple whammy, and I will come on to some of those points, although I am conscious of time.

There is a massive disconnect between what the Government say that they are doing and the reality on the ground. Businesses in my constituency increasingly tell me that they cannot take on young people because the costs are so high. On the recent polling day, a business owner came up to me while I was knocking on doors and said, “I just don’t know if it’s worth it any more.” It struck me what a sad state of affairs that is: someone is grafting away and running a small business; he wants to do the right thing and hire people, and he is unable to do so. That is significant.

Three things have had a huge impact on the labour market. If there had been just one intervention, there would have been some impact. It is basic economics that interference in the labour market will have a consequence: naturally, business owners must make logical decisions and will decide to adjust their employment numbers accordingly; they will do what they can afford, and they must make a profit. But there has been a triple whammy with the impact of business rates, national insurance—the jobs tax—and the Employment Rights Act, possibly the single most damaging piece of legislation to business from any Government. We will see the impact of that.

The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) asked which bits of the ERA the Opposition would repeal. Well, I would repeal everything that has to do with the liberation of trade unions. That legislation is not about employment rights; it is a love letter to trade unions. It is there to ensure that trade unions and the hand of the state can interfere with private enterprise. We are starting to see the consequences, which will only increase. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made this argument logically and eloquently, but when a business owner must make a decision—he used the hypothetical example of the 18-year-old and the 30-year-old—they will of course take the individual with more experience. That individual requires less training, has proven that they are resilient, and has proven that the opportunity cost of hiring them is much lower than with the 18-year-old.

When I ran a business, I loved hiring apprentices and young people—they had a hunger—but small businesses can only do that within the parameters of what is affordable and within the profit they can project. The consequence of the Government’s policies is that youth unemployment is high, at 14.5%—much higher than when they took office in 2024—and among 16 to 17-year-olds it is 30.7%. Those are huge numbers, and I worry about them.

I recently held a debate in Westminster Hall on the impact of the Government’s policies on rural pubs. As has been alluded to, hospitality, leisure and retail are great employers—not just for Saturday jobs, but of young people generally. The impact of those policies has meant that, if those pubs are staying open, they are not able to hire more young people. It is going the opposite way. We are seeing the impact.

As a number of hon. Members have said, there is dignity in having work. It gives young people the soft skills—or the soft-hard skills, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said—and gives them an opportunity to get ready for life. There might be other, structural issues, such as getting on the work ladder, but that first job has such a positive impact on young people. We have heard about sweeping floors, but whatever the job, it ensures they are able to work.

I still remember a 16-year-old I hired once. He did not have his tie done up or his shirt tucked in, but I took a risk on him—and it was a risk, because I had to train him up. I said to him, “Young man, you’re going to have to tuck your shirt in and do your tie up.” Only two years later, when a grad came in for interview, he told them, “Tuck your shirt in, and do your tie up.” That just made me laugh—I thought, “Look how far that young individual has come on.” He went on to do other forms of employment, go up the job ladder and get higher wages. I take great pride in all the young people I employed and trained.

Flexibility in the labour market is important, as is ensuring that the Government do not increase the burden on businesses. I come back to the disconnect. The Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who I have a great deal of time for, made a valiant effort—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

Not me?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I have lots of time for the Minister who will be closing the debate as well, but I have not heard him speak yet, so I will reserve judgment.

The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore made a valiant effort at defending the Government’s record, but he did not acknowledge that the unemployment rate has gone up—as a natural consequence of the Government’s interventions—and there is no indication of how they are going to get it down. With the best will in the world—however much money they spend training people up and doing interventions—if businesses are not hiring, the unemployment rate will stay where it is. I invite the Minister to address that point in his closing speech. What reassurances will he give to 16-year-olds, 18-year-olds and other young people who want hope and want to build their lives?

I will end in a moment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) wants to speak. Recently, I was at the opening of the Bluebell Wood café in north Solihull. It was an idea that I came up with, and I worked with Andy Street, the former Mayor of the West Midlands. Hospitality is a big employer in my constituency—we have the National Exhibition Centre, the largest regional hotel, the Hilton Metropole, and many other businesses—and they all talk about the need for skills. We talked to University College Birmingham about bringing to north Solihull a training restaurant that would train top-level chefs and “maître d’s”. When I cut the ribbon, the main chef said that they were training level 1 apprentices to do level 3 work. I invite you to come and visit, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would like—top football clubs and top restaurateurs go there to recruit. But there have to be jobs at the end of the line.

This is so important. I urge the Government to reflect on their policies and consider the impact they have had on the future prospects of young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate after so many thoughtful contributions from hon. Members across the House. Many difficult questions have been raised. I thought of following the example of the soon-to-be-former hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in just resigning to avoid those difficult questions—[Interruption.]. I will resist the encouragement.

It has been fantastic to listen to hon. Members talking about their own experience of Saturday and summer jobs. It allowed me to imagine the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) running around with multiple plates balanced on her arms, and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) getting busy with his chamois. I pictured the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), who I belatedly welcome to his position, as a postie in shorts, fighting the rain coming off the North sea. I pictured the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) with long, flowing locks getting busy scrubbing pots in the Italian sunshine. That was important, because it allowed me to picture Conservative MPs doing something productive. More importantly and seriously, it was a reminder of the importance of our first employment experiences in making ourselves into fully rounded human beings and workers.

My job was working on Saturdays before going to university and in the summers at Beveridge fishmongers’ in Giffnock. The antisocial teenager in me would want to be in the back of the shop filleting something, but every time a customer came in I had to remake myself and find confidence all over again. It is in no way an overstatement to say that all the Saturday and summer jobs that hon. Members have spoken about are why we are all here. They gave us that first chance and opportunity to find confidence in ourselves, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said.

However, I will caution Conservative Members. Yes, this is about experience and people finding an opportunity and, as some have said, avoiding the long-term scarring effect of youth unemployment, but for many young workers this is about paying the bills. These jobs are not a nice additional thing. I think of the young woman with a family who I met; she had a zero-hours contract and simply did not know from month to month whether she would be able to pay her rent or take her kids to anything special.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) spoke powerfully about how insecurity in the workplace is linked to the health of the economy. When people’s incomes are hollowed out, it hollows out the centre of our towns and ends up in the empty high street shops that we see.

[Rebecca Smith]

The Minister makes a very interesting point about city centres being hollowed out, but the main thrust of this debate is about young people doing summer jobs before they go back to school or university in the autumn. They are the very young people who would ordinarily take those wages to buy a hot chocolate in Lorenzo’s, like I used to, or to go and buy the new pair of trainers that they have saved up for. If they do not have a job in the first place and do not come from a family in which their parents can subsidise all those things, they miss out on that opportunity. While I accept the point he is making, will he accept the point I am making? The very thing we are discussing this afternoon is part of that problem, and removing those young people from the market altogether will not help.

[Blair McDougall]

The reason I am responding to the debate by talking about the impact of zero-hours contracts is that Conservative Member after Conservative Member rose to speak in defence of those contracts. Of course, many people value flexibility in the workplace, but some employers have used that flexibility to take advantage of their employees, including young employees.

[Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Summer jobs are really important, as are summer schools. Will the Minister join me in welcoming students from the Burnley summer school, who join us in the Gallery today, and will he perhaps include in his speech the fact that over the Tories’ time in power from 2010 to 2024, 7,500 pubs closed across Britain—many of them in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield—meaning that those jobs just did not exist for people?

[Blair McDougall]

I am very happy to welcome that summer school from the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that into Hansard. I also congratulate him on teaching those students a lesson about the hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, which they will get used to.

Many hon. Members spoke about seasonal workers as if the legislation was somehow going to force seasonal contracts to be permanent contracts. That is simply not the case—where people genuinely value that flexibility in the workplace, they will be able to continue to work in that way.

[Douglas Lumsden]

The Minister speaks about zero-hours contracts almost as if they are the devil’s work. Does he accept that those contracts give people the flexibility they want when they are doing a job? For a lot of people, a zero-hours contract fits in with their lifestyle; they do not want to be committed to working so many hours a week.

[Blair McDougall]

Where the workers that the hon. Member describes feel that way, they will not have to change their contracts. We are talking about the people who work for the same employer as their main job, week after week, without any certainty of income. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said that only 3% of workers rely on a zero-hours contract as their main job. That is one in 25 workers. [Interruption.] In his constituency, there are 60,000 people of working age, meaning that hundreds of people in his constituency do not have the right to regular hours.

[Damian Hinds]

rose—

[Blair McDougall]

I will take the right hon. Member’s intervention. Maybe he can say why he thinks those hundreds of workers in his constituency should not have the right to full-time employment.

[Damian Hinds]

I can tell the Minister that 3% is a relatively small percentage of 100%, and many of those people are students. The Labour party used to speak about zero-hours contracts as if they were taking over the entire economy, but that is simply not true—they are a perfectly legitimate form of employment that works for some people. I described the situation of my constituents who have one zero-hours contract at their term-time address and another at their home address. What is wrong with that? If it works for the employer and for the employee, why is Labour so against that flexibility?

[Blair McDougall]

Those people will still be able to have those contracts under the legislation, but we are talking about potentially hundreds of people in the right hon. Member’s constituency—that was his formulation—who rely on zero-hours contracts as their main form of employment, with no certainty of income from month to month. That cannot go on in this country; it is fundamentally unfair.

Several Conservative Members mentioned business rates, which the Government take incredibly seriously. The Conservative party began the revaluation without any plans whatsoever for any transitional support or relief for the people affected by it; Labour introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers from seeing large overnight bill increases because of that revaluation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) said, over half of ratepayers will see no bill increases this year, and 23% will see their bills go down. Plenty of arguments could be made about whether we have gone far enough and how far our continued reforms of business rates should continue, and my colleagues in the Treasury will do that, but for members of a party that had no plans for any relief whatsoever to be saying now that they will spend £4 billion on abolishing those rates altogether, without saying where it will come from, is frankly ridiculous.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) mentioned the great British savings this summer, and made a very fair request for those in the Treasury, as they look at the overall impact of that, to look at the impact on individual young people as well.

Many Opposition Members rightly raised the impact of increased national insurance contributions. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, we recognise that that was a big ask of business, but what it did was say to the international money markets that we were a serious country again. That has been seen in lower mortgages, and in lower borrowing rates for businesses. I understand the genuine concern expressed by Opposition Members about the impact on youth employment, but I would say that it is at best a partial explanation, given that employers of workers under the age of 21 and those employing young apprentices do not pay national insurance.

The hon. Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green suggested that whenever a Government add to existing business costs, we should think about the cumulative impact rather than viewing it in isolation, and that is an entirely fair argument. Every time we ask something of businesses, that gives us in government a further incentive and, indeed, responsibility to do more to remove costs from them. That is precisely why, through the £2.5 billion youth guarantee package, businesses are being given a £3,000 incentive to employ 18 to 24-year-olds who are at risk of long-term unemployment, a £2,000 incentive to hire foundational apprentices, a further £2,000 to hire apprentices aged between 16 and 24, and fully funded costs for 16 to 24-year-old apprentices. That, of course, is on top of all the other work that we are doing to reduce the costs on business.

[Rebecca Smith]

I am glad that the Minister has brought up the subject of fully funded apprenticeships for those under 25. As soon as that was announced, an electrician in my constituency contacted me and said, “That is all well and good, but I still have to pay the higher wages.” Although such businesses are not paying national insurance, this is not as free, or as cheap, as the Government maintain. Will the Minister accept that it is not 100% correct to say that these are fully funded apprenticeships, because those businesses still have to pay increased salaries?

[Blair McDougall]

As was said earlier, we believe that people working full time should be able to afford the basics in life. My point is that we are dealing with the issue of youth unemployment by incentivising businesses to employ young people.

Many Opposition Members mentioned red tape. They will not have to wait terribly long to see the work that the Secretary of State and I have been doing to reduce the administrative burden on business. Many others spoke about additional costs being imposed on business. Let me remind them that our target to reduce that administrative burden by £5.6 billion is a net target, and they will not have to wait very long to see the progress that we have made in that regard.

[David Reed]

The Minister is coming out with these great plans. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) agrees with them, and will implement them when he becomes Prime Minister?

[Blair McDougall]

Of course he does. It is in the Labour party manifesto. He has spoken about backing our industrial strategy, and this is an incredibly important part of it.

The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke about how beautiful his constituency was. [Interruption.] Yes, I know—I am looking at him. Later this month I shall be on my way to a holiday in Cornwall, and perhaps I will stop off in his constituency with my family. So many Opposition Members spoke of our imposing a tourism tax on local areas, but there will be no such imposition. This is devolution, allowing local areas to decide whether they want to invest in that or not.

I can confirm that we will not move our amendment, but this Government are proud to be taking employment law into the 21st century, proud that we are rebalancing business rates for smaller businesses to help young people get jobs, and proud that we are backing our high streets. We have commissioned Alan Milburn to investigate the high level of youth unemployment, and we look forward to the publication of his final report in the autumn. The report will be backed by evidence and the real experiences of young people in a changing labour market. What it will not be based on is outdated, Dickensian ideas of getting 13-year-olds working late into the night before school. This Labour Government will act, and these reforms will deliver the national renewal that our country needs.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Before I put the Question, let me say that it is a shame that those at the Burnley summer school have left. The Minister will want to be careful about using the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.