Summer Jobs

Debate between Blake Stephenson and Wendy Morton

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

I will take 21 any day. My first job paid the grand sum of 50p an hour. At the end of the week, when I got my pay packet—it was a pay packet in those days; there was no bank transfer—I felt quite wealthy. For the first time, I had a bit of money of my own; I could spend it on what I wanted, instead of having to ask the bank of mum and dad for money.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

That was liberating.

[Wendy Morton]

It really was, but it was more than that. It got me used to the whole mindset of going to work: getting up, being there for a certain time, and asking, “Is there anything else I can do?” My job was waitressing, and the usual pot-washing. Alongside that, when I was old enough, I learned how to pull a pint. My sister did the same, as did other youngsters from our village and the local towns. The employer was fantastic; he would pick up those who did not have transport and whose parents could not take them, and he made sure they got home as well. To me, that was a responsible employer.

That job gave me confidence. I was forced to speak to people in a restaurant environment, and had to handle cash and bookings—really important skills. The biggest skill of all was feeling confident that I could go out and work. We talk about working people; I very much think that the Conservative party is the party of working people. We have outnumbered Labour Members in this debate.

When I was growing up, there was always an expectation that we would go through education and then go out to work. If we wanted something, we worked for it. That was the way that we were brought up. Today’s debate has highlighted something quite sad: young people today do not have the same number of opportunities to get a summer job. This is about gaining not just money, but experience. I speak to so many employers, and have done for some time, about the importance of employability. Too often, I hear that employers small and large want to take on young people, but those young people do not have all the skills. That is not their fault; it is because they have not had the summer job, or a newspaper round or whatever, which helps that little bit when starting a job.

We need to take a long hard look at the employment market, and we need to look at what has happened in the last couple of years. We have heard today that youth unemployment is running at 14.5% for 18-to-24 year olds, up from 12% in 2024. Youth employment for those aged between 16 and 17 is at a staggering 30%, up from 24.7%. I read that 700,000 graduates are out of work and claiming benefits. There is something wrong there.

We encourage young people to go through education and to go to university, and then they struggle to find employment. That is partly because unemployment is high, but it is also because of the burdens being placed on our businesses. We talk a lot about large businesses, but often, the SMEs and the micro-businesses—the lifeblood of local communities and high streets that I have the pleasure of representing across Aldridge Brownhills—are being buried in red tape. They have seen employers’ national insurance hiked, they are being blocked from employing under-16s, and they are suffering as a result of high energy costs.

Any business that we go to will talk about the hike in energy costs, and for an energy-intensive industry, that hike is particularly difficult. In my constituency, we have a lot of brick makers; in the west midlands, brick making and the ceramics industry are really important. Although Denby is not in my constituency, who does not like picking up a piece of Denby pottery and seeing “Made in England” proudly stamped underneath? We are losing those businesses, which means that we are losing opportunities for young people, the opportunity to grow our economy and develop more skills, and our manufacturing capability, which is important.

We saw during covid how important it was to have sovereign, UK-based manufacturing capacity and capability when we needed to manufacture the critical covid vaccines. That surely should have taught us something. We have to build up more home-made skills. I also urge the Government to look at skills and opportunities for young people and, more broadly, at what skillset we need for today and for the future. We talk about the opportunities that artificial intelligence will bring, but it will also bring challenges to some sectors. The big question is: are we ready for that? I do not think that we have done nearly enough thinking to get us to that point. We have to do that now, to make sure that we are developing the right skills. For years, people who did an apprenticeship in engineering or plumbing were seen as not earning as much as the graduates who had been to university and got the high-tech jobs. There were also the toolmakers—[Laughter.] We can laugh about toolmakers, but in the west midlands there is a history of toolmaking. My point is that AI will not be able to replace all those skills. We need to look at what we need in future, and our education system—our schools, universities and colleges—need to make sure that we are all working together.

Critical to that conversation is business, and not just big business. I come back to my point about small business. We started our business many years ago with something called enterprise allowance. My husband had an idea, and the enterprise allowance paid us £40 a week. It did not seem like much at the time but, my goodness, we felt that the Government were backing us to create an income, a living and a business.

We need much more backing and confidence for our business community. It is time that we created a culture that supports businesses—one where “business” is not the bad word. Business is not bad. It is not bad to make a profit, because that profit is so often put back into the business, into employment and into the young people who, we all agree, we want to nurture and encourage, so that they can get into employment, get a job and a skill, and have a bright future.

Planning and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Blake Stephenson and Wendy Morton

Report stage
Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Wendy Morton]

To put it more simply, the sense of urban sprawl is about the green belt not just between specific villages but between communities. We see that between Streetly and Pheasey in my constituency on the edge of Birmingham. Does he agree that it would help to tackle the problem if the Government adopted a truly brownfield-first approach by developing the 1.2 million homes that it is estimated are available on brownfield sites?

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Those green spaces on the edge of and between towns are at risk. It is not just the fields that are at risk but people’s access to green space, which is vital for mental health and wellbeing.

Support for Pensioners

Debate between Blake Stephenson and Wendy Morton

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Blake Stephenson]

I had noted the same, but I was going to wait until the end of the debate to see if any sneaked in. Perhaps the Whips are calling them now—who knows? We will see whether any turn up to defend the current Government’s record.

The simple reality is that hope for more support was misplaced. Instead, energy bills are up and support for vulnerable pensioners has been cut. The Prime Minister said in April that Britain’s pensioners want politicians who will be straight with them, and I agree. Here is the truth: whatever the failings of the previous Government, and whatever difficulties they had grappling with the impacts of covid, the invasion of Ukraine and their own missteps at times, they always tried to support pensioners. As recently as March last year, the now Pensions Minister, the hon. Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), admitted on social media that

“pensioners are an average of £1,000 better off”

as a result of policies since 2010. He may want to reflect on that when he sums up this debate.

Last winter, Gary might well have received £600 from his winter fuel payment and his pensioner cost of living payment; this winter, he might well have received nothing. Like an estimated 9.2 million pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment this winter, Gary may have found himself without the vital support he received last winter to make that choice between heating and eating a little less difficult.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making some really important points, particularly with the examples of pensioners who find themselves trapped. The crux of this issue the unfairness, but it is also about the speed with which this policy decision—this political choice—was made. Even as recently as 27 April 2024, the now Prime Minister was saying:

“Britain’s pensioners deserve better. They deserve certainty, and for politicians to be straight with them so they can plan their lives.”

This is not an example of fairness, it is not an example of certainty, and it is certainly not an example of being straight with pensioners.

[Blake Stephenson]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I will come on to the importance of certainty and stability when it comes to pensions, so that people can plan for their futures, regardless of their age. For the Government to pull the rug out from under the feet of vulnerable pensioners with little or no notice at all is absolutely shameful.

Gary has seen the Government that he voted for with hope and optimism for a better life snatch away the lifeline he relied on. If he is on the old basic state pension, he will have seen 86.5% of his triple lock-backed increase snatched back. Indeed, he could well find that it will take until 2027-28 for his income to reach the level that he might have expected to see this winter.

Gary is not alone, because although this Government talk about millionaire pensioners being able to cope, for many of the 9.2 million pensioners losing their winter fuel payment, that really was vital support. The average pensioner, far from being the millionaire fat cat that the Government would like us all to imagine, earns just over £22,000 per year—similar to the income of a worker on the living wage. The level at which the threshold to keep winter fuel payments was set for a single pensioner means that someone could be bringing in less than £1,000 per month and now be one of the “millionaire pensioners” on whose shoulders the Government have chosen to balance the books.

Age UK estimates that 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty or just above the poverty line, including 1.1 million pensioners with a disability, will lose their winter fuel payment. I have heard so many stories from constituents in Mid Bedfordshire about the impact that that will have on them—stories of people who have had to make the stark choice between heating and eating this winter. I heard from a constituent who now cannot shower, who cooks a hot meal just once a week, and who can turn on their heating only when it is “unbearably freezing”. One constituent told me of the struggles to keep their 92-year-old father warm. Their father has dementia, and he keeps worrying about the bills.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

Indeed, the winter fuel allowance is one example of many broken promises. I know that my constituents feel let down by this Labour Government, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising some pertinent examples from his constituency.

Where do we go from here? Well, I am here to help the Government with some simple ways in which they can help our pensioners.

[Wendy Morton]

I don’t think they are listening.

[Blake Stephenson]

I do not think they are listening either, but let’s try. The Minister for Employment has told me previously about the Government’s desire to help pensioners reduce their energy bills, and I agree. There was a flagship policy in Labour’s manifesto, but good intentions alone are not enough to reduce energy bills. The Government’s Great British Energy pet project will not produce any energy. It will not employ anything near the number of people they said it would, and its boss cannot say when it will reduce energy bills. For many pensioners, that simply will not be soon enough. It is not just the Government’s GB Energy plans that are a mirage. They want to improve energy efficiency, but they cannot say where their warm home grants will be spent. They cannot say how many of the worst impacted properties off the energy grid are listed buildings that would need more specialist support.

All the energy wasted on plans that will not bring down energy bills could have been better spent taking real steps to reduce them. While the Government have been talking about reducing energy bills, they have gone up by £170. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve real, focused action to drive up energy efficiency and drive down energy bills.

From the private sector I know that the old axiom “what gets measured gets done” is more than a cliché. The Government need to start taking seriously getting every single person eligible for pension credit signed up for it. To do that, they need to set out a credible, measurable plan with targets that we can all hold them to account on. Our pensioners deserve better. They deserve a real focus to make sure that the most vulnerable pensioners get the help they need. Getting them that help will also help the Government in their mission to grow the economy.

Independent Age found that spending an additional £2.1 billion on pension credit for all eligible pensioners would save the NHS and social care around £4 billion. That is extra money to spend on the Government’s priorities—growing the economy and delivering better public services while protecting the most vulnerable pensioners. We must also go further to ensure that the Government are able to support both the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. People need confidence and certainty in pensions to plan. That is a lesson we must learn from the winter fuel fiasco, and indeed from the legacy of the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign. Politicians cannot continue to promise things that cannot be delivered. We have a duty in this place to deliver the things we promise. That means ensuring that we put the state pension on a long-term sustainable footing with a plan that looks to the future.

During this Parliament we must clearly communicate to the young people starting work now the support that they can expect to receive from the state when they retire, so that from their first days in work young people can start to plan for a comfortable retirement. We must get pensions reform right—I think the Minister will agree with that—so that young people have good choices available to them as they build financially secure futures. In doing so, we can build greater financial resilience so that the next generation of pensioners, and those that come after, will never have to worry about choosing between heating and eating again. To do anything else would be a dereliction of the duty we have been entrusted with by our constituents.

The Government promised pensioners that they would deliver for them. Instead, they have chosen to balance the books on the backs of people who cannot simply turn around and go back to work, and who cannot find an extra £50 behind the sofa to turn on the heating this week. Although the Government can hide behind shameful, politically driven characterisations of some of the poorest in our society as millionaire pensioners to justify snatching away vital support, pensioners know the truth. Labour were elected on a promise to make pensioners’ lives easier; they have done the opposite. Over the next four years we all have a duty to do better for the pensioners of today and the pensioners of tomorrow. I hope that the Government will get a grip quickly and rise to that challenge.