Summer Jobs

Debate between Damian Hinds and Blair McDougall

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Supporting High Streets

Debate between Damian Hinds and Blair McDougall

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

We made it clear a few days ago that we plan to reduce the administrative cost of the regulatory burden by nearly £6 billion, and that is what we will do. Conservative Members have spoken about the Employment Rights Bill and their intention to repeal it, but they are forgetting that that Bill will set up a single regulator for the labour market, which will actually reduce red tape for businesses across the country.

[Damian Hinds]

Let me try to help the Minister, because Conservative Members are very keen to know the answer, and probably many of his colleagues are keen to know it too. It is one thing to say, “We would like to reduce the cost by 25%”—sure you would! The question is: how do the Government think they are going to realise savings of 25%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

It is the Government amendment in an Opposition day debate. How are those 25% savings going to be realised?

[Blair McDougall]

In a moment, I will come to our plans to reduce the mountain of red tape that the right hon. Member’s Government left us with, and to reduce the cost of that red tape.

Conservative Member after Conservative Member spoke about the Employment Rights Bill. I should say at the outset that we want the rights in that Bill to be fit for the 21st century—the last time that we properly reviewed our employment law and the relationship between employer and employee was in the last century. However, I am astonished that right hon. and hon. Members on the Conservative Benches do not seem to see the connection between how much money people have in their pockets and the ability of their local high streets to thrive. Giving people more secure work and higher wages means that the money in their pockets ends up in the tills of local businesses.