Employers

Julia Lopez Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House believes that employers are working people and therefore condemns the Government for breaking the Labour Party manifesto commitment not to increase National Insurance by increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions; and calls on the Government to halve employers’ National Insurance contributions for under-25s.

Today, we debate a simple proposition: that employers are working people. One might have assumed it a blindingly obvious proposition, but it is one that Labour contorts itself to deny. But, then, Labour is not very good at answering obvious questions, like, “What is a woman?” or “Should someone identifying as a llama be taken seriously?”—remember that one?

Yes, the “working people” definition has really been flummoxing Labour Members. For two years, they have been bending themselves into funny shapes. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) said that a working person is

“anyone that gets a payslip, basically”.

The Secretary of State for Transport said that working people were “people on modest incomes”. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that employers are not working people. Last week, the First Secretary cleared it all up by saying that working people

“do not have savings…and…rely on good public services.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 910.]

That might explain why the Budget hiked taxes on savers. It is a Cirque du Soleil of mental gymnastics—but why? Because in 2024 Labour decided, albeit briefly, that it would rather get elected to govern the country than continue its audition to lead the student union of Islington ring road university, so it made everyone a promise in its manifesto: no tax increases for working people. It got specific: there was to be no VAT hike and no extra rates of income tax, and Labour would not increase national insurance—no way. Just months later, up shoots national insurance to the tune of £25 billion a year. Suddenly, working people across the country are asking, “What the hell happened?”.

Labour told working people, “No, no, it’s all perfectly legit—it’s an increase in national insurance for employers, not employees.” I think that is what Labour MPs might normally call gaslighting, but since it is being done to people who contribute, work themselves silly and generally want the country to succeed, their feelings are of no concern to the Government.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think the Labour Government were gaslighting the nation. So little is their understanding of business and their ability to read an Office for Budget Responsibility analysis that they did not realise that the nearly £27 billion hit on the nation’s economy would lead to a nearly £20 billion reduction in the money that ordinary people get in their pay packets, and that the net receipt to the Treasury would be about half that—about £10 billion. They cannot add up. Perhaps my hon. Friend needs to acknowledge that they have that disability.

[Julia Lopez]

I ask for my right hon. Friend’s forgiveness. I buy into his theory more than mine; I have overestimated the Government’s capabilities.

The Conservatives’ motion says that the House believes that employers are working people, and that increasing national insurance broke Labour’s manifesto. If this was just a debate about semantics, maybe we could all move on, but the 2024 Budget has cast a shadow over every employer in every postcode, driving up unemployment and pushing up costs for everyone. It is time to start unravelling that damage, and in particular the damage that this tax increase has done to young people.

[Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)]

For what it is worth, I accept that employers are working people and they are an important part of our labour market and our economy. However, though I lament the increase to national insurance, it was necessary to get money back into the NHS, which was on its knees following the end of the last Government, and that was breaking the economy too.

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman has no doubt been to his constituency and been denied access to pubs, salons and all the rest of it, and that has suddenly changed his mind about what constitutes “a working person”. I should ask: are his constituents seeing those better public services? Certainly, mine are not, and they wonder where all that money has gone because it has not gone on more stable public finances or better public services.

Let us start by acknowledging what it takes to be an employer. It takes someone who saved money to start a business of their own and who took a risk to expand it gradually to take on that first member of staff, then over time building a team. It takes long hours, personal sacrifice, financial peril, time away from their family.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

My hon. Friend characterises a picture that might be seen in every constituency among small and medium-sized enterprises. Sometimes, people imagine business as consisting wholly of globalist corporate plutocrats, but the backbone of our economy is made up of those small and medium-sized firms of exactly the kind that she describes. On the issue of public services, why does the Labour party not focus on productivity? It is not wholly about what we spend; it is what we get for what we spend.

[Julia Lopez]

I agree with what my right hon. Friend says. That characterisation of employers is why Labour gets itself into such problems in the first place. He talks about the issues relating to national insurance and public services. The NHS also has to pay a higher national insurance bill because of the changes that the Labour Government have made, and that has caused all kinds of challenges across the public sector.

[Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the biggest problems when national insurance went up was that places such as hospices, pharmacies and care homes were not excluded. It is one thing to say that we are putting more money in, but all that money and more was taken elsewhere to pay for the staffing. Is that not part of the problem?

[Julia Lopez]

It is absolutely part of the problem. Labour did not think that through, and I have an example of that same phenomenon with the hospice in my constituency, as well as with a number of public sector organisations and charities.

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

To build on that point, the same applies to the education setting. I met some of my headteachers just last week. Despite employer national insurance going up, central Government grant covers only about 70% of the cost, so the additional 30% must come out of the existing school budget. That has led to teaching assistants being let go and made redundant in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that detrimental increase in tax has hit everybody across every constituency?

[Julia Lopez]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It has been seen in my constituency and across Whitehall. It is an absolute dog’s dinner of a policy that has created problems for not just the private sector but the public sector.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The shadow Minister makes a point about the increases to national insurance—absolutely fine; that is a political point that she is entitled to make. Will she tell me, using the exact same logic that she has applied to the criticism of this levy, why in 2021 she voted for the hypothecated health and social care levy, which was a 1.25% increase on national insurance for both employees and employers? Why was that an acceptable increase, but this was not?

[Julia Lopez]

That was a policy that was put forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) decided to change it because the economy was in a challenging state after the pandemic and we needed to think again about whether it was the right thing to put that pressure on employers, so we went back on that policy.

To return to what employers have been going through, they have the ongoing stress and responsibility of employing people and wanting so desperately to continue to provide opportunity for them. They have to think about the other families who are relying on them as small business founders who are pushing to provide a community with a great service and a happy experience. They are pub landlords, builders, restaurateurs, service firms, salon owners, café owners, shop owners. Work, work, work, work, work.

Employers are not just working people; they are uber-taxpayers. They made it through covid, they made it through an energy crisis, but many are now saying that they cannot make it through Labour. When Labour broke its manifesto commitment in its first Budget by increasing national insurance, it did so in a highly destructive way. Not only did it increase the rate, but it lowered the point at which employers start paying NI on an employee’s salary. Lowering that threshold hit part-time, entry-level and lower-wage jobs the hardest, making employees so much more expensive to retain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but suddenly, countless businesses in my constituency started sounding the alarm, especially those employing people who need flexible, part-time hours because of caring responsibilities.

[Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting the impact on part-time workers. My constituency is a very seasonal area on the coast, but we also have students and OAPs, all of whom want part-time work, yet under this Government they are finding that so much harder to achieve.

[Julia Lopez]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that challenge in seasonal working, which creates an extra burden for employers, many of whom have to work to fill the shifts they would otherwise have used temporary staff for, creating enormous pressure.

People are writing to me in despair because their adult child simply cannot get a first break in the workplace, and it is not for want of trying. Businesses warned the Government that this would happen. The hospitality, retail and care sectors all raised the alarm about the impact of higher employer national insurance. What was Labour’s response? The unemployment Act, which makes it riskier to employ people as well as more expensive. The national insurance increase came into effect in April 2025. By April this year, there were 210,000 fewer payrolled employees than a year earlier. There are now 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and the Government are in denial about the reasons why.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister talks about businesses having warned the Labour Government about the impact that Labour’s jobs tax was going to have. Does she, like me, think it is inconceivable that Treasury officials would not similarly have advised the Government that this would be a consequence of the jobs tax? Is it not particularly pernicious of Labour to have put the biggest barricade in front of younger workers, possibly accessing their first job in hospitality, which will have a lifelong damaging effect on their careers?

[Julia Lopez]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. It is inconceivable that the Government would not have been told about the impact that this policy was likely to have.

Labour likes to point out that employers do not pay national insurance on workers under 21, but that misses the point. Employers are making decisions about their entire workforce, and when the cost of employing people rises and the risks associated with taking on a new starter increase, the first opportunity to disappear is the one that will no longer be created. Rather than take on an extra employee at junior level, employers are squeezing the staffing resource they have, but they are shedding younger workers, too. By 2027, employing a full-time minimum wage worker over the age of 21 will cost a business 20% more than it did when Labour entered office. For an 18 to 20-year-old, it is 31%.

Labour knows that there is a problem, but rather than tackle it at source, it offers up the youth guarantee, a bung to employers to take on a young person for six months. How about making it cheaper and easier to employ that young person in the first place? Soon we will get details of an unlimited youth mobility scheme with the EU to add to this mix, which will see young Britons competing for available work with peers from 27 other nations.

The cost of all this must be absorbed somewhere. Higher national insurance, soaring energy bills and a growing burden of regulation all feed through into the price of doing business and, ultimately, the price we all pay. The weekly shop costs more, a meal out costs more, getting your hair done costs more, activities with the kids cost more, as does going away for a few days. This is just one of the reasons that household finances are going backwards. Whether Labour is talking about employer national insurance or employee national insurance, everybody pays at the end of the day.

We Conservatives want more working people, because work is dignity, contribution, resilience and confidence, and we want that opportunity for as many young people as possible. We want to end the waste of a generation unable to showcase its talents, and we want to reduce the cost on a generation of workers that can bear no more tax on its shoulders. That means returning to some of the policies that are driving this destruction. Not only would we repeal the job-destroying provisions of the unemployment Act; we Conservatives would halve employer national insurance for under-25s. Our policy would permanently reduce the cost of employing young people and give businesses a real incentive to take them on. For an employer, it would be a saving of around £1,500.

This is part of a wider plan to tackle Labour’s youth jobs emergency. Our “Get to Work” scheme would stop young people leaving education and drifting straight on to welfare. It would create 100,000 new apprenticeships, cut red tape to save the Saturday job and reduce high street business rates to support the businesses that give young people their first step on the jobs ladder—a policy that would benefit not 70,000 high street businesses, as Labour’s policy would, but 250,000.

Aside from old prejudices about employers as the oppressors of workers, the reason that Labour contorts itself on the definition of working people is that it knows it has taxed them silly. In doing so, it has not just broken its manifesto commitment but completely undermined what Keir Starmer and his sparkling new Chancellor used to say was Labour’s No. 1 priority: growth. The consequences are there for all to see in the unemployment figures and the living despair of young people unable to secure a good job.

[Sir John Hayes]

My hon. Friend is making a fundamental point about the structural effects of this policy: of course, it affects profitability year by year, but it also undermines the capacity of businesses to reinvest and ensure structurally that they are fit for the future. A butcher in my constituency, Andrew Parsons of Bennetts Butchers, is closing the shop in a couple of weeks after more than 100 years of trading, because, as a result of the costs lumped on him by successive Governments but particularly by this one, he does not have the money to reinvest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Julia Lopez]

My right hon. Friend tells us a terrible story that is unfortunately being played out in constituencies across this country. People are having their buffer eroded and then they are simply not able to invest in their businesses in the way that they would have hoped. It was all so predictable.

Let me close by reading out what I said to my constituents immediately after the 2024 Budget:

“Labour said in the election they did not need to hike taxes to pay for their plans, beyond those they had already announced. We now know this was not true—they have gone on a borrowing and spending spree that makes a mockery of the idea that they are concerned about the state of public finances they inherited. 

Many of the taxes on ordinary working people have been disguised by heaping pain on business. Labour may think it’s clever politics. But the result will be job losses, higher prices and closures…this approach is all wrong, warping the incentive structure in our economy. It won’t work and as they come back for more taxes, the number of people willing to take the risk of starting a business or save for their families will simply get smaller and smaller.”

We are now living that future. Have these tax rises given us robust public finances? Have they delivered better public services? Do people feel better off? On all counts, the answer is no, yet this new Prime Minister believes that the solution to the resulting welfare crisis is to give Labour more taxes to spend. It does not work. Employers are the funders of services, the drivers of growth and the engines of opportunity. Many are not just working people themselves but working people on steroids, and they are fed up of being the cash machine for Labour’s faux benevolence. Their requests are simple: give us the chance to grow our businesses and build a future pipeline of young people to whom one day we might well pass our life’s work. It is time for this Government to start undoing the damage they have wreaked and halve the jobs tax on the young people whose aspirations Labour is burying right now.

Government Performance against Fiscal Rules

Julia Lopez Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out the legacy of the past 14 years, where so many of our constituents are waiting for secure, affordable housing. That is why the Chancellor’s decision not only to update the definition of debt, but to allow for the creation of a new national housing bank means that we can direct billions of pounds into building affordable and social housing again. Those record levels of investment will make a real difference to the lives of families across the whole country.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury seems to have only one line to survive this urgent question on behalf of the Chancellor, and that is to make reference to the former Prime Minister. Can he answer a simple question, to which we have already heard the answer today? Are Government borrowing costs higher now under him, or under the former Prime Minister in September 2022?

[Darren Jones]

I refer the hon. Lady to my previous answer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julia Lopez Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

He may be grateful for nothing, and he may be agitating in his place. I suggest that he goes back to the people of Scotland and explains his party’s record in government.

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

12. What assessment she has made of the impact of the level of taxation on working people.

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

The Government are committed to keeping taxes on working people as low as possible, which is why we are not increasing the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee national insurance contributions or VAT. The Government have published tax information and impact notes for tax policy changes made at the Budget, which give a clear explanation of the policy objective together with details of the tax impact on individuals. The OBR publishes an economic and fiscal outlook alongside the Budget, which sets out its assessment of the effects of Government decisions taken on tax.

[Julia Lopez]

Borrowing costs are soaring, the economy is weakening and we need to spend much more on defence. In those circumstances, can people be absolutely confident that to meet her fiscal rules, the Chancellor will not be raising income tax in the course of this Parliament?

[James Murray]

The OBR’s spring forecast will take place on 26 March and be accompanied by a statement to Parliament from the Chancellor. Ahead of the statement, the Government will not give a running commentary responding to forecasts and economic developments, but I reassure the hon. Member that the Chancellor’s commitment —indeed, the whole Government’s commitment—to our fiscal rules is non-negotiable.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Julia Lopez Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

The Chancellor’s Budget has created a right mess. No matter how regularly the Prime Minister bleats that he is fixing the foundations, it is a mess of Labour’s own making, date stamped 30 October 2024. The OBR has forensically dismantled the Government’s pathetic fallacy of a £22 billion black hole, but even if it had not, my constituents are not stupid. If the Chancellor was as worried by the state of the public finances as she said she was, why would she increase borrowing by £32 billion annually, undermining our financial resilience? Why would she make the choice to splurge cash on union pay rises with no productivity commitments? Why would she make a series of decisions that would lead the OBR to downgrade its growth forecasts since our April Budget?

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the extra pay for our teachers and our doctors. Even if the hon. Lady does not think that our public sector heroes deserve that pay rise, does she accept that lost school days cost the economy £900 million and that the NHS has had to spend £9.3 billion on temporary staffing?

[Julia Lopez]

I was interested by the train drivers’ pay deal, where the Government actually went back to the deal that we had made and undid the productivity commitments that we put in.

Why would the Chancellor front-load spending on the NHS before the Health Secretary even has a plan for how he will use that precious cash, therefore risking billions being wasted? It makes no sense, and everyone outside this place and all those inside it, apart from the Labour Members who are gleefully wafting their Order Papers around, can see that.

The Chancellor is asking for an extra £40 billion in taxes from the British people, and it is largely being taken from some of the most productive, entrepreneurial people in the country: the people who provide jobs and who do the right thing. I worry deeply that their good money is going to be poured into the public sector and benefits without any noticeable improvement in public services, and that when that happens, the Chancellor is going to come back for more. The incentive for anyone in this country to be entrepreneurial, to stick their neck out, to take the risk of employing people or to build true wealth for this nation will diminish. We will then find ourselves in a downward spiral, ever more unable to withstand external shocks and ever less appealing as a country in which our young people will want to stay to create, to innovate and to build.

As we know, a big chunk of that £40 billion is coming from the sneaky rise in employer national insurance—something the Government obscured from their plans in July—but let us start with the pain that the Chancellor’s choice on NI is causing her own Cabinet colleagues. She has blown holes in the budgets of every major Government Department. The Health Secretary now has problems with GPs, pharmacies, social care and hospices. The Deputy Prime Minister has councils telling her that they have to find over £1 billion extra to pay providers for their services. The Culture Secretary has charities, tourism businesses and cultural venues telling her that they have major problems. The Education Secretary has had to raise tuition fees by £400 million because universities are telling her that they now have a hole in their budgets of exactly the same size. It goes on.

I want to talk about the pain that this policy is causing to my constituents, particularly the lowering of the NI threshold, which is whacking the kind of businesses that employ a lot of young lower-wage workers, parents getting back into the workplace and people who are picking up extra jobs to make ends meet. Let me give some examples. The first is a local after-school club provider employing 34 people and offering wraparound clubs that help out hundreds of Havering families. It is the kind of club that makes that work/family juggle survivable. Because of the NICs hike and the lowering of the threshold, its bill is going to rise from £10,851 to £26,040 annually. The last thing it wants to do is to lose staff or hike fees for local families, but it cannot see a way around that.

Another example is an outdoor activities business that gives young people across London the most amazing opportunities. Its costs next year are going to increase by £70,000 as a direct result of the Budget, and it now worries that it will not be able to fund the young people’s bursary that is providing over 1,300 disadvantaged kids in the region with outdoor experiences. A third is a home care business that looks after older people in Havering. Its branch in Hornchurch faces paying an extra £100,000 a year, making it loss-making from April. That is absolutely crazy.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Julia Lopez]

No, I am afraid there is simply not enough time.

Finally, I want to mention a small private school in my constituency. Its pupils are some of the most vulnerable and deprived in our capital, as it is an alternative provision school. First, the Labour Government hit it with VAT. Now they are going to hit it with NICs and wage increases. Either it absorbs that cost or it passes it on to the local council. Those are four businesses from Harold Hill to Hornchurch providing critical services to my constituents, employing young people and giving working families opportunities. Now they are going to be hit by tens of thousands in extra costs, and that is before I even talk about the GPs, the pharmacists, the dentists, the charities, the shops, the restaurants and the pubs. It is for them that I am going to wholeheartedly—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. That brings us to the Front-Bench contributions.