Employers

Debate between Julia Lopez and Dave Doogan

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Julia Lopez and Dave Doogan

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

I welcome my hon. Friend constantly holding my feet to the fire on Kettering’s gigabit capability. He is actually above the national average, with 88% of premises in his seat having gigabit-capable broadband, but I am glad to say that we are doing more. We will be awarding a procurement next year to try to tackle all those bits we have not yet reached.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

T6.   Despite Scottish Tory rhetoric, broadband and telecoms are entirely reserved to Westminster, but because of the slow pace of Westminster’s roll-out the Scottish Government have had to invest £600 million in speeding up broadband roll-out, which the UK is now using as a springboard for its own roll-out. Can the Minister now promise that the Scottish Government will receive a proportionate share of the UK Government’s £5 billion funding—money that the Scottish Government were forced to spend and should not have had to spend if the UK Government had had their act together?

[Julia Lopez]

My understanding is that some of the main challenges come from the Scottish Government’s R100 programme, which is making the roll-out rather challenging. His colleagues in Scotland have asked for Scotland to have more than the per premises cap, basically asking us to give more money to Scotland than we are giving to other parts of the country. I do not think that is fair, and I do not think we should be paying for the mistakes of the regime.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Julia Lopez and Dave Doogan

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Julia Lopez]

Yes. They will be allowed to take out a new agreements, but they still have to be under the existing regime.

To be clear, this will not let an operator unilaterally change, or ask the court to impose a change to, the terms or duration of their current agreement. It allows an additional code right to be conferred on the operator via a new, separate code agreement.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I think we all accept the need to be able to protect continuity of service, but my constituent, Mr Ramsay, is on the receiving end of some very strong tactics by Telefonica, which is looking to reduce the value of his lease agreement by about 90%, by £5,000 from about £7,000. What does the Minister suggest my constituent do under the weight of that corporate might? It is a David and Goliath situation.

[Julia Lopez]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case of his constituent. I would be grateful if he took it up with my officials, as I am keen to look into it. Throughout the passage of the Bill, individuals have raised cases with me. It is fair to say that the number of cases has declined substantially as the Bill has progressed through the House, so I am content that the position is getting much better, but if there are outstanding cases of situations that any MP feels is unfair, I will be grateful if they are brought to my attention.

To return to the case I was making for new clause 1, as with an initial agreement, if a consensual agreement cannot be reached about the additional right needed, operators will be able to ask the court to impose an additional agreement conferring the additional right. Of course, in those circumstances an operator would still have to satisfy the court that its application meets the requirements of part 4 of the code, including the public interest test.

Let me give an example of how the Government intend this to work. An operator may have an existing agreement which contains a code right to install a 3 metre high mast. Subsequently, the operator realises that it needs to install a 5-metre high mast on the same piece of land. That could enable the operator to install 5G technology or to improve or expand its network. The original agreement allowing the 3-metre mast will continue to run for its remaining term, and the operator will ask the site provider to enter into a second agreement, which contains a code right allowing it to install the 5-metre high mast.

Advances in technology occur at pace, whereas a code agreement can last for a number of years. If an operator has to wait until the term of its code agreement is about to expire before being able to obtain additional code rights, it will be unable to install the latest technology on its apparatus, meaning our constituents will be deprived of faster, more reliable services such as 5G and, in time, 6G. We think that the new clause is also vital to give UK businesses access to the technology they need, enabling our economy to thrive. I hope Members will therefore agree that it must be made.

Turning to new clause 2, we want to ensure that disputes relating to the electronic communications code can be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible. Currently, paragraph 95 of the code allows the Secretary of State to make regulations that confer jurisdiction on either the first-tier tribunal or upper tribunal in relation to England, but only the upper tribunal in relation to Wales. The current regulations made under paragraph 95 state that all code disputes must commence in the upper tribunal, although in England, appropriate cases may then be handed down to the first-tier tribunal. The first-tier tribunal has greater administrative resources and more judges than the upper tribunal, meaning that code disputes can be processed and heard more quickly.

Moving forward, the Government are therefore considering a greater role for the first-tier tribunal in hearing code disputes, including making further regulations using the power in paragraph 95 of the code where appropriate. The new clause provides the necessary powers so that we can do just that. In future, the Secretary of State will be able to make regulations conferring jurisdiction on both the upper tribunal and the first-tier tribunal in Wales.

The final set of Government amendments is amendments 4 to 7. They have been tabled to make a minor clarification to the text of clause 68 to avoid any unintended interpretation of the legislation. Clause 68 currently makes it clear that an operator can, at any time, give notice in writing to a person from whom they are seeking code rights, stating that the operator wishes to engage in alternative dispute resolution, often known as ADR. However, nowhere is it set out that such a notice can be sent from that person to the operator. The amendments clarify that when an operator seeks code rights from a person, either the operator or that person may give notice to the other expressing a wish to engage in ADR at any time.