Employers
Debate between Julia Lopez and John Hayes(2 days, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
Online Safety Act 2023: Repeal
Debate between Julia Lopez and John Hayes(10 months, 4 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, not least because it means that you cannot speak. I think you would happily take up a good hour of the debate talking about the perils and ills of the internet, and how it needs to be shut down, so that is probably for the best.
Julia Lopez
I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) on introducing the debate. He made a particularly excellent contribution to last week’s petition debate on mandatory digital identification; although his party’s leadership may not have thanked him, I am sure his constituents did. He is right that the internet allows unprecedented connection, which is for good, but also for ill. Our job is to balance that inherent tension, while recognising that sometimes there is no balance to be found and that we have to make a choice when it comes to children being served a toxic online diet of extreme content.
When we were in government, that choice was the Online Safety Act, about which thousands of petitioners have raised concerns, believing that its breadth and scope are having too restrictive an effect. I have some sympathy with those concerns, because the Act is large and very complex; although it is proving effective in protecting children in many ways, the implementation undoubtedly comes with challenges, whether that is VPN usage or the inadvertent capturing of no to low-risk sites in compliance duties.
BBC: Government Role in Impartiality
Debate between Julia Lopez and John Hayes(3 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Julia Lopez
I make it clear that Ministers have not sought to intervene or interfere in how this process has been handled by the BBC. I will not be commenting on the Lineker case specifically, because I want to maintain the independence of the BBC and the ability of the director-general to make decisions based on how he wishes to organise his institution.
On Mr Sharp, as I said to the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), the BBC charter makes it clear that the director-general, as editor-in-chief of the BBC—and not the chairman of the board—has final responsibility for issues such as the ones we saw over the weekend.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Mindful that the Minister does not want to comment on self-indulgent, out-of-touch, insensitive, avaricious, smug, arrogant football pundits, and in mind, too, of the BBC’s important role as a national institution, made special by both its charter and the mode of its funding, will she affirm that impartiality is critical to the BBC’s continuing role? The BBC is respected throughout the world for its impartiality—the World Service springs to mind. When that impartiality is compromised by anyone in a privileged position, that flaw undermines the BBC we want to support.
Julia Lopez
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the mode of the BBC’s funding that makes it different in how it must respond to such cases. Trust and impartiality are fundamental to the social compact that underpins the licence fee. If that trust and impartiality are seen to be broken by people in the organisation, it is for the organisation to take that into account and to take action accordingly.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Julia Lopez and John Hayes(9 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
The Minister for Transport Legislation and Maritime (Mr John Hayes)
Another opportunity to inform, another chance to perform—what is better than that, Mr Speaker? As my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) may know, the Law Commission provided a report on reforming taxi and private hire vehicle legislation, since which the sector has undergone profound and rapid change. With characteristic assiduity and determination, I will lead the response to such change, so protecting passenger wellbeing.
Julia Lopez
What discussions has the Minister had with the Mayor of London to find a workable way forward on taxi legislation in the capital that balances healthy competition with the properly enforced regulations that safeguard passengers and keep our city moving?
Mr Hayes
As I glanced at the Order Paper, as you must also have done, Mr Speaker, I noticed my hon. Friend’s change of name due to the happy event of her marriage, on which the whole House will want to congratulate her. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] She has become our own J.Lo.
My discussions with the Mayor are regular. The Government are determined to find a way forward on taxi regulation. This is not just about the capital; we need to consider the whole issue of taxi licensing. As I have said, our absolute determination is for public safety and wellbeing, but we have to balance that with consumer choice.