Summer Jobs

Rebecca Smith Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

It is always good to speak with the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on the Front Bench. Were we discussing the threats that we face or the problems we have with China and the desperate way that they have undercut the market using slave labour, we would be on the same side of the House completely. My respect for him is enormous. However—[Laughter.] I do want to talk about today’s subject.

I was not planning to say anything about summer jobs, but my first experience of one was in Italy, where I had been studying. I had gone to the coast to find a job. All I could find was a job working as a plongeur, as it were, in the dishwashing section of a restaurant. I was a useless waiter and got told to stop sitting down and talking to those who were eating, so I was sent back to the kitchen. During the evenings I had nowhere to stay, but I had managed to borrow a Fiat 600—an old one that I could start with the end of a teaspoon—and I drove it round to the car park and used to sleep in the back. It was wonderfully cheap but not exactly very comfortable. I am not quite sure what I learned from that—I did learn a few lessons, but I am not prepared to divulge them all here. Washing in the sea was one of them, though I have to say I am not sure how that has stood me in any good stead for the last few years. We will move on from that.

We can overstate the lessons to be learned from a job, but being in work does teach young people about working to get a salary, turning up on time, as colleagues have said, and recognising that if they do not do so, the employer has every right to get rid of them. That is the key bit that we constantly talk to our families about.

I want to come back to the problems that we face. When I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when we came to power in 2010, we had just had a huge, difficult recession. We had high unemployment, and we had to get that unemployment down. I say to the Government is that the cost of all their problems is not one issue alone—it is when they fail to realise the impact of one change after another on what is ultimately the most at-risk group. I agree completely with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that the most at-risk group is young people. When the Government make changes to employment regulation, add on costs and change people’s rights, it is always younger people who are the most affected. They are the easiest to move out of employment, and they are almost invariably the last ones in. They are also the most expensive to look after while they are in work—for a good reason.

When I used to tour the jobcentres I spoke to young people who were there looking for a job. I used to ask, “What is the biggest hurdle that you face?” They would say that every time they go in front of an employer, the employer would ask them what experience they have in work. They would say, “I have no experience.” Then the employer says, “Well we cannot take that risk. I am looking for someone else, so you will not get the job”. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, not only is it a marginal cost but it is also about the complete lack of experience and the risk that an employer takes on when they hire the younger person.

The triple whammy of the national insurance charge, particularly on part-time work, the Employment Rights Act and the rise in the minimum wage are the vice that is squeezing this situation. Any one of those we probably could have got through, but to have all three of them hitting employment is the real problem that we face, and unemployment is the result.

Youth unemployment at 16.2% is staggering. We used to pride ourselves on having a lower youth unemployment than the rest of Europe, but that is not necessarily the case now. The latest figures show us categorically that now have three times the NEET rate as the Netherlands has. The Netherlands is probably the closest type of economy to us in Europe; it is often quite flexible, and it often looks to the UK to import some of its flexibilities. The reality, therefore, is that the group who will suffer—they were always going to—is young people. Without that work experience, they will not go on to get that job they want—in fact, it is the job that they need—as a starter job.

Turning to apprenticeships, an individual apprentice is now much more likely to get a full-time job and go on to earn more money than somebody who has studied at university. The collapse of the relationship between university and a brilliant career will fundamentally change the nature of who we are as a country if people who go to university with the promise that they would earn much more money than they would ever have to pay in debt then find that is a broken concept. That is a matter for both sides of the House. We must deal with it.

I have family who are paying off debts. The astonishing interest rate on those debts has become staggering, and it is trapping them—they are unable to look at buying houses or anything else. That is the pressure on those people, and sometimes what they earn at work is not enough for them to be able to get by and do well.

The Opposition’s motion, which I will come to, is really important. The point is that we have to make a change. The Government may want to have young people in work and want there to be those so-called Saturday jobs, but Alan Milburn says in his report that the

“first rung has thinned. The clearest examples are the decline of the Saturday job…For earlier generations, these were…the routes through which young people first entered working life. They provided income, but they also helped young people build confidence, learn the habits of work and show employers what they could do. For too many young people now, those opportunities are weaker or have disappeared altogether.”

We did not really need the Milburn report to know that—we knew what was going on—but his saying that must be telling for the Government. The Government have overstepped the reality.

For example, zero-hours contracts were flexible and were liked by the vast majority of those who had them. Older adults—mostly those with caring responsibilities—liked the flexibility of being able to go to hospital appointments or take those with disabilities to hospital appointments one week, while on other weeks they could work, doing more hours to make up the money. That flexibility helped them. It also helped students coming out to do all the big jobs in entertainment, hotels and short-term affairs such as Wimbledon. It is travesty that the Government have tightened that up. They need to learn from this.

I stress again that most people liked the idea of zero-hours contracts as they gave them flexibility in work that allowed them to get work experience, which they could sell when going to get a full-time job, as well as the chance to earn some money to subsidise themselves while doing other work, studying or whatever. It is astonishing that the Government have got rid of that.

My party’s motion rightly mentions the astonishing high street business rates. We rightly talk about wanting to protect our high streets against competition from online retail and so on, and the majority of those part-time, small jobs are on the high streets. Those small businesses and shops need people to help them make their business grow, but business rates for some of the shops on the high street in my area have risen by 60%. It is unbelievable to think that a small business will be able to survive a 60% increase. That business has to make choices, which mean that not only can it no longer hire someone, but it has to lay people off—it can no longer keep them in employment. We have seen dramatic layings off and closures on the high street for the simple reason that people cannot afford to run their business.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that the group of people who often get forgotten in these debates—certainly by Government Members—are business owners? They are trying to hang on to these young people, or even to their normal employees, and they want to do the right thing so they pay them before themselves, but often, because the minimum wages have gone up, by the time those businesses close the owners are not benefiting from that income. We tend to forget the small business owners, but they are vital, as we are trying to highlight.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

It is all about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. I fully understand that the Government want to regulate some of that employment to ensure that people are protected, but the Employment Rights Act is so all-consuming and far-reaching that there is not just the cost—estimated at about £5 billion—for companies and businesses but the knock-on effect for those who need a job but can no longer be employed, as well as for those who would employ them but will have to close their businesses.

Flexibility is critical in employment—it always has been. It has always been a case of, “What is the risk in hiring you? Do you have the experience? Can you do the job? Can I afford to pay you the wages? Do I have to do half that job for you as a result?” For small businesses, that is a real problem. The Employment Rights Act has been a real nightmare.

The issue is not just that £5 billion cost but the way in which that impacts on economic growth. Regulating employment is not an isolated issue that does not affect anything else; it affects growth in the economy. I talked earlier about the triple whammy. With business rates alongside that, businesses face even higher costs and problems. They are being regulated a great deal, they do not have flexibility in employment, and they have to pay more.

The third critical issue in our motion is the cost of energy in the United Kingdom, which is astonishing. We have the highest energy costs in the developed world—it could be said that we have the highest energy costs in the world as it is—and a huge amount of that is to do with the ridiculous helter-skelter drive to get to clean energy no matter what. We are now threatening businesses with fines—the car industry gets fines if the right cars are not produced—and energy costs are so high that businesses can no longer manage to manufacture goods here. We will need to manufacture goods when we need to spend the money that we do not have at the moment but will have to have for the defence industry. That is a manufacturing case, yet none of those industries says that it can afford to expand its manufacturing base because the cost of energy is so high. Those three things are critical. I therefore support the Opposition’s motion.

I finish with one single fact. We have all been talking rather blithely about what we did in those summers and how we got our first jobs, but it is worth reminding ourselves that for the generation going through now, the flexibility, opportunities and ability to earn are far less than they have ever been. When we talk to our children, we discover how difficult employment is for them. We can talk to them about being able to earn the right money, about being able to pay for a house or about sky-high rents. This is a serious problem. If we want to face it and take it on, we should think of the old health dictum, “do no harm”. I say to the Government that when they pile those three massive burdens on to industry and the individual, they are doing great harm to those we need to protect. My advice to the Government is simply this: think again about the triple whammy and reduce the burden they have put on industries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Blake Stephenson]

Or, indeed, I was overpaid.

I moved on and washed pots in my local pub. Then I progressed and became a waiter and ran wedding receptions. By the time I got to university, I was working in a Zizzi pizza restaurant—other pizza restaurants are available—and I enjoyed it thoroughly. I made connections, I blossomed, and I became more confident. I know that people describe these as soft skills, but my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who is not in his place, correctly said that they are the hard skills—the difficult skills that we need in our economy. We will only have them in our economy if we grow them in young people when they first start working.

[Rebecca Smith]

My hon. Friend reminds me that one of the other soft skills that we learn that way is resilience. I am wondering how he got those jobs, because I earned £10 a day in my first job. I was sweeping the floor in a florist and, if I was lucky, bundling up some flowers before I sold them. Part of that £10 was my bus fare to get to and from work, because the place where I was fortunate enough to live was a long way from the city centre. Does he agree that resilience is a skill that is missing in a lot of today’s young people, and that if we are taking away the jobs where they can learn that skill, it is yet another way that we are de-skilling the workers of the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate after so many thoughtful contributions from hon. Members across the House. Many difficult questions have been raised. I thought of following the example of the soon-to-be-former hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in just resigning to avoid those difficult questions—[Interruption.]. I will resist the encouragement.

It has been fantastic to listen to hon. Members talking about their own experience of Saturday and summer jobs. It allowed me to imagine the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) running around with multiple plates balanced on her arms, and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) getting busy with his chamois. I pictured the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), who I belatedly welcome to his position, as a postie in shorts, fighting the rain coming off the North sea. I pictured the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) with long, flowing locks getting busy scrubbing pots in the Italian sunshine. That was important, because it allowed me to picture Conservative MPs doing something productive. More importantly and seriously, it was a reminder of the importance of our first employment experiences in making ourselves into fully rounded human beings and workers.

My job was working on Saturdays before going to university and in the summers at Beveridge fishmongers’ in Giffnock. The antisocial teenager in me would want to be in the back of the shop filleting something, but every time a customer came in I had to remake myself and find confidence all over again. It is in no way an overstatement to say that all the Saturday and summer jobs that hon. Members have spoken about are why we are all here. They gave us that first chance and opportunity to find confidence in ourselves, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said.

However, I will caution Conservative Members. Yes, this is about experience and people finding an opportunity and, as some have said, avoiding the long-term scarring effect of youth unemployment, but for many young workers this is about paying the bills. These jobs are not a nice additional thing. I think of the young woman with a family who I met; she had a zero-hours contract and simply did not know from month to month whether she would be able to pay her rent or take her kids to anything special.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) spoke powerfully about how insecurity in the workplace is linked to the health of the economy. When people’s incomes are hollowed out, it hollows out the centre of our towns and ends up in the empty high street shops that we see.

[Rebecca Smith]

The Minister makes a very interesting point about city centres being hollowed out, but the main thrust of this debate is about young people doing summer jobs before they go back to school or university in the autumn. They are the very young people who would ordinarily take those wages to buy a hot chocolate in Lorenzo’s, like I used to, or to go and buy the new pair of trainers that they have saved up for. If they do not have a job in the first place and do not come from a family in which their parents can subsidise all those things, they miss out on that opportunity. While I accept the point he is making, will he accept the point I am making? The very thing we are discussing this afternoon is part of that problem, and removing those young people from the market altogether will not help.

[Blair McDougall]

The reason I am responding to the debate by talking about the impact of zero-hours contracts is that Conservative Member after Conservative Member rose to speak in defence of those contracts. Of course, many people value flexibility in the workplace, but some employers have used that flexibility to take advantage of their employees, including young employees.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Rebecca Smith]

I am glad that the Minister has brought up the subject of fully funded apprenticeships for those under 25. As soon as that was announced, an electrician in my constituency contacted me and said, “That is all well and good, but I still have to pay the higher wages.” Although such businesses are not paying national insurance, this is not as free, or as cheap, as the Government maintain. Will the Minister accept that it is not 100% correct to say that these are fully funded apprenticeships, because those businesses still have to pay increased salaries?

[Blair McDougall]

As was said earlier, we believe that people working full time should be able to afford the basics in life. My point is that we are dealing with the issue of youth unemployment by incentivising businesses to employ young people.

Many Opposition Members mentioned red tape. They will not have to wait terribly long to see the work that the Secretary of State and I have been doing to reduce the administrative burden on business. Many others spoke about additional costs being imposed on business. Let me remind them that our target to reduce that administrative burden by £5.6 billion is a net target, and they will not have to wait very long to see the progress that we have made in that regard.