Summer Jobs

Tim Farron Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I will always agree on the need for financial literacy, but the point we are making today is that we believe in work—work as a route out of poverty, work as a way to increase the prosperity of this country—and we are highlighting the red tape that is now strangling businesses and preventing them from hiring young workers, which would otherwise give them a step on the ladder.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Gareth Davies]

Let me make some progress for the moment.

It is clear that something is not working, as we have all been saying, so we have to try to understand and explain why that is the case. We should not need to point this out, but higher taxes and more regulation are simply not conducive to economic growth or higher employment. If we consider what a business must now weigh up before looking to hire somebody, first, of course, there is the jobs tax—a tax that targets not profit or success, but the very basic act of employing another human being.

[Gareth Davies]

Time and again, we in the Opposition try to make the point that it is not the result of any one particular policy; it is the overall environment. We do not, as a state or as a Government, create jobs; it is businesses that create jobs, and they need to know that the Government are behind them. They need to know that there is an environment in which they can invest in people. Right now, for a combination of reasons, that is not the case.

[Tim Farron]

The hon. Gentleman is making some important points. Obviously, in some parts of the world, including mine, many jobs are on offer but it is hard for young people to take them up. Some 60% of employers in the hospitality and tourism industry in the Lake District find it difficult to recruit staff. One reason is the lack of public transport to get young people to the places where they are needed. Another reason is the lack of affordable housing. Does he recognise that this is a structural problem affecting young people everywhere, but particularly in rural areas such as Cumbria?

[Gareth Davies]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for making that point. As I was saying, it is not one particular policy that impacts this issue. As he points out, it is a combination of factors, particularly to do with geography in rural areas such as his but also in Lincolnshire, and I agree that transport connectivity is a critical part of that. The way in which we pay for more public infrastructure, by the way, is to boost tax receipts through work, employment, enterprise and risk taking, but that point has been lost right now, because Labour’s £25 billion jobs tax has forced businesses to cut back hiring at every level, especially young people. Thousands of people have now been let go because of the Chancellor’s choices.

Secondly, there are the permits, restrictions and forms—all the red tape that is wrapped around those looking to employ young people who simply want to work during the summer. That is a fact that we are trying to highlight through our motion today, and I encourage everybody to look at the detail of it, because it is not often talked about in this place, but out there, among young people, it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

Yes. I am very glad that my hon. Friend picked me up on that—that is a very good point.

I want to make another point about the levy, which is that some people seem to be suggesting that all of this is going to start in a couple of weeks’ time. Far from it; this levy is far from imminent. We are consulting on it, and that process will take some time—I doubt we will have anything in place in the next 12 months. I very much encourage people to take part in the consultation so that we can decide how to move forward. Of course, any mayor or strategic authority will want to consider all the issues in the round and whether a net benefit can be gained from introducing such a levy, notwithstanding the additional pressures that there might be on costs in the tourism and hospitality sector.

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for raising the issue of the tourism levy. We will have a mayor in Cumbria next May, and one of the considerations they will have is the fact that we have 20 million visitors every year to a county of 600,000 people. Those visitors use facilities in our communities—police, hospitals and many council facilities, not least the roads. They are very welcome to use those facilities, but not a penny is contributed towards them. I think people will instinctively be against a tourism tax, but the Government’s choice to cut the local authority’s funding by 31% is going to put the mayor—of whatever political colour—in a position where they feel they have no alternative but to introduce it. Would it not be better if mayors were able to make decisions and have our services funded properly by taking into account the visitors in the first place?

[Chris Bryant]

One thing on which I think the hon. Gentleman and I agree is that this is a very over-centralised state. We make far too many decisions on a national basis, rather than allowing local people to make more decisions that directly affect their businesses and their local economy. The economy in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency might be very different from mine or that of any other Member.

In relation to tourism in particular, I am conscious that some of the country’s biggest tourist attractions are in London—the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, for instance, get roughly 6 million visitors each—and a few other cities, including Bath, Stratford, Oxford, Cambridge and Edinburgh, do phenomenally well. Those cities might want to take a different attitude to that of other parts of the country, and I think that is the right way for us to move forward. There will be pressure from people who say, “Hang on, all our local museums are free to enter. Why are local taxpayers having to pay for that, rather than tourists when they arrive?” Those are the issues that mayors and strategic authorities will have to bear in mind, and it will sometimes be a borderline decision, but I think it is right that we give people the power and leave them to decide whether to exercise it.

There is one final policy area that I want to touch on, because it is mentioned in the Opposition’s motion, and that is red tape. There is an irony about this—much of the red tape we are dealing with is in place because the previous Government introduced it. That is why we have set ourselves a very clear target of cutting the administrative burden on businesses by 25% by the end of this Parliament, and we are absolutely determined to do so. I fully accept the argument that there is far too much red tape; if we make it too difficult for businesses to employ people, that is an own goal for Britain. We are making progress—we have already announced a series of significant reforms that will mean no more mandatory strategic reports for medium-sized firms, and no more directors’ reports for businesses of any size. That is going to save businesses some £230 million a year, but obviously we need to go further, and the Business Secretary is going to be making further announcements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

I am terribly sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I did not hear all the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. He said something about unemployment in 2012. That was, of course, very soon after the global banking crash, which had a huge impact.

The state of our economy requires bold action: addressing the workforce skills crisis, reversing the national insurance jobs tax, speeding up delivery of the industrial strategy, and, most important, negotiating a new growth and defence partnership with the European Union, including joining the single market and forming a new customs union. More than 1 million young people in this country are currently not in education, employment or training, the highest level in over a decade. That is a very worrying statistic. The Milburn review has warned that the UK is at risk of experiencing a “lost generation” of young people owing to rising ill health, growing skills gaps, a dysfunctional housing market, and many other structural factors.

We are seeing not a lack of ambition among young people, but an institutional failure on the part of both the current Government and the last one. Ministers should be seeking urgently to ensure that young people have access to the skills, training and work experience that are necessary to begin their careers and participate in the workforce, but they cannot gain that experience if businesses simply cannot afford to offer new opportunities because they are struggling to stay afloat.

The cost of employment has risen significantly during Labour’s time in office, and more than 110,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector alone since the rise in national insurance contributions. If businesses are not able to grow, it will not be just summer jobs that suffer; employment opportunities across the board will suffer, and of course that explains why the unemployment rate has climbed from 4.3% at the time of the 2024 Budget to 4.9% now. Our SMEs face huge challenges, and many are already struggling to absorb rising costs. Unless more is done to support them, vital entry-level jobs and essential contributions to the culture and character of our local communities will risk being lost.

As for issues affecting the workforce more broadly, the Liberal Democrats have welcomed the industrial strategy, alongside a funding boost for skills and training, but that progress stops well short of the fundamental reform that we need to see if we are to address the workforce shortages that many industries are facing. British businesses must be able to hire the people they need, with the skills that they need, but they must also have scope to employ less experienced workers who are just starting to climb the career ladder. Opportunities for young people are shrinking, and any business will tell us that the apprenticeship levy is not fit for purpose. Firms cannot obtain the funding that they need to train staff, and hundreds of millions of pounds of funding go unspent. The Liberal Democrats have long called for proper reform of the apprenticeship system to give businesses real flexibility over how they spend their money to train their staff.

The motion also calls for the abolition of business rates, and the Liberal Democrats agree that we need to see a complete overhaul of this unfair and damaging system. However, it was the last Conservative Government who failed to deliver the fundamental review of the business rates system that they promised in their 2019 manifesto. Perhaps things would have been different today if they had not simply kicked the can down the road. With the hospitality sector struggling to employ new workers, damage is being done to the prospects of our young people, who are now facing a soaring youth unemployment rate of 16.2%. It is self-evident that that trend is damaging to our economy as a whole. At the heart of this debate are people who are finding it incredibly difficult to obtain a job and support themselves, their partners, their children and their families—to pay rent, to pay their bills, to pay for groceries, to pay for essentials. That is what must not get lost in the debate.

The motion purports to examine the factors limiting opportunities for young people, but, perhaps unsurprisingly, there is a glaring omission of any reference to the damage caused by the last Government’s failed Brexit deal. The appalling agreement negotiated by the Conservative party has been a complete disaster for our country, and particularly for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade. An astonishing 16,000 firms have stopped all exports to the EU as a result. While the Liberal Democrats welcome the steps—even if small and hesitant—that the Government are taking to improve our relationship with the EU, I urge the Minister to recognise that this should be only the start of moves towards a much deeper trading relationship, which should include joining the single market and forming a new customs union. That would be truly transformational for our economy, and for our young people’s employment prospects.

At the very least, the Government should be making far more progress to secure a youth mobility scheme with the EU. If that were in place, there would have been exponentially more work opportunities available to young British people this summer. Will the Minister set out a timeline for the introduction of a youth experience scheme? That would be beneficial to our whole economy, and could ease some of the burdens that our hospitality sector faces.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. She mentioned the youth mobility scheme. At present, the UK has youth mobility visa arrangements with a number of countries around the world, but with only one country in Europe, Andorra, which is a fat lot of good. As I mentioned, those in the hospital sector desperately need to recruit more staff. A youth mobility scheme arranged with our neighbours in the European Union would enable young people in this country to gain experience overseas, but would also enable the hospitality sector in the Lakes, in London and elsewhere to recruit the staff who they need to work over the summer.

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is, of course, entirely right. A youth mobility scheme would benefit not just young people who live in this country, but our businesses; it would allow them to recruit from across the EU, and obtain the short-term staff that the hospitality businesses in his constituency so badly need.

Businesses across the country, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, are struggling with unprecedentedly high costs, while battling a rising tax burden and an unfavourable economic climate. Struggling businesses mean fewer jobs, lost opportunities and lower living standards, so it is clear that we must look for ways in which to support local businesses and all who rely on them.