I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the Opposition spokesperson to move the motion.

I beg to move, That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs. We know that a good start in life is critical, and that is certainly true in the world of work. Everyone remembers their first job—sometimes fondly, other times not. A first job, however, is not just a first wage; it is the first time a young person learns the world of work. It teaches them that it will pay them for what they can do, that they have a role to play, that they are needed and that they belong. It is where they learn to turn up on time, to look a customer in the eye, and to take pride in a shift well worked and a wage honestly earned. So this debate is not insignificant; it is about whether the next generation gets that same chance or whether the Government pull the ladder up behind them. I contend that, rung by rung, that is exactly what they are doing. As a Conservative, I have always believed in the dignity of work, of the security and freedom that a regular wage brings, but today too many people are being held back. For their sake, it is important that we reflect on why. They are not being held back by a lack of their own ambition—that exists in abundance. Nor are many people being stopped by their parents, schools, colleges or universities—they all want them to succeed. Instead, more often than not, as the chief economist at the Institute of Directors has pointed out, it is Government policy that, in her words, is “choking off work opportunities for young people”. Over 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are now not in education, employment or training.

I congratulate the Opposition and the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward the debate. I can well remember my first job. It was not just about the pocket money, because it was not much in those days; it was about punctuality, turning up, social engagement and meeting people—all those things were important. Nowadays, my constituents in Strangford tell me that it is business rates, energy costs—all the things that prevent them from employing somebody, not just for a Saturday job, but for a student job. They just cannot do it any more. Does that responsibility fall on the shoulders of the Labour party?

I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He clearly learned in his first job the importance of showing up and he certainly does every single day in this place, which I commend him for. I agree with him, and I will set out in detail what I believe are the causes of the situation we find ourselves in today, with 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 not in education, employment or training.

Is my hon. Friend not incredulous that the Government’s proposed amendment to the motion “welcomes the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the…Plan to Make Work Pay”? Does he think this is just another example of the Government burying their head in the sand, and that work may pay but there is nothing to work at?

That is exactly right. There is no point in pay being on an upwards trajectory, which we all support, if there are no jobs in the first place. Actually, under this Government, the record is clear that employment levels are in decline, not on a positive trajectory.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the biggest tragedy is for those kids who go to university, with all the costs that involves and three years of their life, only to find that they are no further forward? Does he agree that the Government would be well advised to focus on skills through further education, rather than obsessing about higher education, which I am afraid is a fraud on young people?

Of course, that is exactly why the previous Conservative Government had such a huge focus on skills, training and vocational courses. My own constituency of Grantham and Stamford benefited at the time from much-needed funding to boost skills and vocational training, so my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

I give way to the hon. Member for Harlow.

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.

Will the hon. Member give way?

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.

Does my hon. Friend agree that is perhaps the most corrosive consequence of all? Businesses have all the pressure that is bearing down on them, and so many are telling me that it is just not worth it. The correlation between effort and success is being depleted, their self-confidence is being eroded and, as a result, our economy is being sapped of any desire to contribute because the effort does not reap any reward.

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.

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?

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.

In areas like Fylde, which are very dependent on tourism—I would say it is the most beautiful part of Lancashire, but I do not want to incur your wrath, Mr Speaker, so I will say it is the joint most beautiful area—the local economy is based on seasonal trends. Summer jobs are important for not just the young people who get them, but the viability of the tourism and hospitality economy as a whole. Does the shadow Minister agree that this has a wider impact on the economy that sustains areas like Lytham St Annes and other coastal towns across Britain?

Completely. There is even now a tax on the great British holiday, which impacts my hon. Friend’s constituency, Mr Speaker’s and many others. The overnight visitor levy, known as the holiday tax, threatens my hon. Friend’s area, just as it threatens Whitby, Scarborough, Blackpool, Bournemouth, the Norfolk coast and even my county in the Lincolnshire Wolds. The Government call it “modest”, but the seaside landlady who is struggling to fill her rooms calls it the difference between a season that works and one that does not. UKHospitality has warned that this tax means that consumers visiting destinations in England are charged double the tax of visiting Paris and 70% more than in Barcelona or Rome. In effect, the Government’s half a billion-pound holiday tax represents little more than a self-inflicted trade tariff on domestic breaks, driving holidaymakers overseas.

Is it not the truth that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They think that they can squeeze and squeeze, tax and tax, legislate against and tangle up in red tape the very businesses that we need to drive our economy, get the growth that the Government say they want and provide jobs and opportunities for working people and young people. They simply do not get it.

The facts are there for all to see. As I was saying, it is vital that we support the business community, and that includes small businesses. So often the narrative is about large multinationals, but it is SMEs and small business owners who drive our country forward and employ people across the country, especially young people. Another thing that businesses in this country are facing is the now infamous Employment Rights Act 2025, which has created so much red tape that the corner café has to focus on hiring a lawyer before it hires a waiter. The Government have laid down so many requirements for employers who need to move underperforming employees on. Indeed, their own law says that after six months, employees are protected from unfair dismissal, but I have to ask, where were these protections for the poor old Prime Minister, with whom they dispatched over a single weekend on WhatsApp? He got less probation than a probationary barista. It is one rule for the shop floor and another rule for the Labour Front Bench.

My hon. Friend will know that the right to guaranteed hours contained in the Employment Rights Act is of great concern to hospitality and leisure businesses. In Burnham-on-Sea in my constituency, they are worried that if they enjoy a period of good weather during which they engage more casual staff, followed by a period of poor weather when they have potentially very few customers, they will be compelled to offer guaranteed hours to those staff they have no need of. Does he share my concern that the right to guaranteed hours will prevent many young people from getting their first job this summer?

The whole point here is that businesses, the country and people need flexibility. The whole country runs on choice and flexibility, and if there are unnecessary restrictions that harm economic activity and prevent young people from entering the workforce when they want to, that is clearly not a good thing for our country. I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because he makes a very good point about the Employment Rights Act, which we have made it very clear we disagree with. This is not just about the dismissal elements of the Employment Rights Act. The Act also makes British businesses have a fair and open recruitment process. Businesses must find the right candidate, on merit, from a proper field of candidates, and yet here we are today with the Government filling the highest office of the land from a shortlist of one! They will regulate the Saturday job to within an inch of its life but run their own leadership contest with all the rigour of a one-ticket raffle. They will hold a whole by-election to find work for one man, while imposing a permit form on every under-16 in the country, a Sunday working ban and a levy on the town in which they live. It is the same old Labour time and again: “Rules for thee, but not for me.” It is two years since the last election, and Labour’s policies are starting to bite. Job vacancies are down by almost 150,000. Thousands of job opportunities have gone, and the youth unemployment rate is up by 2.5%—that is 735,000 young people now out of work. Borrowing costs have hit record highs. Labour is spending more on welfare than defence, education and prisons combined. Our economy is shrinking. It does not have to be this way. We have a plan that respects young people and the fact that they want to work hard and succeed. We have a plan to back young people already in work and support those who want to find work and gain experience, especially through a summer job. Where Labour’s red tape harms employment, we will work with businesses to scrap it. That includes red tape on the employment of under-16s, such as the two-hour Sunday working limit. In sectors where Labour’s taxes threaten the largest impact, we will choose a different course: we will abolish business rates entirely for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses on our high streets, with a 100% relief benefiting one quarter of a million firms. We have ruled out the Government’s disastrous holiday tax on working families and treasured domestic tourist destinations. Unlike the Government, we understand that to back businesses and employers is to back their customers and the people they employ too. We cannot lose the aspiration of a generation because of the barrier raised by the failed choices of this Government. Young people want to work. They want to do their bit; they want to build their own futures. It is our job not to stand in their way but to support them. Our plan does just that. The Labour party has spent all summer worrying about one man’s job. We say worry about all the others, back British businesses, back our high streets and back the young people of this country, who ask for nothing more than the chance to work.

I call the Minister to move the amendment, or not.

I will not be moving the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I do not know how you felt when you got up this morning, Mr Speaker, and you saw the Order Paper. I saw that there was a debate on summer jobs and I thought, “That’s going to be nice and summery and bright and optimistic—the sun is shinin’ in the sky, there ain’t a cloud in sight.” But then along comes Mr Night with all his doom and gloom and rheum in his eye—

That is the reality!

A depressing version of reality. I know that the Tories do not support proportional representation, but none the less we have had the single transferable speech delivered by the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) from the Conservative Front Bench. To quote Sam Fender and Olivia Dean, “All my memories of” the Tory Front Bench “ring like tinnitus”—only I do not mean that in a good way as it is in the song. Let us look at the actual facts. On GDP, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne has been predicting doom for months, but the UK economy grew by a robust 0.6% in the first quarter of 2026, something the Conservatives would have died for during their 14 years in Government. On inflation, he has been making dire predictions for months, but the consumer prices index stayed steadily at 2.8% in May, defying expectations. On wages, average regular pay, excluding bonuses, increased by 3.4% year on year up to April 2026, ahead of inflation. On productivity, he kept on saying, “Oh woe is me”, here, there and everywhere, on every broadcast outlet in the land, but UK productivity increased by 0.9% in the first quarter of 2026. On employment, he said we are doomed— “We are doomed, Captain Mainwaring!”— but in the three months to April 2026, UK unemployment fell slightly to 4.9%, meaning we are outperforming other major economies, including Canada and the European Union average, and we have a record number of people in employment at 34.4 million people. We are absolutely not complacent about any of this. Some of the global headwinds remain challenging. The impacts of the war in Iran, which the Conservatives wanted us to go into at full scale, have yet to be fully felt, but we are making progress.

Nowhere is the summer job more important for young people finding work than on the Isle of Wight, but employers are telling me that it is increasingly hard to employ young people because of the tax and the red tape that this Government have put on them, so it is no wonder that youth unemployment is up. I have an idea for the Minister: why does he not reform welfare and reverse the decisions made by his Government so that young people can find a job?

I am not sure that there is “nowhere” in the country where that is more important than the Isle of Wight—every single constituency in the land faces challenges around getting young people into work. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), raised a completely different set of issues from those raised by the hon. Gentleman, but of course we have to reform welfare. I do not think a single Member of the House does not believe that we have to reform welfare. We have to ensure welfare works for people and enables people to get into jobs. There is one phrase that the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne used that I completely agree with, although I would just change one word. He said that as a Conservative, he believed that work is the route out of poverty and into prosperity, and as a socialist and a Labour party politician, I agree that work is the route out of poverty, to self-fulfilment, to better mental health and to increased social cohesion across the whole country, so of course it is an absolute priority for any Labour Government to want to get as many young people into profitable work as possible. Let me deal with the three main issues that have been raised in the debate: first, young people and their summer jobs; secondly, support for businesses; and thirdly, tourism. I see the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), is in his place, so he may want to raise some of the issues around tourism later. I think he has been out in the sun a bit too much—I am a bit worried about him. Skin cancer is a major problem in the country—[Interruption.]

Why is the Minister talking about people’s skin?

What?

Order. The shadow Deputy Chief Whip should know better—I expect him to set examples, not break them.

I did not know the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) is the shadow Deputy Chief Whip, but there we are. If the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham is upset I am terribly sorry, but I think he was taking my words in the way that I intended them. I am sure that we can all remember our first summer job. Mine was in a newsagent/sweet shop. Others might have been behind a bar, which is very common, or working in a hotel. Wimbledon takes on 280 14 to 17-year-olds as ball boys and girls every year, plus many more young people in its bars and hospitality venues. The Commonwealth games in Glasgow, which should bring £150 million of extra investment into the city, will take on more than 3,000 volunteers and hundreds of temporary staff. The Edinburgh festivals will take on even more young people working across all the different events. In tourism hotspots across the country, from Margate to Harrogate to Whip-Ma-Whop-Ma-Gate in York, in Bath, Stratford-upon-Avon, the Lake district, the Peak district and on the Jurassic coast, youngsters will be earning a wage for the very first time. That is a really important part of their social and personal development. We all know how important such jobs are to the whole economy. As several hon. Members have said already, getting their first experience of work teaches young people about the need to turn up on time, to look somebody in the face and engage with them, and to understand the rigours of work and stay until the end of the day. The tourism industry meets domestic and international demand. We are still ambitious: we want to get to 50 million international visitors to the UK by 2030. Hospitality offers young people the chance to go from having no qualifications or experience to skilled staff member faster than any other sector in the UK, which is why it is so important.

If the situation is so rosy, will the Minister explain why youth unemployment among 16 to 17-year-olds is currently running at a staggering 30%—up from 24.7%?

I never said that the situation was all rosy; I said earlier that I am completely not complacent about the situation. I know the problems facing young people going into work that have been endemic in our economy for the last 15 to 20 years. A Conservative Member—I am sorry that I cannot remember who—asked earlier, “Isn’t university a fraud on young people?” Of course, it is really important to strike a balance between getting the experience to get into work rather than necessarily taking on an academic career. We have been keen to change that mix since we came into government. I do not suppose that there is a single Labour Member who does not worry about the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training—NEETs, as people have referred to them already. Alan Milburn’s report is a real wake-up call for us all. We are fully backing the review and will of course act on its recommendations when they finally appear. We want to make sure they are based on evidence, which is precisely what Alan Milburn is pursuing.

Mr Speaker, did you know that he is the Member for Harlow? That had completely passed us by completely, hadn’t it? My hon. Friend makes a good point and I am sure someone will send him a letter thanking him for it. I am sure lots of us have similar examples in our constituencies.

rose—

Maybe the Father of the House is about to give us another instance of an institution in his constituency.

I am just wondering if the Minister is looking forward to a new summer job at the end of July. Can he give us any confidence that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has any new ideas to get young people into work? If he does, I am not aware of them yet.

Actually, quite a few mayors around the country, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), have advanced a lot of ideas in their areas that have precisely done that. It is important that we do not simply adopt a one-size-fits-all approach for the whole country. The kind of issues in my patch will be very different from those in the Father of the House’s patch, and we need to be able to match our ideas to the areas. As for the longest reshuffle in history, I think most of us are bored with it already.

The Minister is talking up the economic performance of the United Kingdom since his party took over in 2024. He is labouring the point about the first quarter of this year, but I detect that he is less confident about the second quarter—we will see what that brings. Youth unemployment stood at 626,000 last year, so with this fabulous economy, why has it gone up by 109,000? Why are there 109,000 more 16 to 24-year-olds out of work under this Government now than there were this time last year?

I want to be absolutely clear. I am not trying to suggest that everything is perfect in the nation and that we are in a version of nirvana; I am not saying that at all. I have friends and relatives who work in the hospitality industry, and I know that these last few years—not just the last two, but the last 15—have been really tough for hospitality. I think we lost something like 6,800 pubs from 2010 to 2024, and we have been losing more since then.

Will the Minister give way?

I am still trying to answer the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me. We have faced significant headwinds this year. We are keen to pursue the work that Alan Milburn has done, and, if I am allowed, I will come to some of the ways in which we are trying to address the specific problem we have.

I recognise that the Minister wants to come to what the Government are going to do, but does he not accept that the decisions already made in the last two years—with respect to the price of employment and the national living wage, the cost of employment with regard to legislation, and business rates—have depressed the appetite of many small businesses to employ more people? Regardless of the strategic changes around the Milburn review, which I accept need to be evidence based, those decisions have had a chilling effect on the capacity of the economy to employ young people.

Let me say two things. On the national living wage, it must surely be wrong that somebody who works 40 hours a week cannot afford to pay their bills at the end of the week. If they have been a diligent worker, played by the rules and done everything properly, but they still cannot afford to put food on the table for themselves and their children, pay the electricity bill and all the rest of it, that must surely be wrong. That is why we introduced the whole idea of a minimum wage in the first place, and then the national living wage. This issue applies only to young people older than school age—those aged 18 and above. I know that there are some people who have an impression that all those young people are living at home and do not need to earn in the same way as others, but that is simply not true for lots of 19, 20 and 21-year-olds in my constituency. They are earning their living, and they need to pay the bills, just like anybody else. There is a difficult balance to be struck there. Similarly, I would argue, there is a balancing act around national insurance contributions. As the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) will know, we have tried to ensure that the sectors of the economy that are smaller and have less ability to absorb the additional costs do not have to meet them. I think something like 50% of businesses do not have to pay any more at all—I will correct the record if I have got that number wrong. In the end, I do not hear people frequently calling for us to slash expenditure on defence, education, the health service and so on. I sometimes want to say to hon. Members that it is all very well to denounce the national insurance contributions increase, but they would have to find the money from other budgets. It is all very well to say, “Let’s cut it from welfare,” but a lot of welfare projects are designed to make sure that people have an opportunity to put food on the table and pay the bills.

Will the Minister give way?

I am keen to move on, but I am an enormous fan of the right hon. Member, so I will give way to him.

It is always great to have the Minister at the Dispatch Box; we always have a lot of fun. I have had to juggle this issue myself, so I want to ask him a very important question: does he honestly think that making the starting rate for national insurance payments almost half the previous rate has no effect on part-time employment? Does doing so not discourage those who would like to give people starter jobs? It makes that much more difficult; surely that is the reality.

The right hon. Gentleman makes a decent point. A balance has to be struck on all these things and, in the end, we have to make the sums add up when it comes to the Budget. Those are the difficult decisions that we had to make back in November 2024. The other issue we faced was that no provision had been made for support for business rates beyond April 2025 prior to the Budget in November 2024, so when we introduced measures in that regard, they had to be paid for too. I heard what the shadow Minister has just said about abolishing business rates, but I am afraid that this is Trussonomics. It sounds great—“Let’s abolish all tax! Why not?”—but you actually have to pay for that and prove that you have the wherewithal to do so. I will crack on if I may, Mr Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] Apologies, Mr Speaker; I did not mean to demote you there. We are already taking action by putting an additional £1 billion into programmes such as the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy, which are supporting almost 1 million young people and creating up to 500,000 opportunities for them to earn and learn. We have also been offering new incentives of £2,000 for those hiring foundation apprentices aged 16 to 21. That comes on top of a complete national insurance contributions exemption for employees under the age of 21 and apprentices under the age of 25, which I think meets some Members’ arguments.

Will the Minister give way?

I am afraid that I am going to crack on, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. He will have an opportunity to—

It is always nice to be the Minister’s first refusal. Have I put him off his stride?

No, no—but making a snide remark has not recommended the hon. Gentleman to me any further, I have to say. A seasonal job may be the first route out of NEETdom. That is why we built flexibility into the Employment Rights Act 2025 to address issues of seasonal demand. Not all seasonal work is done on a zero hours or similar basis, but, where it is, there are provisions in the legislation to allow those guaranteed hours to be part of a fixed or limited-term contract where appropriate. Let me be clear that the right to guaranteed hours does not force companies to make seasonal workers permanent; it gives workers the right to choose certainty and stability in their contracts where they want it, which will help them to budget and plan their lives. That is the right thing to do. It ensures that workers are fairly treated and affords employers the flexibilities that they need, while giving around 2.7 million workers a pay rise thanks to increases in the national living wage and the national minimum wage. I should add that the Department is running a consultation on some of the finer details of our zero-hours policies before they come into effect, and I encourage businesses to share their views with us so that these reforms work in practice, not just on paper.

Will the Minister give way before he finishes?

Oh, I have hours yet—and I still have to give way to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens—but of course I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

The Minister said that he would not move the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I do not think that is unheard of, but I am curious to understand why, having put down such an amendment, the Government would not move it. There are three main things here, and the Minister has talked about two of them: the Employment Rights Act and apprenticeships. The third main thing seems to be about planned changes for business rates. In not moving the amendment, is the Minister saying that the Government do not stick by what they said previously about upcoming changes to business rates on pubs?

I call the PPS—sorry, I mean the Minister.

Touché, Mr Speaker! [Interruption.] Oh, Madam Deputy Speaker is taking the Chair. Well, I saw you off, Mr Speaker.

I think if you look at the history, that is not the case.

It has all got very unconventional. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is misinterpreting what is occurring. If he wants to reason with this matter, I am afraid he needs to talk to the Whips, who are in charge of decisions about whether we move things and vote. I said that I would address the issue of support for businesses, and that is precisely what our “Backing your Business” plan is all about. We are rolling out one of the most significant pieces of legislation in more than 25 years to tackle late payments: the Commercial Payments Bill. We are expanding access to finance through the British Business Bank to give more small firms the confidence to grow and take on more staff, with guidance and support available from our business growth service every step of the way. We are bringing in new hospitality zones with reduced red tape and licensing costs. These new zones will make it easier for businesses to move into disused spaces and employ more people. In addition to all that, we are cutting this year’s business rates bills for pubs and live music venues by 15% following a two-year freeze, and we are encouraging large concert venues to introduce a £1 levy on a voluntary basis to go towards supporting live music venues. It is great that Harry Styles, Olivia Dean and others are encouraging people to do that for their tickets, but it is not universal yet. It could be a significant advantage for live music venues, so I encourage all operators to do this.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes, and I would be happy to give way to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) again if he wants.

On the issue of support for businesses, Brackley Antique Cellar is a unique business that has 200 dealers, but business rates are really affecting it. Antique spaces often take on unique properties, and business rates are really hurting them. Will the Minister reconsider the business rates for businesses such as Brackley Antique Cellar?

I have heard about that issue in relation to some other antiques businesses that are basically lots of stalls or small shops inside a much larger, older building. The hon. Lady makes a decent point, and it is one of the things we will be considering as we look at the future of business rates. We have also introduced permanently low tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties with rateable values below £500,000. This gives long-term certainty and support to the high street, and stands in marked contrast to the previous forms of relief, which created a yearly cliff edge that had been due to end entirely in April 2025. At the same time, we are increasing the hospitality support fund to £10 million, helping more businesses in this sector to grow and create more summer jobs. As hon. Members know, we have extended world cup opening hours and cut alcohol duty on draft pints. Despite being a Welshman, I very much hope that we have to do that rather more frequently over the next two weeks.

Will the Minister give way?

I still have an intervention to take from the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens from the SNP if he wants to have another go, but if not, I will give way to the right hon. Lady.

Does the Minister not accept that the schemes and programmes to do with the world cup—let us hope England stay in for as long as possible to help those businesses—are merely small sticking plasters? We need longer-term solutions for these industries that are much more sustainable.

Yes, I do not think England’s football prospects over the next few weeks are going to be the sole answer to the problem. That is why I have laid out a series of different areas in which we are already taking action, which I think will provide precisely the kind of long-term answers the sector needs. The Government have also protected the smallest businesses from the impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions by more than doubling the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500. That is really important, and is very rarely mentioned in Conservative speeches. I said that I would talk about tourism. I know that the Conservative party dislikes the idea of the tourism levy, and I have heard businesses complain about it as well—hotels in particular, but other parts of the sector too. I also worry that businesses are already facing a heavy tax burden, and I do not particularly want to increase it, but let us not exaggerate. First, all we are considering doing is allowing mayors to introduce a local levy. Some areas have already done so on a voluntary basis, and have done so very successfully. It seems extraordinary to forbid them from doing so, especially if they ensure that all the money raised goes into projects that support the tourism and hospitality sector. In certain instances where mayors want to introduce such a levy, it could be a real opportunity to drive forward economic opportunity in that sector.

The King’s Speech mentioned that mayors might have that power, but that foundation strategic authorities might also have it. Obviously, the approach has not been decided yet, but is that still the case?

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.

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?

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.

My very first experience of employment was waiting at a van to try to get a day’s work, cash in hand, at the berries, which was what people usually did when they were aged 13 or 14 and looked a wee bit older. I hope the Minister is not proposing a return to those days, because I kind of got the impression from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), that that was the exact type of employment he was looking to return to.

To be fair to the shadow Minister, I do not think he intends to send children up the chimneys any more. That was his policy a few years ago, or maybe his predecessor’s policy, but it is not his policy any more. It is not quite “Planet Earth that the Opposition are on, to quote Duran Duran, but they are close to it. The Opposition motion talks a lot about regret. It regrets the Employment Rights Act 2025, the national insurance contributions, and so on. I am afraid that it tempts me to give my notorious Édith Piaf impersonation: “Non, rien de rien…Je me fous du passé”. What is missing from these regrets of the Opposition? They have no regrets about helping draft the kami-Kwasi Budget that led to the fastest ever increase in mortgage rates, sending millions of families into unaffordable debt; no regrets about the biggest fall in living standards for two centuries; no regrets about slashing our public services, including the NHS, local government and our armed forces; no regrets about 14 years of anaemic economic growth. No regrets? No, I have regrets. I regret that the Conservatives ever got into power. I regret that they have become Mrs Thatcher’s moaning Minnies. I regret that they left us with a nation divided against itself, but I do not regret the Employment Rights Act—I am proud of it. To be clear, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have not moved the amendment, and I am not moving it.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I am sure that Members on both sides of the House have heard from businesses on their local high streets and throughout their constituencies about the challenges that they face from unaffordably high energy bills, the Government’s increase in national insurance contributions, and recent business rates increases. This is a challenging economic landscape for businesses, especially those in the hospitality and retail sector, made worse by this Government’s repeated mistakes. The increasing burden on small and medium-sized enterprises means that many do not have the resources to provide employment opportunities where many young people traditionally found their first jobs. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that many of these problems began under the last Conservative Government. It was they who undermined hospitality, retail, farming, agriculture and so many other sectors providing seasonal work over the summer through their terrible Brexit deal, the disastrous mini-Budget, and their failure to reform business rates as they had promised. Their record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, rising costs and falling living standards, all of which paved the way for where we are now. That is why it is so disappointing that this Government have added to those challenges through their short-sighted tax grabs, and are not acting with more urgency to support local economies and job opportunities around the UK. The state of our economy requires bold action.

The hon. Lady called out the record of the previous Government, and she was right to do so. However, I remember that in 2012 youth unemployment stood at 22%, 4% higher than it is now. Of course, her party was in government at that time. I am keen to work collaboratively, but it is worth just noting that.

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.

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.

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.

I am grateful to the official Opposition for giving us all an opportunity to reminisce about our own summer jobs. Probably many more years ago than I would care to admit, I was lucky enough to work both as a cleaner and at my local Co-op to help pay my way through the summer. Both those jobs were important to me; they not only stopped my mum murdering me for being around the house too much, but provided that crucial introduction to the world of work, and an opportunity to start to establish some of the disciplines and awarenesses of life that have served me, I should like to think, reasonably well over my 36 years on this planet—

Thirty-six?

I am grateful for the protestations from the Front Bench. Those jobs were also crucial in starting to form my politics. In both settings, I was incredibly lucky to work with some fantastic colleagues. Not only did my clumsiness—from spilled buckets to broken bottles in the aisles—mean that I often relied on their generosity and patience with my ineptitude, but they gave me a window into lives that were very different from mine to date. There were similarities between those two jobs. Both sets of people worked in industries in which the minimum wage had been crucial to driving up their security and sense of prosperity. They were grateful for that, and as a result there was a great deal of support for the Labour Government at the time. However, there was one crucial difference. At the Co-op, those with whom I worked had regular contracts, secure work and good terms. They were supported by a recognised trade union, and felt a comfort and security in their jobs that was denied to many of those with whom I worked cleaning local schools. There, the practical realities of limited terms and conditions, and insecure work with non-guaranteed hours, were not artefacts of a contract or remote bureaucracy; they were tangible insecurities that hung over people’s day-to-day lives, and undermined their sense of security and ability to plan with confidence for the future that they wanted to provide for their family. That is why, many years down the line, I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are delivering a record expansion of workplace rights through the Employment Rights Act 2025, and why the fundamental vision of protecting workers and ensuring a minimum social contract for those working hard for their families and doing right by their communities will always be foundational to my politics. We come here not to embrace the contradictions and tensions that inhibit social change and progress, but to be creative enough and bold enough to lead the country, and to lead the way to a better economic settlement for the working families whom we are here to serve. That is why the minimum wage has been so transformational for our country, and why we have weekends now. I am very confident that in time, the Employment Rights Act will prove to be a big step forward for so many of the working people I am proud to represent. That does not mean that every aspect will always be perfect. Consultations with businesses and employers will be foundational in ensuring that we get the nuances right, when we look at how things play out in different employment settings, but the fundamental principle is this: my constituents and the cleaners I worked with deserve more confidence and security in their employment. That is exactly why I feel completely at home on the Government Benches, with my Labour colleagues. The Conservatives’ motion raises important issues. It is absolutely right to say that, over many years, we have not done enough collectively to bear down on some of the barriers to young people getting employment. We are doing a lot of work on that, but there is a lot more that we need to do. I am really glad that this Government are waking up to the need to do far more on vocational skills and apprenticeships. They are thinking about how we can reform qualifications to ensure greater alignment with our industrial strategy, and the growth opportunities that will come from industrial changes, but they are also breaking down practical barriers to accessing opportunities for young people in my communities and right across the country. The Government are introducing foundational apprenticeships, and are making sure that they are in reach of the hardest-to-reach young people—those who are desperately in need of the steps into work that apprenticeships can provide. They are reforming levies to make it cheaper for employers to take on apprentices and give them the training that they desperately deserve.

I very much agree with Members who have talked about the importance of summer jobs for young people, but as the hon. Gentleman says, we also need to think about providing more long-term jobs. Does he agree that it is vital that the Government reinvest all the money from the growth and skills levy in skills, and do not let the Treasury take away a top slice? We also need to make sure that the apprenticeship budget reflects the ambition of the sector; it could drive transformational change, and get our young people into the good jobs that they all deserve—good, long-term jobs and summer jobs.

I absolutely agree that we need to invest in apprenticeships to ensure that many more young people can access them, as well as work placement opportunities in their communities. That is why I welcome the spotlight that the Milburn review is already starting to shine, forensically, on barriers to young people accessing such opportunities. I am really keen to ensure that the Government lean into the practical implications of his diagnosis that we need to shift more money from supporting young people who are out of work into helping them into good paid work. I am very proud to have supported the Government’s jobs guarantee, and of the wider work that we are doing to ensure that employers in my community and right across the country are practically and financially incentivised to bring young people into the world of work and supported to train them up, so that those young people can benefit from opportunities that feel out of reach to far too many of them at the moment. That is an approach that we need to thread into all our work in this space. I was very moved by the conversations that Gareth Southgate had in last month’s documentary, in which young men who had been out of work for a very long time spoke of the impact it had on their self-esteem. It reflected issues with their confidence that had been long in the making. It reflected how they felt in their communities, and how they felt they were treated at school. Putting that right requires a continued focus on curriculum reform and place-based investment, but I would like the Government to go further in embracing the recommendations of the recent review on white working-class underachievement at school, to make sure that every young person, no matter what community they live in or where they come from, has no barriers to succeeding, and can feel confident in their ability to succeed at school. In a moment of agreement, let me agree with the Conservative party’s diagnosis that we need to go slightly further on business rates to support fantastic local employers in doing more for young people. I think the Conservatives are being slightly cheeky in skirting the fact that the plans we inherited from them would have seen a huge cliff-edge increase in business rates. The many financial pressures that we have had to juggle since coming into government have meant that it has been challenging to balance things. I approve of the work that we have done to try to ease some of the multipliers, and I would like us to go further still. I also approve of the work that we have done to give further discounts to pubs, given that they have been in decline for decades, and I would like us to go further still there. Fundamentally, however, the plans we inherited from the last Government would have been completely disastrous for the very businesses whose virtues the Conservatives are espousing today. If the Conservatives are so passionate about the errors of the Government’s choices on the minimum wage and national insurance, I encourage them to be bolder, and to do more than just offer regret, because regret will not change a single aspect of those policies’ implications. If they are genuinely confident that there are better ways to plug the gaps in our public finances and improve our public services, why are they not committing to reversing the national insurance hikes? If they genuinely believe that the minimum wage has gone up too far, why are they not embracing the practical end point of that argument by suggesting that they would cut it? Maybe it is because, much as they like to complain about the implications of our policies, they begrudgingly recognise that in the incredibly difficult circumstances that we inherited, both those choices may well have been right. I look forward to a Conservative Member proving me wrong. I thank the many Members who have shared their fantastic experiences of summer work, and the many colleagues with whom it has been inspiring to work on some of these issues, including staff from Amazing Apprenticeships, a charity in my constituency that does genuinely amazing work to boost apprenticeship opportunities for young people across the country. I look forward to continuing to work with them as the Government bring forward the Milburn review.

As I am an accountant, it will come as no surprise to Members from across the House that I take a keen interest in numbers. Unfortunately for this Government, the numbers do not make for pleasant reading. Labour Members have been busy crowning their messiah from the north—a coronation conducted with little scrutiny and even less debate—but I wonder whether they are aware that youth unemployment now stands at 16.2%, which is close to its highest level since 2015, and already above the pandemic peak. I wonder whether they know that 735,000 young people are out of work—up by 109,000 on the year. I wonder too whether they know that, for the first time since 2013, the number of young people not in education, employment or training has passed 1 million. Whatever is happening in the labour market is landing hardest, and first, on our young people. It is the plain, measurable consequence of decisions taken by this Government, including the introduction of higher national insurance contributions. As we have heard today, the Employment Rights Act has added costs and burdens to employers large and small. I ask Labour Members to think like an employer for a moment—not a large firm with a human resources department, but the owner of a farm, a hotel or a shop on the high street, who has to decide whether to take someone on for the first time, perhaps over the summer. Under the Act, that decision now carries real legal risk within six months, rather than two years, so the rational choice is perhaps not to take the risk at all. The farm does not hire an extra hand for the harvest, the guesthouse does not take on extra staff for the holiday season, and the high-street shop does not offer the Saturday job that may lead to a summer job and permanent employment. Let us be honest about the cost: by the Government’s top-end estimate, the Act lands over £1 billion on employers. Small and medium-sized enterprises are the backbone of our economy and a key gateway into work for young people, yet the uncertainty has left too many high-street businesses reluctant to invest, expand or hire. These are not merely statistics to be traded across the House. Behind every percentage point and every headline figure is a young person searching for a first job, eager to build skills, gain experience and achieve independence. Too many are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded, and that aspiration is no longer valued.

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. In responding to me, the Minister pointed out that it was necessary to increase the national living wage so that everyone had enough money, which is obviously a reasonable point to make. Does my hon. Friend feel that the pace at which that was done—it increased faster than the rate of inflation—has caused a situation in which some young people will no longer have the jobs that they could have otherwise expected?

I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. I think the pace at which this was brought in has had a massive impact on businesses, particularly smaller businesses, and their ability to adapt to a changing labour market.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to continue my conversation with the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen). My other concern is how it can possibly be right that somebody is employed for and works 40 hours a week, but their pay is not enough to cover the bills or to avoid being subsidised by the state afterwards. That is one key question we have to answer.

Too many people are growing up believing that hard work is no longer rewarded and aspiration is no longer valued. That is not the message we should be sending to the next generation. We owe our young people better than that. For many of us in this House, a summer job was how we first learned what work is. In my case, it was stacking shelves in a corner shop, then working behind a counter at a local café and then in a greengrocer. Each one of those jobs taught me the same lesson—the value of money and the pride that comes from earning it oneself. That is why I support the action the Opposition are taking to save the summer job. We would cut business rates for the businesses that create those first-rung jobs, not have another round of tinkering with multipliers and reliefs. We would scrap the archaic restrictions that stop young people choosing when they work, such as the outdated limits on Sunday working and the rules that bar them from working after 9 pm. A young person helping in a restaurant or a hotel is not being exploited; they are gaining experience, earning money and developing skills that employers value. We would end the culture of excessive bureaucracy that greets any employer offering a teenager their first opportunity, because every unnecessary form is yet another reason to say no. We would repeal the most damaging aspects of the Employment Rights Act and give employers the confidence to hire again. We would give SMEs proper, simple access to a growth and skills levy, so that a seasonal job can become an apprenticeship instead of simply ending in September. I have heard what the Minister and hon. Members have said, but it is important that we give young people the dignity of a job, and a Government who are serious about work do not legislate away the very jobs our young people need. A summer job is about not just a payslip, but confidence, responsibility and resilience. This Government’s actions have limited those opportunities, so I urge the House to support our motion, and I urge Ministers to give our young people back their first chance of building a successful career.

I was in two minds about joining this debate on summer jobs, to be frank, because my first job was stacking shelves in Marks & Spencer over Christmas, but I hope the House will forgive me for joining in anyway. I thank the Opposition for bringing forward this debate, because it is really important. Labour Members should embrace, not shy away from, the opportunity to debate the hopes and aspirations of young people. Listening to Opposition Members, one would think the challenges facing young people in the labour market materialised out of thin air or started on 4 July 2024, but the number of young people not in education, employment or training rose starkly in the years up to the general election and, yes, it has continued to go up. It is right for the Opposition to look at what this Government have done in this sphere, and they should absolutely provide such scrutiny, but they have missed a few things that this Government are doing. Our youth hubs will give young people the localised support they need to get into their local labour market. This Government have offered new incentives of £2,000 for those hiring aged 16 to 21 for foundation apprenticeships. That comes on top of a complete NICs exemption for employees under 21 and apprentices under 25. Ultimately, where we are now, with the under-employment and stagnant wages that young workers face today, is directly linked to the 14 years of the Conservative party, because for over a decade it oversaw an economy built on precarious and insecure work. A strong package of workers’ rights and protections goes hand in hand with a strong economy. The Employment Rights Act has been vital to modernising protections and making work pay, because when we give people certainty over their hours and their wages, we give them the confidence to spend on our high streets, to go into their local pubs and to support their local corner shop, which benefits all of us through growth in the economy. Throughout the passage of that Bill, the Government listened carefully to stakeholders to ensure that these reforms are balanced and fair, pro-worker and pro-business. I note that the amendments to people’s rights on the first day of employment were made because the Government showed that they were willing to listen. Despite what the Opposition may claim, this Government appreciate that work fluctuates seasonally, which is why the Act explicitly provides powers for zero-hours measures to cater for seasonal work, and the Government are continuing to consult employers and trade unions to inform future changes. The legislation maintains flexibility, allowing businesses to use contracts offering variable hours at different times of the year, with offers of guaranteed hours taking the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. Some of the key changes in the Employment Rights Act were those made to statutory sick pay, which ensured that a safety net is available for those who need it most. The Opposition have tried to paint that as a devastating blow to business, but to be clear, the regulatory impact assessment published last October concluded that the additional cost of these reforms would be £15 per employee.

Employers right across my constituency of Mid Bedfordshire—particularly SMEs and retail, hospitality and leisure businesses—are telling me that the Employment Rights Bill is reducing flexibility and having a chilling effect on their ability to employ people, particularly young people. If employers are telling me that, why are they not telling the hon. Member the same in his constituency?

I meet businesses in my constituency all the time. As I stated at the beginning of my speech, they raise a number of the issues that the Opposition have raised, and I do not pretend that none of those come up in my conversations. Yes, the Opposition talk about how they want to get rid of the worst aspects of the Employment Rights Act, but I have yet to hear them name what they are and which bits they would get rid of. They just mention it without any clear proposals of what they plan to do, as with their continuing false promises on business rates, NICs and various other things. To return to my speech, removing the three-day waiting period for SSP means employees can recover from short-term illness without spreading infectious diseases in the workplace, which reduces the risk of more employees needing time off. It is about protecting the firm, the other employees and the productivity of the business as much as it is about protecting the employee. This debate exposes a fundamental difference in vision. The Opposition believe in and want an unstable, low-growth economy built on a race to the bottom. Labour Members believe working people need an economy that values their contribution, secures their rights and delivers genuine economic growth and good job creation. I am proud that that is what this Government are seeking to do. I want to conclude by mentioning that last month I had the opportunity to sit down with young people, in the heart of Banbury in my constituency, to discuss these issues face to face. They were very clear that a multitude of different things are blocking them in the labour market. They talked about AI, and how it is coming up in interviews and being used to filter out job applicants. They talked about failings in the school system and in careers advice. They talked about fears about their mental health, and whether they would have appropriate support if they enter the labour market. They brought up those issues when I spoke to them, and unlike this motion, they want us to tackle this. They did mention the costs that employers say come with employing people, but they did so alongside raising those issues. Like my hon. Friends, I do not pretend that has no impact whatsoever, but in those conversations they asked me to take away and bring to this place the point that we should look at all these issues in the round—

Will he hon. Gentleman give way?

I am nearing the end of my speech, so I will not give way. Those young people want us to tackle these issues in the round and in a systemic way, rather than through party political point scoring and throwing statistics across the Chamber, as we heard from the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), because this is too important, and it is important for us to get this right.

We have 109,000 more young people out of work, the youth unemployment rate is at 16%, and our ratio between youth unemployment and overall unemployment is now at European levels. Why do we care about youth unemployment? There are two reasons: first, it is a matter of what is right and of justice for young people; and secondly, if someone is unemployed when they are a young adult, the scarring effect on their career and earnings can stay with them for five, 10 or 20 years into the future. It is definitely true that the labour market has softened a lot. I hear in East Hampshire that this has not been about mass layoffs; it has been overwhelmingly about not taking people on in the first place, or not increasing the amount of work hours for people already employed. That is especially true for those marginal employment decisions—Saturday jobs, seasonal work, and, the title of today’s debate, summer jobs. The number of apprenticeships is about to rise dramatically, but that is because the Government have reduced the minimum specification and length of time for an apprenticeship, and every time that is done, the number goes up hugely. But I worry that, like for like, apprenticeships in key sectors employing lots of school leavers—I hear this about hairdressing, for example, in East Hampshire, as I am sure other Members also do—are already falling. Business owners in my constituency are reluctant to expand because of the risk, and are not maxing out on business opportunities where they are fluctuating or seasonal. The phrase “pub-closing time” has become meaningless, because pubs are closing earlier and earlier, all at different times, and in some cases not opening for days. I spoke about the scarring effect of being unemployed as a young adult. There is also a big downside and cost to not being able to get early paid work experience opportunities before becoming a full-time employee. To be fair, the Saturday job, and part-time employment for under 18s in particular, has been in long-term decline. That is partly to do with the decline of paper rounds and milk rounds. There has also been a decline in Saturday work in retail, some of which is about an increasing nervousness—often an ill-placed, unnecessary nervousness—on the part of employers around their responsibilities when hiring young people. Whatever the different mix of reasons, the numbers have come down over time. That decline has now accelerated for two reasons. First, I am afraid that whenever the economy takes a hit, it is always young people who feel it first, which is because of the “last in, first out” approach to employment and people not being taken on in the first place. Secondly, it has become relatively costlier and riskier to take on those young people, because of direct employment costs and the Employment Rights Act 2025. All of us in the Chamber are Members of Parliament; we have done reasonably well in our lives. Most of us, before we came here, had successful careers of one type or another. How many colleagues in this place had their first paid employment for 37.5 hours a week, full-time, reliably throughout the whole year? I certainly did not. My first job was a zero-hours contract—we just did not call it that then. In fact, it was not quite a zero-hours contract because there was no actual contract. There was no guaranteed work; it fluctuated week to week, and night to night, washing dishes in a local restaurant, but that is where I learnt some of those crucial skills. They now call them soft skills, but there is nothing soft about them; they are hard. That job is where I learnt about taking criticism; about turning up again the next day; about turning up when I was tired or feeling not that great; about looking the customer in the eye; and about how, if I kept coming back day after day, week after week, at the end of the week they gave me money. That is an important life lesson. A high proportion of people with zero-hours contracts are young, and a high proportion are students or people with another job. But one of the biggest employers of people on zero-hours contracts is the national health service, because NHS bank staff work in that way. The contracts can work for young people. In my constituency, I know plenty of young people who have two zero-hours contract jobs: one at home, where they are during the holidays; and one where they are studying during term time. I do not see why that does not work perfectly well for both employer and employee.

I have always thought that a zero-hours contract was a terrible name for what is actually flexible hours. There was always an ideological opposition to it, but in practice over two thirds of those who were on the contracts—adults as well, often with caring responsibilities—loved the idea of being able to work when they could but not having to do so when they could not manage it. That is the kind of flexibility that is necessary in an economy. It was loved by people in Europe, who wanted to do the same but never got around to it.

My right hon. Friend is right. I have spent an inordinate amount of time studying zero-hours contracts, partly because the previous leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), used to bring them up at Prime Minister’s questions every week, and gave the impression that half the country was on a zero-hours contract and was getting no work whatsoever. In fact, it turned out that less than 3% had their main job as a zero-hours contract, so far from them working zero hours—[Interruption.] Yes, look it up.

I am spoiled for choice. Who wants to contradict me?

The right hon. Gentleman is right. I had a zero-hours contract as a student and it worked for me because, crucially, I was able to say, “No, I can’t come in today.” Surely he understands that there is a difference between that situation and when often huge companies—but not only huge companies—say, “You have a zero-hours contract and that is it, there is no alternative, but you are expected to come in for these hours.” Does he not understand that zero-hours contracts can be exploited? It is not about getting rid of zero-hours contracts that work for individual students.

Of course the hon. Member is right. Nobody wants exploitative zero-hours contracts. Quite often when the Opposition talk about zero-hours contracts, the Government think that the work exploitative automatically gets inserted into the phrase. That is why we stopped exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts way back when we were in government. Nobody should be exploited, but that does not mean that there cannot be a job that works for the employer and employee and gives flexibility in the economy.

The right hon. Gentleman is being generous. Of course there are zero-hours contracts that work for some people and not for others. For example, if it is the choice of the employee, then it is fair enough, but if someone’s work is cancelled when they are on their way in, that is not fair. The 2025 Act still allows people who are employed to say, “No, I do not want those average hours. I am happy to work on a zero-hours contract.” That optionality is still there.

Good employers, who want to keep their employees, do not do stupid things that upset their employees. Good employers will always want to keep good people in order to build their business.

Will the right hon. Member give way on that point?

I had better not. Although, it always brightens my life to hear from the hon. Gentleman, so I will give way.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who has been taking a lot of interventions. Does he acknowledge that we are here to think about those not-so-good employers, not just the good ones? That is what the Employment Rights Act is about. At the weekend I met an employer who had minor concerns about what it was going to mean for him, but he said that, by and large, he was already doing a lot of this stuff. It is not about the good employers; it is about the not-so-good ones.

The hon. Gentleman is right, of course. I do not think anybody in the House of Commons would argue that there should be no employment or workplace regulation at all. [Interruption.] Well—actually, I do not think anybody does, genuinely. I certainly do not. I welcome very many of the rights that have come over the years. However, it would be totally ignorant to suggest that new inflexibilities and rigidities can be brought into the labour market without their having an effect on unemployment. Whenever there is an effect on unemployment, there is always a magnified effect on youth unemployment, and we want to ensure that young people can get into and stay in jobs. I want to speak briefly about the costs of employment. This is much harder to talk about, because whenever anybody talks about the realities of equalising pay between younger people and slightly older adults—not that people do so very often—they can be vilified easily for being heartless, uncaring, discriminatory—you name it. However, sometimes being in this place as a politician and a representative and having the best interests of our constituents at heart means having to say difficult things. This difficult thing is something that I think most people here know—including, actually, most Labour MPs—but it is difficult to say. Let me take a little bit of the heat and politics out of it by talking about a hypothetical situation. This is not the situation that we actually have today, because we have differential national insurance contributions by age. Imagine a situation where an employer has a job vacancy and they have two applicants who in all other respects are the same, but one is 30 years old and one is 18. Who is the employer going to employ at exactly the same wage, with all other things being equal? They are, of course, going to employ the person with experience—the person with both work experience and life experience, who has just been doing it a little longer, working with teams, dealing with colleagues and dealing with customers. I use that hypothetical situation just to establish the principle that wages do have an effect, and that is why the Low Pay Commission—[Interruption.] The Minister can screw up his face again if he wishes.

I am just trying to understand.

Well, I will help him with that. That principle is why, back in 1999—under a Labour Government, as he will recall—when the original minimum wage came in, the Low Pay Commission specified that there should be a different rate for young people. That was for two reasons. The first reason was because of the work experience effect: there is a difference in how employers view people with a few years’ work experience and others without that experience, and if those rates were exactly the same, youth unemployment would inevitably rise. The second reason was to recognise that very many of those younger workers are in some form of education or training at the same time. We all want people to be properly rewarded for the work they do. The best thing is to be well rewarded in a job, but the worst thing of all is not to have a hope of getting into a job that is well rewarded. We have talked a bit about the national living wage. Of course, we all want the national living wage to keep going up. That is why we brought it in, by the way, in 2015, with the explicit intention that it would keep rising until it was further up the income distribution. However, we do have to acknowledge the reality. As I say, I think that most people present know that there is a difference by age and that it is there for a reason.

It is still the case that there is that differential, is it not? There is still about a £2 difference between under-21s and over-21s, so it is not actually having the impact that the right hon. Gentleman suggests it should. If there is still that differential, why is there that problem at the moment, when employers are not paying national insurance contributions for under-21s either? Considering that the differential still exists, why does the problem exist?

I genuinely do not know quite how to respond to that. The differential has come down. It is due to come down further—it is due to be eliminated. There will still be the difference in national insurance contributions. Nobody is at this time envisaging there being no difference in employment costs at all. The reason that I used a hypothetical case and established that principle was to demonstrate why there is a wage effect on youth unemployment. I was going to talk about the overnight visitor levy, on which I have strong views—I think it will be bad for our local economies, bad for international inbound tourism and bad for places that rely on domestic tourism and seaside towns in particular—but in the interests of time, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will not. I will just end by saying that I would have thought that the Labour party would like to break away from that cliché—the fact that every Labour Government ever to exist have left office with unemployment higher than when they came in. If I was a Labour Member, I would want to say, “With our enormous majority, and perhaps with the new Prime Minister we are about to have, this could be our chance to break away from that, so that nobody can ever say that to us again. We are, after all, Labour—we are supposed to be the party of work. Let us devote all our energies to maximising employment, and particularly to maximising the opportunities for young people coming into the labour market.” It is not too late for them to take that approach. I just want to add something that we have not really talked about today—in fact, something we hardly ever talk about—in the context of these changes. We need to consider the number of people who will be forced into self-employment as a result of the changes in the Employment Rights Act. I strongly encourage the Government to change course.

Order. Members might like to know that I aim to call the first Front-Bench spokesperson at about 3.35 pm.

I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition for calling this debate today, as it gives me an opportunity to talk about a survey of young people that I did last year. It was a broad survey and statistically significant, with more than 500 young people in Mid Derbyshire engaging on their work and education opportunities and sharing their views on their futures. Before I come to that, I will offer some reflections of my own experience of summer jobs, as that is the title of today’s debate. One such job was pulling out weeds for very low pay, which really taught me the value of hard work. I would go home from that job every day absolutely exhausted. I also spent some time during the university holidays pulling pints, which taught me how to deal with difficult people—a skill that I find myself using quite regularly in my current role. When I receive applications from people who want to work with me, I always think it is welcome if they spent their early career in hospitality, because workers can learn a great many skills in that industry that will serve them well in a great many jobs across the labour market. I also spent some time as a grave-digger, during the holidays when I was in the sixth form and at university—it perhaps serves as a metaphor for one or two things I have done subsequently. I understand that this summer there may be some jobs going with the new occupant of Downing Street. If the Minister could have a word on my behalf, I shall be waiting by the phone.

Does the hon. Member agree that there is a problem in Clacton, in particular, with certain people applying for jobs and then not actually doing them, or doing lots of other jobs instead of the one they should be doing? Perhaps we could think about a scheme where people like that do work experience with some of the incredible, hard-working young people who do vital jobs so that those people could learn a thing or two about how to behave in work and how to work hard.

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. My focus is on the people of Mid Derbyshire, but I am sure that the people of Clacton will hold their representative to account in the appropriate way. Of the young people who responded to my survey, 44% said that the cost of living was the biggest issue they faced, followed by housing and renting costs at 34% and employment and jobs at 33%. I want to read just one contribution from a constituent, which I found to be particularly profound. They said: “Life for young people especially isn’t just unaffordable—it feels completely unattainable. I’ve had a job for nearly 5 years and am on the minimum wage. There is no way, with the state of the housing market and general cost to live that I’d be able to sustain moving out, renting or even learning to drive/buying a car. My independence seems—and I imagine it does for a lot of young people—like it will never fully arrive.” That was mirrored in the fact that a great many of the young people who engaged with my survey were not optimistic about their futures. That is a moral and political tragedy.

Looking to the future, a job vacancy has just come up in Clacton. It would be good to know whether the Labour party will be putting forward somebody of a youthful nature as its candidate. To get back to the core issue of the debate, the Minister, in his meandering rebuttal to the motion from His Majesty’s Opposition, talked about a £1 million fund to help people aged 16 to 24 get back into work. That would be £1.50 per unemployed person aged 16 to 24. If the Government applied that money just to the 109,000 extra unemployed young people over the past 12 months, it would not even be a tenner. Does the hon. Gentleman think that would make much of a difference?

I spent most of the hon. Gentleman’s intervention trying to find out what is going on in Clacton, but perhaps the Minister heard what he said and will furnish him with a response in his summing up. The Government are doing a great many good things to support young people. There is more to do, but I will touch on some of the things we are doing. We have an unemployment rate of 4.9%. That is far too high, but we are outperforming many other major economies, including Canada and the EU. I particularly welcome the youth guarantee, the growth and skills levy and the other levers that we are introducing to reduce business costs, including on energy. We are expanding access to finance through the British Business Bank, and we are reducing red tape and licensing costs. On summer jobs, it is particularly important to highlight our support for hospitality, including cutting business rates for pubs and live music venues by 15%, which will be followed by a two-year freeze. We are also increasing the hospitality support fund to £10 million, which will really help those sectors. We have heard a little bit from the Opposition Benches today about wage increases and national insurance. On wage increases, when I go to food banks I often meet young people who are in work but tell me that they are still not making ends meet, and that point comes through from the survey that I did. That really is a tragedy. While I acknowledge the concerns that businesses have raised with me and that the Opposition have raised today, I do welcome the wage increases. We have to deal with this cost of living crisis. Young people should not be working as many hours as they can yet still not able to get by. The point about national insurance is quite interesting. The decision to increase employer national insurance was a difficult one. I would rather we had not had to do make that decision, but we did. Public services were failing so badly that that in itself was a brake on the economy. I note that the previous Government also effectively tried to increase national insurance by 1.25% in 2021. That was called the health and social care levy, but they did row back on it. The reality is that we have a long-term problem with public services, and it is holding back people’s lives and the economy. We have grasped the nettle on that, but I hope that sometime later in this Parliament we can revisit the issue. We stood by businesses in covid, and we are asking them to stand with us now as we rebuild public services. As the economy continues to grow, I hope that that option is on the table for the Government. There are a few things that I would like the Minister to bear in mind going forward. I very much welcome the Great British summer savings scheme, which offers VAT cuts to the visitor economy sector, which is a very important employer of young people, including in Derbyshire. Once that scheme ends, I would be grateful if a review could be undertaken to see how much economic growth and how many jobs it generated. My long-term aspiration is for us to be in a place where we can offer a VAT cut, particularly for the hospitality sector. After the financial crisis in 2008, the previous Labour Government cut VAT to 15%—it was subsequently put up to 20% when the Conservatives came in—and that was a real shot in the arm for the economy. If the Great British summer savings scheme shows evidence of being a real driver for economic growth, particularly in the important visitor economy sector that employs a lot of young people, we should see whether we can harness that and offer a different rate of VAT for the visitor economy and hospitality sectors. I believe that that would be good for the economy. It would also be good for our high streets and people’s sense of place and wellbeing.

That is the important thing. The summer savings scheme could be really useful. I think the onus is on all of us as Members of Parliament to get out and spread the message to businesses across our high streets that they should make the most of it so that we can see how well it works.

I really hope that it is a success. I know that in Cornwall—my hon. Friend’s part of the world—there will be a great many businesses and visitors benefiting from the scheme. Alan Milburn’s report, which highlighted that a million young people are out of work, is something that I am struggling to comprehend. It is a moral scandal that has been brewing for a very long time, and the Government are taking steps to address it. It is worth noting that while youth unemployment is appallingly high—now at 16.2%—it is lower than it was under the previous Government in 2012. We have a great deal of work to do to give young people a sense of hope and opportunity for the future—[Interruption.] Well, 2012 was four years after the financial crisis. We also effectively had a financial crash of our own to deal with after the mini-Budget. We do have a great deal of work to do, but I think the foundations are there to do something for young people and work, particularly the summer savings scheme. I would be grateful if the Minister were to take that forward and see if we can expand it into the future.

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.

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.

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.

Most hon. Members would agree that I have a beautiful constituency. That fact is no secret. Many people visit our corner of Devon, and catering for that tourism means that seasonal work is vital to our local economy. Last year, I visited Devon Cliffs and Ladram Bay, which are two of the largest and most popular holiday parks in the area. Such sites support hundreds of jobs, and their impact reaches beyond the parks themselves, sustaining local suppliers, tradespeople, retailers and service businesses across the constituency. They give young people their first opportunity to step into the world of work. It is an opportunity to contribute, to earn their own keep, to learn customer service, to work in a team and to lead one, and to develop confidence grounded in real experience. We can all agree that those are skills and experiences that form the foundations of a good society, but the accumulation of taxes levied on those businesses has forced them into an impossible position: they must either absorb those costs by cutting jobs or pass them on to the consumer. Tourism is a price-sensitive market. Families choosing a holiday will simply go elsewhere if prices rise. Either way, the result is the same—fewer jobs—and it is the young seasonal workers who are first out the door. That is how this Government’s tax policies have deepened the youth unemployment crisis. Tackling the growing number of young people not in education, employment or training must therefore be a priority for the Government. Youth unemployment has reached the highest level in a decade outside of the pandemic, and too many young people are leaving education without a pathway into work. Alan Milburn’s report found that 84% of young people genuinely want a job. They want to be in education or training, yet this Government’s policies are making that harder to achieve. We all know that the longer someone remains out of work, the harder it becomes to find lasting employment. That point has been raised by multiple Members today. Prolonged unemployment damages confidence, limits prospects and increases the risk of long-term reliance on state support. At the very moment we need the sector to be creating opportunities for young people, businesses within it face mounting pressures: rising wage bills, higher national insurance contributions and business rates, and the burden of excessive red tape. Those are all compounded by unsustainably high energy costs, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned. On top of that, accommodation businesses already face a 20% VAT rate on stays. That is double the rate charged in France, Italy, Spain and Portugal, and the 2024 autumn Budget imposed a £3.4 billion tax on the hospitality sector. The consequences have been serious, and we have all seen them in our constituencies. More than 100,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector since that Budget. Against that backdrop, the proposed holiday tax would add yet another burden. I recently met representatives from the Professional Association of Self-Caterers, who warned that businesses would have no good options. They can absorb that levy and cut back further or pass the cost on in the price that hard-working families pay for an affordable holiday. Rather than giving this vital sector the confidence and breathing space it needs to invest and create jobs, the Government are proposing yet another charge, and it will be left to the discretion of mayors to decide whether to implement it in their area. That will create stark disparities, with areas that choose not to impose the tax gaining an advantage over those that do. Tourism contributes £147 billion to the United Kingdom economy and supports jobs and growth in every corner of our country. It should be encouraged to grow, not be weighed down by ever-increasing costs. It is not just holiday parks and hospitality businesses feeling the strain. The newly passed Employment Rights Act 2025, combined with the sharp rise in the national living wage for 18 to 20-year-olds—the very people who rely on Saturday jobs, summer jobs and Christmas jobs—are compounding the problem. The new zero-hours contract rules actively deter employers from taking on 16 to 24-year-olds for fear of being locked into offering permanent hours. We have heard similar stories from Members in the House today. Businesses need the flexibility to take on extra staff over the summer or at Christmas, and the 2025 Act takes that flexibility away. The legislation creates not job security, but job insecurity. The young people of Exmouth and Exeter East do not want handouts; they want a first job, a first wage and a first step. Businesses in my constituency stand ready to give them that chance, but they cannot do so while this Government tax, regulate and burden them at every turn. I urge the Minister to scrap the proposed holiday tax, ease the pressure on hospitality and restore the flexibility that seasonal employers need. We should give our young people back the ladder of opportunity before this Government kick it away entirely.

I refer the House to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Every summer, thousands of students, school leavers and young people across our country begin searching for seasonal work. For many, these jobs are much more than a payslip; they are the first step into employment and a chance to earn their own money, gain independence, develop confidence and learn the responsibilities that come with work. I know just how valuable such opportunities can be. Today’s debate is important not simply because it is about businesses, but because it is about protecting opportunity. It is about ensuring that the next generation has the chance to develop the skills, confidence and experience that will shape the rest of their lives. Seasonal jobs matter because they support people at every stage of life. From the responsibility and skills I learned in my childhood paper round to the office temping I did throughout university, my seasonal jobs helped shape my career. Those first experiences of employment have been just as valuable to my career as the more permanent roles that followed. For students across the country, such jobs help them earn money towards university or everyday living costs. They give young people confidence and experience before entering the full-time workforce, and they enable businesses to meet the increased demand that often comes with the busy summer months. However, those opportunities exist only if businesses have the confidence to recruit, and that confidence is being steadily eroded by the policies of this Labour Government. As a result, such opportunities are becoming harder and harder to find and youth unemployment is rising. Businesses across the country are facing rising costs from every direction. Employer national insurance contributions have increased, wage costs have risen significantly, employment regulations have become more complex and burdensome, and energy bills and overheads have continued to soar. Any one of those pressures would be challenging, but together they are forcing businesses to make difficult decisions. The businesses I speak to are not telling me they no longer need staff; they are telling me they simply cannot afford to employ as many people as they once could, and that has consequences far beyond their balance sheets. Across South West Hertfordshire, I have heard that message repeatedly. In Sarratt, I visited Micklefield Hall, a wonderful local events venue. It explained that the biggest barrier to employing young people today is cost. It used to happily recruit students straight from local schools, investing time in training those people with little or no experience. It even offered apprenticeships. Today, that has become much harder. As wage costs have increased, more experienced workers are being prioritised for roles that would previously have been filled by young seasonal workers, simply to keep costs down. Apprenticeships are no longer financially viable and have stopped. The manager, Tom, left me with a simple, powerful question: how can the Government expect businesses such as that to continue supporting their local community when they are spending most of their time simply trying to survive? I also spoke to the manager at Waitrose in Rickmansworth. Weekend shifts there have traditionally been filled by students, giving hundreds of young people meaningful employment and helping them to build confidence, responsibility and valuable workplace skills. The manager explained that the increases in national insurance contributions and wage costs have added millions of pounds to the company’s costs, forcing it to make significant efficiency savings across the business. For now, Waitrose has, as a large employer, managed to absorb those costs, but it raises an important question: if even businesses of that size are having to reduce costs elsewhere, what does that mean for smaller employers who simply do not have the same financial resilience? How long can the reduced amount of summer jobs that remain continue to exist? One of the biggest tourist attractions in my constituency is the Harry Potter studio tour in Leavesden, which is a major employer of young people. The business was hit with huge costs after the last-minute change to VAT resulted in refunds for a significant amount of pre-sale tickets. When such businesses are forced to absorb unexpected costs caused by the uncertainty that this Government create for them, it is our young, inexperienced people whose opportunities are at risk. At the Grove Hotel in my constituency, I was told that, disappointingly, due to the cost of hiring staff since this Government have been in office, the business has had to tighten its approach to seasonal work and has taken on longer fixed contracts over more flexible opportunities that suit students. That is again taking away even more vital first employment opportunities for young people. Another hospitality business, Anna’s Kitchen, caters events across my area and employs many young people around term time. In fact, one of my own members of staff worked there before joining my office. At just 18 years old, the skills, confidence and responsibility he developed through that job played an important role in helping him to secure employment here in Parliament. These stories are exactly why these opportunities matter. They are not simply summer jobs; they are stepping stones to successful careers. Behind every one of these examples lies the same concern. Businesses still want to employ young people—they recognise the value that young people bring, and the value that the businesses offer them—yet increasing costs are making those opportunities more difficult to provide. The consequences stretch far beyond individual businesses. When seasonal jobs disappear, young people lose valuable first experiences of work; businesses reduce their opening hours or scale back services; hospitality, tourism and retail suffer; local economies lose spending power; and, ultimately, economic growth slows. Growth happens when businesses have the confidence to invest, expand and create jobs. That is why this Government must work with businesses, not against them, and why the Conservatives would reduce the cost of employing seasonal workers by repealing large parts of the Employment Rights Act. We would abolish business rates for thousands of retail, hospitality and leisure businesses, cut the red tape that stops employers recruiting young people, and introduce our cheap power plan, which would cut electricity bills by 20% for businesses. I will go back to what I said at the start: this debate is ultimately about opportunity. Our young people should not be priced out of those vital first steps into employment by the harmful policies that this Labour Government used to fund the welfare bill. Every seasonal job created is another young person gaining confidence, building skills and taking that first important step into the world of work. Those opportunities are worth protecting, and I urge the Government to recognise the damage that they are doing to the opportunity for our young people to fulfil their potential.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). In so many debates, we learn a little about colleagues on both sides of the House, and this one gives us the opportunity to reflect on the summer jobs that many of us had. I think back to my first job—this will probably show how old I am now.

Twenty-one!

I will take 21 any day. My first job paid the grand sum of 50p an hour. At the end of the week, when I got my pay packet—it was a pay packet in those days; there was no bank transfer—I felt quite wealthy. For the first time, I had a bit of money of my own; I could spend it on what I wanted, instead of having to ask the bank of mum and dad for money.

That was liberating.

It really was, but it was more than that. It got me used to the whole mindset of going to work: getting up, being there for a certain time, and asking, “Is there anything else I can do?” My job was waitressing, and the usual pot-washing. Alongside that, when I was old enough, I learned how to pull a pint. My sister did the same, as did other youngsters from our village and the local towns. The employer was fantastic; he would pick up those who did not have transport and whose parents could not take them, and he made sure they got home as well. To me, that was a responsible employer. That job gave me confidence. I was forced to speak to people in a restaurant environment, and had to handle cash and bookings—really important skills. The biggest skill of all was feeling confident that I could go out and work. We talk about working people; I very much think that the Conservative party is the party of working people. We have outnumbered Labour Members in this debate. When I was growing up, there was always an expectation that we would go through education and then go out to work. If we wanted something, we worked for it. That was the way that we were brought up. Today’s debate has highlighted something quite sad: young people today do not have the same number of opportunities to get a summer job. This is about gaining not just money, but experience. I speak to so many employers, and have done for some time, about the importance of employability. Too often, I hear that employers small and large want to take on young people, but those young people do not have all the skills. That is not their fault; it is because they have not had the summer job, or a newspaper round or whatever, which helps that little bit when starting a job. We need to take a long hard look at the employment market, and we need to look at what has happened in the last couple of years. We have heard today that youth unemployment is running at 14.5% for 18-to-24 year olds, up from 12% in 2024. Youth employment for those aged between 16 and 17 is at a staggering 30%, up from 24.7%. I read that 700,000 graduates are out of work and claiming benefits. There is something wrong there. We encourage young people to go through education and to go to university, and then they struggle to find employment. That is partly because unemployment is high, but it is also because of the burdens being placed on our businesses. We talk a lot about large businesses, but often, the SMEs and the micro-businesses—the lifeblood of local communities and high streets that I have the pleasure of representing across Aldridge Brownhills—are being buried in red tape. They have seen employers’ national insurance hiked, they are being blocked from employing under-16s, and they are suffering as a result of high energy costs. Any business that we go to will talk about the hike in energy costs, and for an energy-intensive industry, that hike is particularly difficult. In my constituency, we have a lot of brick makers; in the west midlands, brick making and the ceramics industry are really important. Although Denby is not in my constituency, who does not like picking up a piece of Denby pottery and seeing “Made in England” proudly stamped underneath? We are losing those businesses, which means that we are losing opportunities for young people, the opportunity to grow our economy and develop more skills, and our manufacturing capability, which is important. We saw during covid how important it was to have sovereign, UK-based manufacturing capacity and capability when we needed to manufacture the critical covid vaccines. That surely should have taught us something. We have to build up more home-made skills. I also urge the Government to look at skills and opportunities for young people and, more broadly, at what skillset we need for today and for the future. We talk about the opportunities that artificial intelligence will bring, but it will also bring challenges to some sectors. The big question is: are we ready for that? I do not think that we have done nearly enough thinking to get us to that point. We have to do that now, to make sure that we are developing the right skills. For years, people who did an apprenticeship in engineering or plumbing were seen as not earning as much as the graduates who had been to university and got the high-tech jobs. There were also the toolmakers—[Laughter.] We can laugh about toolmakers, but in the west midlands there is a history of toolmaking. My point is that AI will not be able to replace all those skills. We need to look at what we need in future, and our education system—our schools, universities and colleges—need to make sure that we are all working together. Critical to that conversation is business, and not just big business. I come back to my point about small business. We started our business many years ago with something called enterprise allowance. My husband had an idea, and the enterprise allowance paid us £40 a week. It did not seem like much at the time but, my goodness, we felt that the Government were backing us to create an income, a living and a business. We need much more backing and confidence for our business community. It is time that we created a culture that supports businesses—one where “business” is not the bad word. Business is not bad. It is not bad to make a profit, because that profit is so often put back into the business, into employment and into the young people who, we all agree, we want to nurture and encourage, so that they can get into employment, get a job and a skill, and have a bright future.

I start with a point that I think is abundantly obvious to most people, and certainly to Opposition Members, which is that economic growth is possible only with a culture in which we support businesses in taking risks. I mean “risk” in all its forms, including the taking on of staff. Also, we need abundant clean energy. That was proven in the industrial revolution, and in the 1980s.

Would my hon. Friend agree that if we want abundant energy, we should produce much more of it in this country? It would be much better for our economy, for jobs, and even for the environment if we produced oil and gas in this country, as opposed to relying on imports.

My hon. Friend makes a compelling case for drilling in the North sea—a case that he made very successfully in the by-election in Aberdeen South. I congratulate him on that, and welcome him to the House of Commons. In the 15 years that I was working full time in the City before coming here, I saw a ratcheting-up of costs and the de-risking of our economy. Energy costs have increased as we have sought to decarbonise; employment flexibility has gone down; taxes have gone up; and regulatory burdens are uncontrollably high. I will give two examples from my time in financial services. They are not necessarily related to summer jobs, but I will come to that. Anti-money-laundering regulations are now costing the economy £33.6 billion a year, and bank ringfencing is costing banks £1.5 billion a year. The regulatory burdens throughout our economy are absolutely incredible. We have failed to properly recognise that it is businesses that grow the economy, not Governments. Over the past two years, the Government have missed an opportunity. They came in claiming that they would be the “change Government”, but they have doubled down on all the mistakes of the past. Tax has gone up over the past two Budgets by £66 billion, and red tape has gone up. The Minister said that he had aspirations to reduce red tape, but in fact the Government have demonstrated that they are capable of increasing red tape. With the Employment Rights Act 2025—the unemployment rights Act—labour flexibility is down. Britain has spent two decades trying to build an economy on less risk, and it is just not possible to do that. The impact, unfortunately, is felt most acutely by our young constituents. In particular, as a result of the Government’s interventions over the past two years, the Saturday job is disappearing. That is absolutely tragic. Hon. and right hon. Members from across the House have spoken passionately about their first job. If you can believe this, my first job in north-west Hampshire was sweeping a weighbridge at a scrapyard. That was not under contract, and I was not promised any particular hours. As a 16-year-old, or thereabouts, I would sweep the weighbridge in the morning and wash the owner’s car—and I would get 20 quid, not 50p, so there was quite some inflation since my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) earned that wage.

You were overpaid!

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.

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?

I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I started our lives sweeping floors; that is something that we have in common. Of course, resilience is a really important skill in life and it is learned best when we are young. I remember those early days on my bike, cycling in the cold with my knuckles freezing. I do not want to sound like my father, but it is true. I had to get to that workplace on time, and there was no public transport. It was a few miles away, so I jumped on my bike and I did it. This is how we learn resilience and how we grow as people and succeed in the economy. Youth unemployment is now at an all-time high, with 14.5% of 18 to 24-year-olds unemployed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills also mentioned the fact that 30.7% of 16 to 17-year-olds are now unemployed and are not learning the skills we have just agreed are important for enabling young people to grow into strong, resilient adults. That feeds through the whole of the economy, and 700,000 recent graduates are now out of work and claiming benefits. A generation of young people are at risk of unemployment and being left behind, unable to find the dignity of work and unable to save, buy their homes and invest for their future. This is a serious problem that we are facing in our economy, and it is all a result of the decisions by this Government, who are putting the summer job at risk. It all starts with the summer job. What needs to be done? We need a fundamental reset in how we think about risk, investment and enterprise. We in this House should be creating the conditions for economic growth and allowing businesses to get on with what they do best, and then we should get out of the way. Of course, this Government are doing the absolute opposite. They are meddling, getting in the way and wrapping businesses up in red tape. They are increasing costs by increasing levies, which is the polite word for taxes, and they are also increasing taxes on jobs. That really is not fair on our young people, and it does a disservice to the opportunities throughout our economy. As I know hon. Friends want to contribute, I will make just one final point on repealing red tape. The Milburn review says that the decline of the Saturday job has made it more difficult for young people to enter the workforce, and that is absolutely right. In previous generations, we had far more routes to start our working lives, of which we have heard many examples. Those routes not only provided us with an income but taught us skills, confidence and habits of work. Without those, none of us would be where we are. Those first steps into a lifetime of work are crucial for enabling us to understand what we want to do for the rest of our life, what we want to achieve and how we can learn the skills to get there. Young people need the Government to get out of their way to help them back into work, and that is what a Conservative Government would do.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for his excellent speech. I agree with everything he just said. This is a really important debate, and the motion put forward by His Majesty’s Opposition is so significant for young people. I am the most worried I have ever been for young people and their prospects. Although I do not doubt the intentions of many Labour Members who have spoken, I sense a massive disconnect in Government policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about the triple whammy, and I will come on to some of those points, although I am conscious of time. There is a massive disconnect between what the Government say that they are doing and the reality on the ground. Businesses in my constituency increasingly tell me that they cannot take on young people because the costs are so high. On the recent polling day, a business owner came up to me while I was knocking on doors and said, “I just don’t know if it’s worth it any more.” It struck me what a sad state of affairs that is: someone is grafting away and running a small business; he wants to do the right thing and hire people, and he is unable to do so. That is significant. Three things have had a huge impact on the labour market. If there had been just one intervention, there would have been some impact. It is basic economics that interference in the labour market will have a consequence: naturally, business owners must make logical decisions and will decide to adjust their employment numbers accordingly; they will do what they can afford, and they must make a profit. But there has been a triple whammy with the impact of business rates, national insurance—the jobs tax—and the Employment Rights Act, possibly the single most damaging piece of legislation to business from any Government. We will see the impact of that. The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) asked which bits of the ERA the Opposition would repeal. Well, I would repeal everything that has to do with the liberation of trade unions. That legislation is not about employment rights; it is a love letter to trade unions. It is there to ensure that trade unions and the hand of the state can interfere with private enterprise. We are starting to see the consequences, which will only increase. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made this argument logically and eloquently, but when a business owner must make a decision—he used the hypothetical example of the 18-year-old and the 30-year-old—they will of course take the individual with more experience. That individual requires less training, has proven that they are resilient, and has proven that the opportunity cost of hiring them is much lower than with the 18-year-old. When I ran a business, I loved hiring apprentices and young people—they had a hunger—but small businesses can only do that within the parameters of what is affordable and within the profit they can project. The consequence of the Government’s policies is that youth unemployment is high, at 14.5%—much higher than when they took office in 2024—and among 16 to 17-year-olds it is 30.7%. Those are huge numbers, and I worry about them. I recently held a debate in Westminster Hall on the impact of the Government’s policies on rural pubs. As has been alluded to, hospitality, leisure and retail are great employers—not just for Saturday jobs, but of young people generally. The impact of those policies has meant that, if those pubs are staying open, they are not able to hire more young people. It is going the opposite way. We are seeing the impact. As a number of hon. Members have said, there is dignity in having work. It gives young people the soft skills—or the soft-hard skills, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said—and gives them an opportunity to get ready for life. There might be other, structural issues, such as getting on the work ladder, but that first job has such a positive impact on young people. We have heard about sweeping floors, but whatever the job, it ensures they are able to work. I still remember a 16-year-old I hired once. He did not have his tie done up or his shirt tucked in, but I took a risk on him—and it was a risk, because I had to train him up. I said to him, “Young man, you’re going to have to tuck your shirt in and do your tie up.” Only two years later, when a grad came in for interview, he told them, “Tuck your shirt in, and do your tie up.” That just made me laugh—I thought, “Look how far that young individual has come on.” He went on to do other forms of employment, go up the job ladder and get higher wages. I take great pride in all the young people I employed and trained. Flexibility in the labour market is important, as is ensuring that the Government do not increase the burden on businesses. I come back to the disconnect. The Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who I have a great deal of time for, made a valiant effort—

Not me?

I have lots of time for the Minister who will be closing the debate as well, but I have not heard him speak yet, so I will reserve judgment. The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore made a valiant effort at defending the Government’s record, but he did not acknowledge that the unemployment rate has gone up—as a natural consequence of the Government’s interventions—and there is no indication of how they are going to get it down. With the best will in the world—however much money they spend training people up and doing interventions—if businesses are not hiring, the unemployment rate will stay where it is. I invite the Minister to address that point in his closing speech. What reassurances will he give to 16-year-olds, 18-year-olds and other young people who want hope and want to build their lives? I will end in a moment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) wants to speak. Recently, I was at the opening of the Bluebell Wood café in north Solihull. It was an idea that I came up with, and I worked with Andy Street, the former Mayor of the West Midlands. Hospitality is a big employer in my constituency—we have the National Exhibition Centre, the largest regional hotel, the Hilton Metropole, and many other businesses—and they all talk about the need for skills. We talked to University College Birmingham about bringing to north Solihull a training restaurant that would train top-level chefs and “maître d’s”. When I cut the ribbon, the main chef said that they were training level 1 apprentices to do level 3 work. I invite you to come and visit, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would like—top football clubs and top restaurateurs go there to recruit. But there have to be jobs at the end of the line. This is so important. I urge the Government to reflect on their policies and consider the impact they have had on the future prospects of young people.

We have heard lots of people describe their summer jobs, and I will do so too. When I was a student, I enjoyed a summer job. I was working as a postman in my constituency, delivering letters and leaflets to homes up and down Aberdeen—and what do you know, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thirty-five years later, I am still delivering leaflets and letters across the city of Aberdeen. That job was vital to me, because it gave me the resource that I needed—the money that I could spend through the rest of the year—as it is for so many people. What has changed in the intervening years is that our city now finds itself under attack from not one, but two Governments—the enterprise-crippling national insurance increase from the Labour party and the double whammy of business rate increases and banditry from the First Minister in Holyrood. The First Minister is clearly content in hoarding business rates in Edinburgh to fund his independence obsession and his other failed projects. That is before we even talk about the barons of Aberdeen city council, which is run by an SNP-Lib Dem coalition of malaise. It will be of no surprise to this House that all it wants to do is tax, tax, tax. That is clear because of the massive 7% tourism tax levied by the council on hotel stays. That is the highest in Scotland—more than Glasgow or Edinburgh. As a result, hotels are sitting empty, with the council content to punish vendors and visitors alike.

As the Government look to introduce this hated so-called overnight visitor levy in England—[Interruption.] I believe they are. Labour Members always say, “Don’t worry, it’s not very much money. It will all be hypothecated. It will have no effect on the inbound tourism industry.” Perhaps some of them might look at the example of my hon. Friend’s home city of Aberdeen and consider what could happen.

Lessons must definitely be learnt from what has happened in Scotland, because we are seeing a big impact. Why would someone start a business in Aberdeen now? New businesses have to factor in rent, business rates, insurance, energy costs and waste charges, and that is before they even get to national insurance or staff costs. There is a huge cost to doing business, and it is no wonder that our high streets are struggling. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) made an important point about business owners, because often they decide not to take a salary, or to take very little. We have heard about zero-hours contracts, but that does not apply to them, and neither does the minimum wage. Often they are going without in order to pay all their costs. We have organisations that are trying to make a difference. Our Union Street in Aberdeen, for example, does a great job of providing businesses with incentives and provides start-up grants for new businesses, but it is a private organisation. It should be the council, city council and Governments that are doing more to help industry. Summer jobs are critical for the hospitality sector. I think of the beachfront in my constituency, where we are fortunate to have two whole days of summer every year. It is so important that those businesses have the flexibility to employ part-time, seasonal workers. Across the city there are so many great businesses that benefit from seasonal workers. I think about Codona’s, a funfair at the beach, which employs hundreds of people, but it is most busy during the summer period. That is also the case for cafés in places such as Duthie park, bustling when the weather is good. They need that flexibility. Recently we have been fortunate to have a huge expansion at Aberdeen harbour, under the stellar leadership of Bob Sanguinetti. That means that cruise ships can now visit Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. That is a tremendous asset, but it is seasonal and we need to ensure that our hospitality sector is resourced to cope with the demand. We need to support our hospitality sector, but the SNP and Labour Governments have been woeful at doing that. We have seen job taxes, business rates, bureaucracy and red tape, and all that is hindering our industry, harming our jobs, causing businesses to fail and impacting young people the most. The Government need to think again, allow our hospitality industry to thrive and support our motion today.

I call the shadow Minister.

I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I really do not get what the Labour party has against people enjoying themselves, having a bit of fun and spending some of their hard-earned cash on things that give them pleasure, whether that is having an occasional flutter on the horses, a drink in the pub with mates, a meal out with friends, a family holiday or indulging in a bit of retail therapy. But the Government—let us be in no doubt—have made policy decisions that have deliberately undermined those sectors, jeopardised the viability of once-thriving businesses and decimated the workforce, especially summer jobs. Labour has whacked up swathes of taxes and made it more difficult and expensive to hire people. Tourism, hospitality, leisure, pubs, bars, restaurants, sport, theme parks, casinos, events, nightclubs, shops, music and art venues all used to be dubbed part of the “fun economy.” Well, not under Labour. They are now the overburdened, overtaxed, struggling-to-survive economy. We know that Labour Members are generally a glum bunch, but why do they want everybody else to be dragged down to their misery? Do Government Members have any idea what people in the country are saying, or who they are blaming for having to close their family businesses, for losing their jobs or for not having the opportunity of a summer job? I have been travelling across the country—that is how I got this tan; by actually getting out there and doing my job—listening to stakeholders, business owners, workers and industry bodies, from Wales to Scotland, St Ives to Skegness, the Cotswolds to Chester, and yesterday in Bognor. Indeed, it is the sunniest place in the country, as I found out yesterday. This is what I heard: “Labour don’t understand business. They don’t care about business. Labour hate the private sector. They don’t understand because they have never had a proper job. They don’t understand the importance of cash flow. Have any of the Cabinet ever run their own business? They care more about people on welfare than about workers. They said they would not put up tax—they have. I will never trust them again”. That is what people are saying. [Interruption.] It is transparently clear that those on the Government Benches are not hearing this, which is why I am doing my job by telling them. A coastal hotelier said to me, “I used to hire 10 people over the summer. I will be lucky this year to hire just one.” A restaurateur told me, “I advertised for two summer jobs. I had 270 applications.” Sadly, I heard many people say this well-known phrase: “I wouldn’t trust Labour to run a bath, never mind the country.” Those are not my words but the public’s—the eminently sensible British public, who we are listening to, and I wish the Government would too. Labour MPs must surely be hearing the same things in their own constituencies, which begs the question: why are they allowing the Government to do so much damage in their constituencies? By raising national insurance, whacking up business rates, imposing more regulations and restrictions on the labour market, and failing to bring down energy costs, this Government have destroyed jobs, and especially summer jobs, all while whacking up spending on welfare. Two pubs a day are closing down. StirrUps in Evesham in my constituency announced just this weekend it was closing because “it has become impossible for us to continue operating”. Another pub landlord told me that, despite looking busy and having a turnover of over £1 million, the pub is actually unprofitable and may soon have to close. Yesterday I met a small amusement park and seaside arcade operator, who told me he cannot afford even to open on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays now—and this is getting into peak season—because if he did, he would lose money because of higher taxes and higher energy costs, and he is not hiring as many summer workers either. It used to be the case that people looking for summer jobs could just walk into a pub, bar or restaurant in a seaside resort or in London. That is not happening this year because of Labour policies. Of the nearly 200,000 jobs lost since the Chancellor’s first Budget, over 100,000 have been in tourism and hospitality. That is thousands of summer jobs that have not been created because of this Government’s policies, depriving thousands of young people of the opportunity of their first job. And yet, in their infinite wisdom, as if the sector is not already taxed enough, the Government are planning to bring in a new tourism tax—despite the former tourism Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is sitting opposite me, saying in the House of Commons previously that the tourism sector is already “taxed enough”. Despite the Government cutting the tourism marketing budget and the UK already being one of the most taxed countries in the world for travel and tourism, this Government think it will help the sector if they impose more taxes on it. Only a Labour Administration could genuinely believe that the answer to the sector’s problems is more taxes. It will be a disaster. A £2 per person, per night levy would add £56 to the cost of a one-week family holiday for four. That, in some cases, is more than the cost of the accommodation. UKHospitality polling has found that 57% of people said a £50 increase would put them off taking a holiday. It would particularly damage the shoulder season, which is so vital to sustaining the economies of our already challenged coastal resorts in non-peak months. There is also no guarantee that the money raised through such a levy would be reinvested into tourism promotion or the visitor economy overall. In other countries where tourism taxes exist, they are often accompanied by permanent lower VAT rates. There is huge concern, too, about scope creep and future rate increases. As we enter the fag end of this Chancellor’s time in office, her legacy will be as the destroyer of jobs and of opportunities. Moreover, this economic disaster has been the result not of external circumstances or even genuine mistakes, but of deliberate and conscious policy decisions made by a Chancellor, a Prime Minister, a Government and a party who simply do not get business and do not have even the most basic grasp of economics. You cannot tax your way to growth. You cannot create jobs if you implement policies that make it more expensive and more difficult to hire people. You cannot say that you are on the side of workers if there is no work and, instead, you incentivise welfare. Let us be clear: this Government have brought in some of the most anti-business—and therefore anti-worker—policies this country has ever seen. Labour has increased taxes by £62 billion in the last two Budgets—that is over £2,000 per household. We warned, business warned and even the Treasury warned that this Government’s tax hikes would jeopardise jobs. They did not listen. We warned that failure to deal with a ballooning welfare state would inevitably lead to even higher taxes. We warned that their unemployment Bill would inhibit hiring. They went ahead and pursued job-destroying policies anyway. The cost of keeping the unions happy has been the destruction of the hopes, aspirations and opportunities of a generation of young people. It is of little consolation that the near 200,000 people who have already lost their jobs under Labour will soon be joined by the two leading architects of this economic havoc. Labour may be changing leader, but the problem is that it will still be Labour—big Government, high tax, living beyond its means and anti-business. It will still be Labour, spending other people’s money since 1900. As has already been mentioned, this Government are well on their way to securing the unenviable record of every Labour Government since the second world war leaving office with unemployment higher than when they started. If anything, the indicators are that the new Labour leader and, if rumours are correct, the new Chancellor will be even more anti-business. It is the private sector, business and especially the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, including thousands of small family-run businesses, that are paying the price for Labour’s mistakes and poor judgment. The damage is falling particularly hard on the young, because tourism, hospitality and retail jobs skew young. I know that we are all in disbelief at the recent Office for National Statistics figures revealing the true scale of youth unemployment, which has risen to 16.2% among 16 to 24-year-olds. Astonishingly, that is even higher than during and following the pandemic. We have also heard several hon. Members talk about the 1 million NEETs. The Government’s recent announcement about subsidies for employing young people in hospitality would not be necessary if they had not done so much damage to the sector in the first place. We Conservatives know that the best thing we can do for working people and to lift people out of poverty is to help them get a job. We have a far better record on doing that than Labour. Look at the improvements in educational standards under the Conservatives and on jobs. Between 2010 and 2014, Conservative-led Governments oversaw the creation of 4 million jobs, an average of 800 a day. This Government are destroying jobs to the tune of hundreds a day. Overall, unemployment has risen to 5% from January to March 2026. Job losses and youth unemployment are the inevitable, expected and entirely predictable consequence of Labour anti-business policies. There is an alternative: a pro-business, low-regulation, low-tax Conservative alternative. We are developing policies based on the sound Conservative values and principles of smaller Government, lower tax, personal responsibility, living within our means, defending our borders and protecting our citizens. We Conservatives are the party of business, aspiration, opportunity and enterprise. Those are sound Conservative values and they are sound British values. Before Government Members object, I know that we made mistakes: we make mistakes when we drift away from those values, but we will not be doing that again. The difference between Labour and the Conservatives is that the Conservatives get the country into trouble when we drift away from our values, but Labour get the country into trouble when it sticks to its values. On policy development, the vast majority of businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure space would benefit from our policy of 100% business rates relief. Our plan would benefit 250,000 businesses and cover bills up to £100,000. Turning to a few key points made by colleagues during the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly made an important point about the much-maligned soft skills that are vital to career development and the importance of giving young people experience. The hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) revealed that he was once a grave-digger—I am sure there is a joke in there somewhere about the current state of the Labour party, but I have not worked it out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made an important point about international comparisons and lessons learned from places such as the Netherlands. My hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke passionately about tourism and mentioned the respected body PASC, which I too have worked with in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) highlighted how retail, hospitality and leisure businesses are facing challenges on multiple fronts, and that they can appear to be very busy and need more workers, but they simply cannot afford to hire more people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) mentioned that she got 50p per hour in her first job—I am afraid I must be a little bit younger, as I got 99p per hour for my first job. She made an important point about there being 700,000 graduates unemployed at the moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) highlighted the need for Government often to get out of the way. Again, that is a very sensible, decent and proper Conservative value. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) highlighted the disconnect between the Minister’s opening speech and the reality of what is happening out there in the real world. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden)—I welcome him to his place—highlighted the damaging experience of the tourism tax in Scotland and how many business owners are actually earning far less than the minimum wage. That is a very important point. My hon. Friends the Members for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) and for Mid Bedfordshire made the important point that they have experience of floor sweeping. That will be of extreme value, because we need to do a huge amount in cleaning up the mess made by this Government on the economy, but we are up to the task. We are the only party up to the task, because the Conservative party is the only genuinely pro-business party left in British politics. By backing business, we are backing workers, and that is backing Britain. Please join us in doing so.

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.

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.

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.

Summer jobs are really important, as are summer schools. Will the Minister join me in welcoming students from the Burnley summer school, who join us in the Gallery today, and will he perhaps include in his speech the fact that over the Tories’ time in power from 2010 to 2024, 7,500 pubs closed across Britain—many of them in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield—meaning that those jobs just did not exist for people?

I am very happy to welcome that summer school from the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that into Hansard. I also congratulate him on teaching those students a lesson about the hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, which they will get used to. Many hon. Members spoke about seasonal workers as if the legislation was somehow going to force seasonal contracts to be permanent contracts. That is simply not the case—where people genuinely value that flexibility in the workplace, they will be able to continue to work in that way.

The Minister speaks about zero-hours contracts almost as if they are the devil’s work. Does he accept that those contracts give people the flexibility they want when they are doing a job? For a lot of people, a zero-hours contract fits in with their lifestyle; they do not want to be committed to working so many hours a week.

Where the workers that the hon. Member describes feel that way, they will not have to change their contracts. We are talking about the people who work for the same employer as their main job, week after week, without any certainty of income. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said that only 3% of workers rely on a zero-hours contract as their main job. That is one in 25 workers. [Interruption.] In his constituency, there are 60,000 people of working age, meaning that hundreds of people in his constituency do not have the right to regular hours.

rose—

I will take the right hon. Member’s intervention. Maybe he can say why he thinks those hundreds of workers in his constituency should not have the right to full-time employment.

I can tell the Minister that 3% is a relatively small percentage of 100%, and many of those people are students. The Labour party used to speak about zero-hours contracts as if they were taking over the entire economy, but that is simply not true—they are a perfectly legitimate form of employment that works for some people. I described the situation of my constituents who have one zero-hours contract at their term-time address and another at their home address. What is wrong with that? If it works for the employer and for the employee, why is Labour so against that flexibility?

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.

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?

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.

The Minister is coming out with these great plans. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) agrees with them, and will implement them when he becomes Prime Minister?

Of course he does. It is in the Labour party manifesto. He has spoken about backing our industrial strategy, and this is an incredibly important part of it. The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke about how beautiful his constituency was. [Interruption.] Yes, I know—I am looking at him. Later this month I shall be on my way to a holiday in Cornwall, and perhaps I will stop off in his constituency with my family. So many Opposition Members spoke of our imposing a tourism tax on local areas, but there will be no such imposition. This is devolution, allowing local areas to decide whether they want to invest in that or not. I can confirm that we will not move our amendment, but this Government are proud to be taking employment law into the 21st century, proud that we are rebalancing business rates for smaller businesses to help young people get jobs, and proud that we are backing our high streets. We have commissioned Alan Milburn to investigate the high level of youth unemployment, and we look forward to the publication of his final report in the autumn. The report will be backed by evidence and the real experiences of young people in a changing labour market. What it will not be based on is outdated, Dickensian ideas of getting 13-year-olds working late into the night before school. This Labour Government will act, and these reforms will deliver the national renewal that our country needs.

Before I put the Question, let me say that it is a shame that those at the Burnley summer school have left. The Minister will want to be careful about using the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.