Julia Lopez MP: speeches

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  What is the hon. Member’s analysis of why growth projections have been halved since Labour came in?

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Brexit allowed us to introduce a points-based system and that is what we did. I will accept that mistakes were made in the introduction of that points-based system, but the key is that we can tweak and tune that to accommodate the needs of our economy and those of the people we represent. The British people could feel the world changing around them and they knew instinctively that the UK needed to be nimbler, faster and more accountable in responding to those currents, be they the movement of people or the regulation of businesses. We will not let it be said that there have been no Brexit benefits, because that is simply not true. For a start, we no longer hand between £11 billion and £12 billion a year net to Brussels. We have secured trade deals, including from the fast-growing comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership nations. Whatever we think about last week’s US-UK tariff deal, we are not paying the same prohibitive trade taxes as the EU. We are setting our own course in areas such as AI, financial services and agritech. Those are not abstract wins or nostalgic impulses; they are real opportunities for a modern, outward-facing Britain. If next week’s summit can ease practical frictions, that is all well and good. I want what works for British people. However, I am worried that Labour does not know what it wants, only that it wants a deal. I am worried it does not grasp what the EU will demand in return. And I am worried that Labour thinks slick comms matter more than real outcomes for the British people. Today, we lay down a clear marker. On immigration, there should be no youth mobility scheme. It might sound harmless, but let us not be naive and have partial free movement by stealth. On defence and regulation, we want no dynamic alignment, and I am fascinated by the Minister’s refusal to say anything further on that matter. If Labour really thinks it has a great deal, there is a simple thing it could do, which is to bring that deal back to this House for a vote.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Criminal Injuries Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling an incredibly important debate. I came upon this issue recently in dealing with the case of a 10-year-old boy in my constituency who was shot in a quiet residential street. It has taken five years to get him compensated for the injuries that he suffered, which will be lifelong. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the sheer length of time that it takes to get victims compensated, the bureaucratic and sometimes impersonal approach, and the inadequacy of the sums being received by people, particularly children, who have received lifelong injury?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention. As I was preparing for the debate, I read about some of the police operations in Manchester, where they have been cracking down on this kind of activity. The frequency with which they found that these were fronts for illegal businesses—often with links to international crime gangs—is deeply worrying. That is one reason why I want to raise the profile of this issue. We cannot lose legitimate businesses from our high streets, because what fills the void is something that none of us wants in our communities. What can be done? I know how this works: the Minister sits in the Department for Business and Trade, not His Majesty’s Treasury, so he cannot give any substantive answers on the fundamental mistakes being made on tax policy. However, like any Business Minister worth his salt, he will probably share my concerns and wonder how best to get the Treasury to change course. He might even find this debate quite helpful to his own lobbying, just as the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and his officials did when I gave him evidence about the crisis now engulfing the early years. Here are some practical asks that my salons would like the Minister to make of the Chancellor: VAT reform, with a reduced rate for labour-intensive services; the restoration of business rates relief and the overhaul of the outdated business rates system, particularly for high street premises; the revival of apprenticeship incentives; and revisiting the measures in the October Budget. Look, the Government should use global market turmoil as an excuse to mask Labour’s mistakes if that is what it takes, but let us get a U-turn on these economy-shrinking tax takes. They are not working. Confidence and employment are down. Growth projections have been halved. The tax take is going to shrink, and that will translate into a smaller pot for public services. Members do not need to take my word for it; the International Monetary Fund said so just yesterday, confirming its view that the UK’s growth prospects have been cut because of domestic factors. To conclude, this debate must serve as a reminder that Government do not create growth—businesses and people do. Those businesses are now often paying increased rent, utility bills, professional fees, VAT and covid debt interest and, since April, giant hikes in business rates and the cost of employing people. It is just too much. People work to incentives, and right now the incentive to start a business such as a hair and beauty salon, grow it, take on staff with full employment rights and train apprentices is simply not there. The Government say they care about growth, communities and employee rights, but their actions—I hope by accident rather than design—are crippling the very people who grow things, give heart to communities and employ people. I say to the Minister: use this debate and take these real stories, these stark warnings and the sector’s clear-eyed solutions straight to the Treasury—before it is too late.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the impact of Government policy on the hair and beauty sectors. It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. This debate is about giving a voice to the thousands of small business owners crushed by the weight of tax demands. They are frustrated and exhausted —penalised, it seems, for doing everything by the book. They are expected to keep taking personal risks, to employ others and to pour all they have into building businesses and serving customers, even as the rewards for doing so shrink year after year. Those assumptions have bred a troubling complacency in Whitehall that these businesses will always just be there to tap up, and the crisis now gripping the hair and beauty sector is a stark example of the consequences. High street hairdressing and beauty salons offer jobs and training to thousands of young people. These businesses are disproportionately led or staffed by women, many of whom need flexible hours to balance their caring responsibilities. We all know these people, because we have been served by them—even counselled by them—sometimes over many years. However, today salons are under threat. The combination of the pressures they face is turning into a crisis, and the result will not just be a loss of revenue to the Treasury.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  That is precisely one of the issues I wish to highlight in today’s debate. This avenue of employment is being closed down for too many young people, because hiring apprentices has become far too expensive. I am sure other hon. Members are seeing apprentices being shed across their constituencies because the sheer cost of employing them makes it too difficult for salons to retain them. That is a terrible loss for those young people and for salons that need those skills and that skills pipeline. As I was saying, the result of salons closing will not just be a loss of revenue to the Treasury: it will be young people without an apprenticeship; high streets where the empty units left behind are filled with front businesses—perhaps a dodgy nail bar, a vape shop or a barber that may not be playing by the rules; customers who lose a service that they loved and that gave them a sense of place; and entrepreneurs who wonder why on earth they bothered to do the right thing and who now question whether this country is the right place to put their energies. I will set out the challenges facing these businesses, explain why we should all care and, finally, share with the Minister the asks from my local salons, so that we can keep these vital businesses alive, with the benefits that flow to us all. Let me start by setting out some of the pressures on high street salons. Salons have weathered some extraordinarily difficult years with the pandemic. Take Wyndham Hair in Hornchurch, a business that has been operating since the late 1970s. Owners Johnpaul and Jane returned from covid burdened with debt due to the stop-start nature of operating restrictions. They restructured and streamlined, and are now debt-free and at their most efficient, but the business offers little more than a wage. Why? Well, VAT is a major factor. Johnpaul and Jane chose to employ staff rather than rely on self-employed workers. That offers better security for their employees and quality control for them, but it comes with a financial penalty: as an employer, they pay VAT on services. Meanwhile, mobile or home-based businesses, or salons staffed entirely by self-employed workers, often avoid that. Those operating outside premises also duck regulatory costs such as those for trade waste, music licensing and more. That creates an unfair playing field. It is a bizarre situation, because we can effectively have two businesses, identical to all intents and purposes, operating under two different tax systems. Hair and beauty is a labour-intensive sector, and around 60% of costs are wages. As I heard from Toby from the Salon Employers Association, salons trade in skill, not goods, and cannot reclaim VAT on their biggest cost, which is people. That pushes legitimate businesses to the brink and rewards those operating in the grey market. Self-employment is a legitimate business choice, but employment tribunal case law demonstrates that it is increasingly being used as a means of avoiding tax and employment laws. Without VAT reform, the British Hair Consortium forecasts that there will be a 93% drop in direct employment in the sector by 2030. That is not a typo; that is an emergency. The long tail of covid and VAT were existing challenges. Rent and utilities increases also created pressure. Let us now add into that mix Labour’s disastrous October Budget, starting with the withdrawal of business rates relief. During covid, Conservatives supported high street businesses with grants and rates relief but, as of April, those have gone. Coal House Cuts in Upminster now faces a rates bill of £2,000, up from zero. The Vanilla Room in Hornchurch saw its rates bill rise from £7,500 to more than £18,000. Those are not minor figures; they are bills that keep people up at night. Let us add in the increase in employer national insurance contributions. There is something pernicious about what the Chancellor has done here. Because of the change to thresholds, the NICs hike is hitting the types of business that employ a large number of lower-paid or part-time workers. For the Utopia beauty salon in Hornchurch that means a rise in employer NICs from £750 to £1,000 a worker. Many of its workers are single mums providing for their families, and it has already had to let go one of its tight-knit team. Because Utopia’s suppliers are facing exactly the same pressures, it is seeing cost increases of 5%, and energy and utility bills have trebled. I am seeing an unmistakable theme in my constituency work: female business owners, with many female employees, are approaching me for the first time. I have been an MP for nearly eight years, and these are the types of people who never get in touch with their MP. To put some numbers on it, over 80% of the workforce in hair and beauty are women; 86% of businesses are female-owned; 40% of the workforce is part time, compared with 25% in the wider economy; almost one in three workers is under 30, so it is a young workforce; and 45% of the sector’s jobs are in areas with the highest levels of unemployment. I want to say something that does not come easily to me because I loathe identity politics: it is hard to ignore the impact, let alone the irony, of a Chancellor celebrating herself for being the first woman to hold that office, while simultaneously hammering sectors that employ, serve and are often led by women.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank every colleague who has spoken so passionately on behalf of their local businesses and the local people who run them. I hope I have done justice to the local business in my patch for the challenges it is facing. I appreciate all those who supported me in preparing for this debate. I thank the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles). She was courageous in admitting that national insurance has become a problem for some of her local businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) raised the importance of hair to the sense of self. I neglected to mention a very important business in my Hornchurch constituency: Bear with the Hair, which helps women who are going through hair loss in relation to cancer treatment. These are the kinds of businesses that are being affected by these challenges. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) raised the important issue of rogue operators. My real fear is that if we drive some of the legitimate operators out of business in the salons that are regulated, we will simply see more of this kind of activity proliferate. My hon. Friend the Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) is always a strong voice on small businesses, and I appreciated his support today. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) luck with her hair and beauty roundtable. She made the point very well that these taxes are fundamentally counterproductive. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) is always very sound on security and economic issues. He raised the important issue of some businesses being fronts for international crime gangs, a concern that I share deeply. Finally, I would like to say that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is beautiful inside and out—and I finish by saying that this measure is against Labour’s fundamental aims.

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is about a series of things hitting these businesses. It is about new legislation, new taxes and the withdrawal of reliefs that had been supporting businesses. I am glad my right hon. Friend intervened, because I was in Hornchurch yesterday speaking to staff at Wyndham Hair. Johnpaul, who runs that business, is one of my right hon. Friend’s constituents, and he told me how supportive my right hon. Friend has been of his local high street, so I appreciate the support he is giving me in the debate. As my right hon. Friend said, this is about a whole range of people sectors. It is not just about salons being hit with these staggering tax bills; it is also about the early years sector. That sector supports many other businesses that require good workers. When I talk to nurseries in my constituency, some of the bills they talk about are just unbelievable. In fact, they are so unbelievable that when I tell people about them, they do not believe it—they think the nurseries must have got their sums wrong, but that is absolutely not true. One after-school and holiday club provider has seen her annual NICs bill go from £10,851 to £26,040. That is a small business, and it is being absolutely hammered. One nursery provider told me that the combined impact of NICs and the minimum wage is adding £30,000 to her payroll costs every month. Those are unbelievable numbers, which risk driving many nurseries to closure. That will dismantle the support network that allows many other women to go into the workplace. The minimum wage is right in principle, but when we force a small salon with razor-thin margins to meet that extra cost on top of everything else, it becomes untenable. When we add to that the looming Employment Rights Bill, many salons are telling staff to go self-employed just to survive. That is not giving people more protections but ripping up the ones they already have. That brings me to apprentices. Salons are letting them go very fast. For decades, this industry has opened doors for young people to learn skills and earn a living, and that ladder is being kicked away. At Coal House Cuts, the owners once proudly trained apprentices; now they cannot afford to. Wyndham Hair used to employ four apprentices; now they have one. The Vanilla Room is getting daily calls from laid-off apprentices, but it too has had to cut learner hours. Its owner, Kerry, told me: “For the first time in 30 years, we just can’t afford to run apprenticeships. Our costs are up £28,000 on apprenticeships a year. How much does the government think salons make?” After I put in for this debate, more stories poured in from across the country. This crisis goes beyond hair and beauty, because I am hearing the same from construction firms—another traditional route for working-class youth. Two vital pathways into work for working-class girls and boys are collapsing. Is this the future that Labour promised—a generation of young people priced out of skilled trades because Westminster could not design a Budget with small businesses in mind? That is surely the very opposite of what this Government say they want, and it is utterly incompatible with their drive to get people off welfare. Because beauty salons are facing so many different costs, they are also cutting back on training, in a sector where customers demand that they are up on the latest technologies. So what will happen? First, there will be job losses and price hikes. One of the challenges for many salons is that their customers face the same economic headwinds, so they are spending less and visiting less often. Then there is the ultimate risk of closures. Every time a salon closes, it leaves more than just an empty unit; it leaves a void in the community—a place of connection, conversation and confidence gone. Speaking to Wyndham Hair yesterday, I heard not only about the services it offers but the support it gave its long-standing clients through covid. Those are the kinds of businesses that these people run. Utopia has clients aged 10 to 97; the 97-year-old goes to the beauty salon because it is her place of sanctuary. When legitimate businesses vanish, they are replaced by shady operations that are often fronts for illegal or exploitative practices. The rest of the high street struggles, apprenticeship routes collapse and tax receipts fall—they will not rise.

• 22 Apr 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T5. Release on temporary licence is denied when people say nasty stuff on Twitter but granted for much more serious crimes. Can the Secretary of State tell me when I can expect a satisfactory reply to an urgent ROTL case that I have already raised with the Prisons Minister and senior civil servants and that affects a grieving family in my constituency?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

• 2 Apr 2025 · School-based Nursery Capital Grants · Hansard source

  More

  On Friday, I met 20 incredible women running nurseries and pre-schools in Havering. They contacted me because they are in utter crisis. Business rates, national insurance and wage bills are all rising, while the Government cap what they are allowed to charge and then do not cover the cost of the free childcare hours being offered. Fees are going up, and nurseries are now at risk of mass closure. The Education Secretary is driving private nurseries to the brink while not providing enough school-based ones to fill the gap, and I am afraid that her talk of hope is absolutely delusional. As a parent with two small children who speaks regularly to the women running those nurseries, watching Labour Back Benchers jeering the shadow Secretary of State for asking questions is absolutely disgusting. What urgent action is the Education Secretary taking to prevent a meltdown in childcare that is going to affect working families across this country?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Due to the funding uncertainty, my Havering constituent has not been able to access sensory therapy for her adopted son from the adoption and special guardianship support fund. She asked me in her utter frustration: “why is this government trying to give my two biological children—raised in a good home—free breakfast while denying therapy for my adopted child, who desperately needs the support?” I very much welcome today’s rushed announcement, but will the Minister provide assurance that resources will be put into processing any backlog in applications so that adopted children do not miss out on critical support?

• 1 Apr 2025 · Sentencing Council Guidelines · Hansard source

  More

  The cherished idea of equal treatment before the law is fundamental to my constituents’ understanding of British justice, so why did the Justice Secretary not act immediately to stop the imposition of two-tier sentencing, rather than the last minute scramble we saw yesterday? In her statement today, she says: “The proportion of ethnic minorities within the judiciary has risen from just 7% 10 years ago to 11% today.” To what extent does she consider that that simply reflects a wider demographic change, rather than discrimination in the judiciary?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Local Government Finances: London · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for securing this vital debate. I requested a debate on this subject myself, so I am glad that one of us got drawn in the ballot. As an outer London MP, I am extremely sympathetic to the compelling case he makes about the disparity between the centre of the city and its outskirts. Residents in Havering pay among the highest council tax in London and in return they rightly expect robust services. They want to see their vulnerable neighbours supported, parks and streets well maintained, and essential services working effectively. However, Havering has been under significant financial pressure for years. The root cause of the issue is an outdated and flawed local government funding formula that does not adequately reflect the changing needs of our borough. Havering’s population has undergone significant changes in the past decade. We have had one of the fastest increases in child numbers in the country, and we have a growing elderly population. Both groups come with complex, multi-layered needs. Those demographic shifts have driven up demand for expensive social care services, but the funding formula still relies on outdated data and fails to reflect those changes, which has left Havering facing growing financial strain. Other London councils have been able to build reserves during this period, largely because they have benefited from the same outdated formula, especially given that covid grants were allocated on that basis. That has created a disparity between inner and outer London: some boroughs have received more than they need, while others such as Havering are struggling. The Department for Education uses a much more up-to-date formula, which is why Havering has received the bulk of London’s capital funding for schools to meet the rising number of children—one part of Government acknowledges the change, yet another is a decade out of date. I have long advocated reform of the local government funding formula to reflect those demographic shifts. The previous Conservative Government initiated a fair funding review to address the imbalances, but the pandemic stalled progress. Much of the groundwork for reform has therefore been done, and I urge the Minister to accelerate the review to bring about the necessary changes. In recent years, Havering council has received some crucial uplifts in social care funding, which have helped it continue to deliver vital services, but the fundamental structural issues in the funding formula remain. Without a long-term solution, the situation will only worsen. To address that, in January I facilitated a meeting between Havering council and the local government Minister, Baroness Taylor. I was grateful for that meeting. As a result, the Government approved further exceptional financial support, which enabled the council to set a budget for the year. That is welcome support, but it is a temporary fix, and a lasting solution is needed. Again, that requires pushing forward with the funding formula review. On top of those ongoing funding issues, the Government have also introduced fresh financial pressures through the Budget. One of the most significant changes is the increase in employer national insurance contributions, which has driven up the cost of social care and other essential services across the borough. Those increases are directly impacting local businesses and services, from pharmacies and GPs to critical childcare providers and high street shops. Just last week, I spoke to several high street businesses: they are facing huge business rate increases, rising parking charges and the impact of the NICs increases. Those increases are pushing customers away from our high streets and threatening the vitality of our local economy. There will obviously be an ongoing knock-on impact on the local government funding issues. The latest local government finance settlement has provided Havering with the smallest increase in spending power since 2021, an increase essentially wiped out by the additional national insurance costs. On top of that, Havering has been excluded from the national £600 million recovery grant; no non-Labour London council, apart from Tower Hamlets, will benefit from that spend in the capital. Looking forward, the council is looking at ways to get the economy growing again locally, but that is not going to deal with the fundamental issue of the funding formula. I ask the Minister to accelerate the review so that our residents can benefit.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Community Hospitals · Hansard source

  More

  The new St George’s NHS hub in Hornchurch has freed up space in Queen’s hospital in Romford to remodel the accident and emergency there. Will the Secretary of State now fund that remodelling, so that our constituents can get better emergency care?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Lady accept that there is a real problem with Labour’s framing of its choices? Labour Members have made out that there is an absolute necessity to get rid of the winter fuel payment, but at the same time they are spending £8 million on GB Energy. They are spending God knows how much on the Chagos islands—they will not tell us—and hundreds of millions on pay rises for train drivers. Does she accept that the pensioners find it rather confusing that there is a complete necessity to cut winter fuel payments, when the Government are splurging cash on all manner of other weird projects?

• 17 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  At a constituency meeting last week, I was told that small businesses are starting to ask employees to go self-employed as they cannot otherwise keep roles open because of forthcoming national insurance contribution rises and extra employment laws. Will the Department watch out for this trend in its data, in case it was not the Government’s intention to make workers less secure with these new taxes and more regulations?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Taxation: Impact on Working People · Hansard source

  More

  Borrowing costs are soaring, the economy is weakening and we need to spend much more on defence. In those circumstances, can people be absolutely confident that to meet her fiscal rules, the Chancellor will not be raising income tax in the course of this Parliament?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Taxation: Impact on Working People · Hansard source

  More

  12. What assessment she has made of the impact of the level of taxation on working people.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report · Hansard source

  More

  The Grenfell fire was an appalling tragedy, but it also threw a blanket of uncertainty over countless residents in many of our constituencies who are trapped in cladded properties. When I hear the Deputy Prime Minister talk about a new regulatory regime and change, I confess I feel very nervous that any changes to the regulatory regime will throw further uncertainty over those who are still trapped in their homes. Can she assure the House that any move she makes will not create further uncertainty about the standards to which buildings need to be remediated? I also highlight the case of my constituents in Harold Wood, who had their buildings assessed by a fire risk assessor who was subsequently struck off. Those people, who thought they were going to be released from that terrible stasis, are now back to not knowing where they stand, so will she please look into those concerns?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Can the Home Secretary tell the House how many of those who have been deported since she came into office had crossed into the UK on a small boat?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Rosebank and Jackdaw Oilfields · Hansard source

  More

  The Rosebank and Jackdaw oil and gas fields could supply 8% of the UK’s gas needs. The Minister has talked about the court cases, but will he clarify why the Prime Minister let the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero take Government lawyers off the defence of this case? If their push for growth is to mean anything, will the Government look again at changing judicial review processes?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There were reports over the weekend of NATO worries that the UK is not contributing enough to the European defensive shield. That leaves us vulnerable to a missile attack. I hear what the Minister has said about the strategic defence review, but what assurance can he provide that he will look at our defence spending commitments with sufficient speed to provide good enough defence for our country?

• 18 Dec 2024 · BBC: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Gentleman agree that this gets to the nub of the challenge? The BBC has a unique social contract with the public. It has the licence fee because people trust it to produce high-quality, impartial, trusted content. That is precisely the reason we have the BBC. If there is a sense from the public that that trust is being lost, that is a fundamental challenge to the BBC’s future. With Russia and China putting ever more money into their own state broadcasters, this represents a much wider challenge than just one for us here in the UK.

• 18 Dec 2024 · BBC: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has talked about her support for mutualisation, but it has never been clear to me what that actually means. Could the Minister give us more details?