Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Julia Lopez]

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.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I know it is not the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, but does she share my concern at the detailed exposés at the end of March in the Evening Standard and The Sunday Times about the huge proliferation of barber shops, which could not possibly all be conducting legitimate trade? For example, the Evening Standard talked about 17 barbers in and around a two-mile stretch of Streatham High Road, and about 25 on a similarly sized section of Kingsland Road between Stoke Newington and Haggerston. That is clearly criminal activity on a major scale.

[Julia Lopez]

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.

British Steel

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

My hon. Friend is right to say that we produce only about 30% of the steel we use in this country, and we must be much more ambitious about increasing that figure. He is also right to raise questions about carbon leakage and safeguards. The CBAM is being introduced in 2027. We are working through what happens in the interim period, how it works and how it interacts with the European CBAM—some changes are being made to what will be implemented. This work is obviously being led by the Treasury, but we are working really closely with the Treasury to ensure that the CBAM works in a way that protects the steel industry.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On the day that Parliament was recalled, I gather that the workers themselves had to confront Chinese executives who were intent on coming on to the site. They believe that those executives intended to take unilateral action to shut down the blast furnace irrecoverably. Is that correct? What does that tell us about the motivation and behaviour of China when it gets its hands on our strategic industries?

[Sarah Jones]

I need to be clear on this point, because I know that there has been lots of speculation. We are not aware of any deliberate acts of sabotage. There was an issue with people coming on site who did not gain access. No Jingye officials are on site at the moment. We are talking to Jingye in a respectful way about what happens next. That said, it was the case that we had been negotiating in good faith, and we felt that that good faith had ended in the way in which Jingye was not securing the raw materials that we were really clear it needed to secure, so there was a breakdown there. The position on Jingye is a position about it as a company; it is not a position about our wider view of China. Because we have hundreds of thousands of jobs that are dependent on trade with China and because it is our fourth-largest trading partner, our position remains that we need to be mindful of that, but we also need to be mindful of security, and we always will be. There will always be a very specific and deliberate account of the security implications of any investors in the UK.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I agree with the hon. Member’s premise that we need to ensure that we have steel production in the UK, although there is some nuance around some of this. High-quality steel is being made, as we speak, for defence purposes by electric arc furnaces. That is perfectly possible; we melt scrap and add about 20% of primary steel. For some things, depending on what we are making—I know too much about the steel industry now—we do not need any primary steel. We are conducting a review of primary steel, which will be finished shortly. Again, neither Tata nor British Steel is a critical supplier to defence programmes at the moment, but we need that steel production, as I said before, so that we can build whatever we might need in the future. Of course, we will work cross-party; if that is his offer, it is very gladly taken.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Minister should not waste the opportunity of a lifetime in the parties of the right urging a party of the left to nationalise a British industry. One organisation that has been utterly consistent in all this is the GMB union: it wrote to the previous Government’s Defence Secretary saying that a business Minister had failed to answer clearly whether virgin steel was essential for defence. Today’s Minister seems to suggest that it might not be, but we must have a quantity of virgin steel, even if we add other things to it, to embark on the process of making essential defence products. Seize the opportunity: keep the blast furnaces, and if necessary, nationalise them for good.

[Sarah Jones]

If we get into conversations about different types of steel, it is like the Facebook update “It’s complicated”, right? It is complicated. For some things, we absolutely need primary steel; and for some things, we do not. That is why we are carrying out a fundamental review of steelmaking and the need for it here in the UK. Those results will come out soon. The right hon. Member is right that the GMB has been an advocate for this, as have Community and Unite. We talk to them regularly about British Steel. I have not failed to notice the slightly odd position that we find ourselves in today. I repeat that we are looking at all options. The House will understand that we are talking about large amounts of taxpayers’ money, which we have to spend in the right way, in a sensible way, and in a way that will get us what we need. That is what we are looking at, and it is what we will do.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe I am correct in saying that he is not only a metrologist, but the first metrologist elected to Parliament. I put no heavy expectations on his speech today, but we are all looking forward to it with interest.

My hon. Friend is right that there are areas where we will choose to work with international standards, and there will be areas where we choose to diverge, but that decision is made possible only by having the powers to begin with. No decisions will be made in this Bill, if it becomes an Act of Parliament, as to how we will do that; however, without it, we would not have the toolkit to make those decisions. The essence of these proposed laws is that we are taking back control for the House of Commons and Parliament to make these kinds of decisions.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware from the Second Reading debate in the Lords that a number of what I shall gently refer to as Eurosceptic peers have expressed concerns that the Bill is a form of dynamic alignment with the European Union, and that, far from taking back control over which standards are involved and which guidelines are necessary, we will be abdicating control in favour of whatever the European Union decides. Can he set our minds at rest over those concerns? I am sure he would not wish to be diverted along such a dead-end route.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention; he always brings wisdom to these debates. I can absolutely give him the assurance that the Bill makes no decision as to how we should use these powers. The reason we are bringing it forward today is the same reason the previous Conservative Government first proposed a Bill of this kind: having left the European Union, we need the powers to properly regulate these products in this way; without this legislation, we would not necessarily have the ability to do that.

Employment Rights Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Greg Smith]

For the avoidance of all doubt and in all transparency, I declare all my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for all to look at. They are all there for anybody to see.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

This argument about opting in and opting out of trade union levies goes back to at least the 1970s—probably beyond—when I remember arguing about it as an undergraduate. If there are to be levies that people have to opt out of, a defensible case can be made for them provided that the process of opting out is easy and advertised to every member. Does my hon. Friend know whether the Government propose to institute mechanisms to make it known to every member how easily they can opt out?

[Greg Smith]

My right hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. If we look at the detail of this Bill, it is very clear and obvious that the Government are trying to make it as difficult as possible for people to opt out of the trade union political fund. That is the very point of them changing this legislation.

Post Office Redress and Funding

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend. I recognise that post offices are a fundamental part of every one of our communities in the UK. That is one of the reasons why the Government have been clear that we adhere to and support the commitment on various access requirements to ensure that every community has good access to post office facilities. On directly managed branches, she will know that no decision on the future of all those branches, or indeed any individual branch, has been taken. I recognise that she has particular concerns about the branch in Kennington, and I am happy to meet her to discuss that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I am glad that the Minister chose to reference the excellent work done on behalf of the postmasters by Lord Beamish, who is better known to many of us as our former colleague Kevan Jones. I hope that the whole House will join me in congratulating him on his appointment today as the new Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee—an appointment, by the way, by his fellow Committee members, which is exactly as it should be done.

May I gently ask the Minister—this may go slightly outwith his Department’s responsibilities—whether there is any news or progress about the question of prosecutions for criminal conspiracy? That is something I have raised before. That is one thing that might act as a deterrent to this sort of terrible behaviour by a gilded, self-selecting class of people who think that their institutional importance is greater than truth or justice.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am certainly happy to echo the right hon. Member’s congratulations to the noble Lord Beamish and to emphasise again my appreciation for his work on championing the concerns of those who are victims of the Capture software. He is one of those whom we will continue to work with going forward as we put together redress and think about these issues more generally.

Specifically on prosecutions, the right hon. Member may be aware that the Metropolitan police has confirmed that it has established a unit and is looking at a number of issues to do with how the Post Office operated. He will understand that, quite rightly, Ministers are not involved in those decisions, but the information that I have set out is publicly available. We will obviously all have to wait to see what happens in that regard.

UK Supply Chains: Uyghur Forced Labour

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Since 2022, the US has been operating an import ban targeting goods from Xinjiang under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The Act sets out a rebuttable presumption that goods made in Xinjiang or produced by certain listed entities use forced labour. It is right to recognise that the State Department bears the significant cost implications of that. We as a Government certainly view import controls as one of the range of tools that could be used to tackle forced labour in global supply chains, and that is why we continue to engage with like-minded partners—Governments and businesses—to figure out exactly what is the most effective response.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Is not the root of the problem

the fact that successive British Governments, from David Cameron’s onwards, have been willing to cuddle and cosy up to a communist totalitarian state, while trying to preserve some pretence of distancing themselves from direct human rights abuses? In reality, is it not the case that as long as we try to have major economic relations with a totalitarian state, it will always be possible for that state to divert the slave labour products to its domestic economy and export the other products to us? So that action is really only a fig leaf, isn’t it?

[Mr Alexander]

The right hon. Gentleman brings many years of experience to the bilateral relationship between the United Kingdom and China, and he will find no disagreement on this side of the House when he calls out the disastrous foreign policy mistakes of the former Member for Witney. We seem to have ended up with the worst of both worlds in relation to China. First, there was a credulous naivety during the so-called golden era, when the then Chancellor and Prime Minister did not recognise the appropriate national interests of the United Kingdom. This was followed by a period when the United Kingdom, almost uniquely, seemed to be in the deep freeze. The last time a Prime Minister of this country met President Xi Jinping was, I understand, under the former Member for Maidenhead. Our approach was neither clear-eyed nor capable of communicating influence; nor did it allow us to raise human rights issues in the way that we wanted to.

The responsible course for a British Government is to recognise the complexity of the bilateral relationship, and the fact that there are significant trade dependencies and geopolitical challenges. The right and responsible course is the approach that has been taken since 4 July. The Prime Minister had a meeting with Xi Jinping a couple of weeks back, but clearly said that engagement will be pragmatic, and based on a clear-eyed sense of where Britain’s national interest lies. Alas, we have not seen that clarity or that steady stewarding of the British national interest over the past 14 years, but I am relieved that, through the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, we have brought a different dimension to the relationship in the last five months.

Stellantis Luton

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

My hon. Friend makes some very good points about the fact that while nearly every major market has policies of this kind, ours operates in a different way from how the French, for example, proceeded with theirs. I agree that the major failing of the former Prime Minister’s speech was to keep this policy in place, but change the destination—that makes no coherent sense whatsoever. Logically, he should have done one or the other; doing both undermines confidence while still not providing the pragmatic flexibilities we are talking about today. The specific points that my hon. Friend has mentioned will all be part of the consultation that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will lead on.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I assure the Secretary of State that I would have put the question I am about to ask to a Conservative Minister equally. If all British car manufacturers came together and told the Government that they could not possibly meet this 2030 goal, would the Government nevertheless persevere in maintaining it as an immovable target?

UK Trade Performance

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kemi Badenoch]

We have been doing a lot in Northern Ireland to increase investment and make up for any shortfall, whether through our trade deals or otherwise. The Windsor framework, for example, is one thing that the Prime Minister has worked on to iron out some of those issues. We are looking at where Northern Ireland can exploit the benefits of being part of both the EU single market and the UK single market, which is a unique position. We know that there are some areas in which things are not exactly the same as in GB, but we can look individually in specific trade deals at what we can do. In services, for example, that should not be an issue; we really see the difference in goods. We can do a lot more and we continue to work on that.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that, if we cast our minds back to the time of covid, when we were spending hundreds of billions of pounds just to keep the country functioning, none of us could have imagined sets of statistics as positive as those that she has given us? May I re-emphasise a point that has already been made in slightly different terms? There appear to be eight times as many people sitting on the Conservative Front Bench as there are on the entirety of the Labour Back Benches. Does she take that as a vote of confidence in the Government’s positive message?

[Kemi Badenoch]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is clear that Labour does not like good news. As soon as there is any, Labour Members exit the Chamber unless they absolutely have to be here. It is disgraceful that there is not a single Back-Bench Labour Member, other than the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), is blushing because she knows that it is true. That is one reason why it is important for us not to assume that people see these statistics. If we do not talk about them, nobody else will. Enough people out there—certainly on the Labour Benches—will tell us how terrible everything is, but we need to remind people about the good that is happening.

Financial Risk Checks for Gambling

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend does not even need to talk about products that are that addictive. As one of my constituents has pointed out, no one checks on him if he spends £150 on a dinner for two people. Would he accept that, even if the principle is conceded that there should be some checks, the level at which this has been set is far too low?

[Philip Davies]

I very much agree with my right hon. Friend, as I happily do on most things. Of course people spend more than they should on all those other things, but the Government are snobbishly only treating punters as some kind of pariah, which I do not appreciate.

In Parliament, we should stand up for people’s freedoms. I was not elected to Parliament to stop everyone else doing all the things I do not happen to like myself, but some Members seem to think their job is to do nothing other than that. It is unacceptable that the Government, the Gambling Commission and the bookmakers will basically, between them, decide how much each individual punter can afford to spend on their betting, and the punter gets virtually no say whatsoever. It is completely outrageous. The Conservative party used to believe in individual freedom and individual responsibility, and some of us still do.

If we asked how much responsibility each group should take for determining how much somebody can afford to spend on betting, I doubt anyone would say that the individual concerned should have 0% responsibility, but that is the route down which we are in danger of going. It is absurd to think that bookmakers and regulators should be able to decide how much each individual person in the country should be allowed to spend on betting. When people open an online betting account or the next time they log in, perhaps they should be forced to enter how much they want to limit their spend over a fixed period. The responsibility for ensuring that they do not go over that should rest with the bookmaker, but not the decision as to how much they can afford in the first place.