Julia Lopez
MP for Hornchurch and Upminster · Conservative · United Kingdom
“JLR is still recovering from a crippling cyber-attack, of course, and the Minister has talked about the headwinds facing all car manufacturers. They include massive barriers erected by China to sell into its domestic market, while Chinese cars are aggressively sold into our own.”
“Will this Government be similarly tough, or will they continue to pretend that British industry is not having its legs cut off by net zero? The Chancellor talked ploddingly this week about reducing the burdens on business, but the truth is that, through regulation and tax, the unemployment Act and the national insurance hike, Labour has m…”
“We are being asked to applaud the Government’s industrial energy scheme, which does not start until next year, fails to address the underlying problem, and will not bring down prices for the whole economy. How will it position us against the competition?”
“I thank the Minister for his statement. In his final Prime Minister’s questions, Keir Starmer spoke emotionally about how he had saved jobs at Jaguar Land Rover.”
“Let’s take the ZEV mandate, which dictates that the manufacture of petrol and diesel cars will be banned in this country in just over three years’ time, and which is seeing our firms being fined right now for customers not buying electric vehicles that they do not want.”
“What will the Minister do to make sure that his colleagues are not jeopardising JLR jobs with dubious diplomacy, and are any trade measures being considered when it comes to China? Britain is de-industrialising before our eyes. In the west midlands and beyond, there will be pain in every postcode.”
The complete record
Every one of 603 lines we hold for Julia Lopez, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 13.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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?”
“What urgent action is the Education Secretary taking to prevent a meltdown in childcare that is going to affect working families across this country?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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 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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“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.”
“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?”
“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?”
“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?”
“My right hon. Friend will recognise, as I do, that one big challenge in relation to the BBC is that many of those who are most opposed to its further commercialisation are the other public service broadcasters, who worry about disruption to their own revenue streams, particularly in relation to advertising. That is why it is tricky to come up with an alternative to the licence fee.”
“Does the hon. Lady agree that the BBC’s unique currency is trust, and that one of the challenges in recent years is that people have lost faith in the BBC as an organisation that produces impartial news? One challenge that I saw in the last Parliament was that the BBC was reducing local and regional journalism, even while protecting some very large salaries for its biggest stars. That is one of the reasons why people are losing faith that the BBC is investing in journalism in the way that it should and in the way that people expect from a public service broadcaster.”
“Would the hon. Gentleman accept that, whether or not he is a supporter of the licence fee, fewer people are choosing to pay it, so we have a problem that needs to be dealt with, regardless of one’s view on the licence fee and its future?”
“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.”
“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?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that some excellent work on the issue of data and immigration has been done by our hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien), who has been a cheerleader for getting the kind of information that would help us inform public policy? As he is talking about social housing, does he share my concerns that the Labour Government seem to be moving away from some of the provisions we put in place to prioritise British people for housing?”
“Many debates have taken place over the years, and the response is often that the industry is already heavily regulated and that the regulations are adequate. I therefore ask on Alan’s behalf, and on behalf of everybody whose constituents are affected by this: is now the time to look at the issue much more deeply, so that future tragedies, like that which affected Josephine, do not happen?”
“First, fireworks can currently be used from 7 am to 11 pm, 365 days a year; would a 4 pm to 10 pm window be more acceptable? Secondly, the safe distance from F2 fireworks is 8 metres, and the safe distance from F3 fireworks is 25 metres; given that the vast majority of UK gardens do not meet that minimum size, is it safe to use them in private gardens? Thirdly, fireworks can be bought easily on the high street—it was an impulse that resulted in Josephine’s death—so do regulations around high street sale need to change? Fourthly, even when fireworks are set off legally at organised displays, organisers often do not take into account the surroundings, so should there be safe buffer zones around such displays?”
“The debate around the use of fireworks creates a great deal of division, but despite the tragedy Alan can still see both sides of the argument. He says: “Arguing and insulting each other is not the way to a sensible and mutually agreeable solution to the problem.” He asks for “a sensible, respectful debate, so those that wish to enjoy fireworks on the few important days of the year can do so. And in turn, those who have pets, PTSD, mental health issues etc only have to manage their situation on a handful of dates a year.” The fireworks used to take Josephine’s life were bought on a whim on a local high street. Alan asks whether a more robust licence requirement might have prevented her death. The Minister has kindly agreed to meet me and Alan in the new year. Before then, I want to ask some brief questions on Alan’s behalf.”
“As Alan says: “The two youths were stupid, irresponsible thugs who had not had the best of childhoods and were not even thinking when they caused havoc in our lives that night.” In contrast, the retailer “was a grown man with years of experience in selling fireworks, yet still decided to sell them to a minor who had stated his intentions to ‘terrorise’.” Fireworks4Sale, the shop involved, was fined in the region of £17,000. The seller himself was fined £1,200 and received a six-week sentence, which was suspended for 12 months. The actions of the shop that night made Alan question whether the laws and regulations for the sale of fireworks are robust enough. That brings me here today to debate the petition that Alan started, from his grief and desire not to see future tragedies like that which led to the loss of his beautiful mother.”
“The conversation from the two youths included the following: “People are going to get terrorised tonight,” and “We are going to throw them at the police.” The person manning the shop goes on to say, “You can hold them, throw them, do what you like with them.” Alan’s entire family were distraught. Two stupid boys had been sold fireworks by a man apparently with years of experience in selling them, and full knowledge of the boys’ intentions. Both those young people are now serving custodial sentences. A further trial had to take place for the shop owner and sales assistant.”
“Around 9 o’clock, he was woken by his wife, Lisa, with the words he still hears every day: “Al, your mum’s house is on fire.” When he rushed to Josephine’s home, he recalls, he saw emergency services outside the building, and then saw his mother’s body being brought, lifeless, in a fireman’s arms. The scene, he says, was like a horror movie. A fire officer later came over to say that they found a firework just inside the door. Early the next morning, the family were told that arrests had been made: an 18-year-old and 15-year-old had deliberately put a firework through Josephine’s door. They were later charged with arson and manslaughter. During the trial at the Old Bailey, CCTV of the night in question was shown. It showed teenagers laughing and joking with the salesperson. I have seen the CCTV with Alan, and it is very worrying.”
“Each year his dad, Derek, would go to the shop to buy a little display box, a pack of sparklers and maybe a pack of rockets, as happens in many families; Josephine would make the jacket potatoes; their two ponies were put in their stables and the cattle put in another field; and the dog would go into the house, with the radio on. When raising his own family, Alan always had a fireworks display in the garden, or they attended a local organised display. His experience was like that of countless of our constituents. However, on 28 October 2021, those happy memories and traditions were upended.”
“Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley has said, Alan is the son of my constituent, Josephine Smith. She was a beautiful 88-year-old lady from Harold Wood, who lost her life in a house fire after a lit firework was stuffed through her letterbox in October 2021. Alan is in the Gallery today and I am very grateful to him for his courage in highlighting an issue that has caused him and his family such pain and trauma. Alan recently came to Parliament to speak to me, and I know that he has also spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley. He described the role that Guy Fawkes night always played in his happy family when he was growing up; it was one of the few times in the year when everybody got together.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for bringing this issue to Westminster Hall. As we have already heard, fireworks can be a very polarising subject. Like many other Members, in the run-up to this debate I have had countless emails from animal lovers in my constituency who want to see certain fireworks banned, and noise limits and other restrictions introduced. However, I have also had briefings from fireworks fans and lovers of our bonfire night traditions who worry about moves to change the law. Someone who has always understood both sides of that debate is Alan Smith and it is on Alan’s behalf that I speak today. As my hon.”
“Nurseries and the small businesses that provide before and after-school clubs are being whacked by national insurance increases, and there is little clarity from the Government about how these breakfast clubs will work, which has the potential to undermine another part of their business model. What representations has the Education Secretary made to the Chancellor to deal with the massive hole that she has blown in her plans?”
“The Chancellor’s Budget has created a right mess. No matter how regularly the Prime Minister bleats that he is fixing the foundations, it is a mess of Labour’s own making, date stamped 30 October 2024. The OBR has forensically dismantled the Government’s pathetic fallacy of a £22 billion black hole, but even if it had not, my constituents are not stupid. If the Chancellor was as worried by the state of the public finances as she said she was, why would she increase borrowing by £32 billion annually, undermining our financial resilience? Why would she make the choice to splurge cash on union pay rises with no productivity commitments? Why would she make a series of decisions that would lead the OBR to downgrade its growth forecasts since our April Budget?”
“Because of the NICs hike and the lowering of the threshold, its bill is going to rise from £10,851 to £26,040 annually. The last thing it wants to do is to lose staff or hike fees for local families, but it cannot see a way around that. Another example is an outdoor activities business that gives young people across London the most amazing opportunities. Its costs next year are going to increase by £70,000 as a direct result of the Budget, and it now worries that it will not be able to fund the young people’s bursary that is providing over 1,300 disadvantaged kids in the region with outdoor experiences. A third is a home care business that looks after older people in Havering. Its branch in Hornchurch faces paying an extra £100,000 a year, making it loss-making from April. That is absolutely crazy.”
“The Education Secretary has had to raise tuition fees by £400 million because universities are telling her that they now have a hole in their budgets of exactly the same size. It goes on. I want to talk about the pain that this policy is causing to my constituents, particularly the lowering of the NI threshold, which is whacking the kind of businesses that employ a lot of young lower-wage workers, parents getting back into the workplace and people who are picking up extra jobs to make ends meet. Let me give some examples. The first is a local after-school club provider employing 34 people and offering wraparound clubs that help out hundreds of Havering families. It is the kind of club that makes that work/family juggle survivable.”
“As we know, a big chunk of that £40 billion is coming from the sneaky rise in employer national insurance—something the Government obscured from their plans in July—but let us start with the pain that the Chancellor’s choice on NI is causing her own Cabinet colleagues. She has blown holes in the budgets of every major Government Department. The Health Secretary now has problems with GPs, pharmacies, social care and hospices. The Deputy Prime Minister has councils telling her that they have to find over £1 billion extra to pay providers for their services. The Culture Secretary has charities, tourism businesses and cultural venues telling her that they have major problems.”
“I worry deeply that their good money is going to be poured into the public sector and benefits without any noticeable improvement in public services, and that when that happens, the Chancellor is going to come back for more. The incentive for anyone in this country to be entrepreneurial, to stick their neck out, to take the risk of employing people or to build true wealth for this nation will diminish. We will then find ourselves in a downward spiral, ever more unable to withstand external shocks and ever less appealing as a country in which our young people will want to stay to create, to innovate and to build.”
“I was interested by the train drivers’ pay deal, where the Government actually went back to the deal that we had made and undid the productivity commitments that we put in. Why would the Chancellor front-load spending on the NHS before the Health Secretary even has a plan for how he will use that precious cash, therefore risking billions being wasted? It makes no sense, and everyone outside this place and all those inside it, apart from the Labour Members who are gleefully wafting their Order Papers around, can see that. The Chancellor is asking for an extra £40 billion in taxes from the British people, and it is largely being taken from some of the most productive, entrepreneurial people in the country: the people who provide jobs and who do the right thing.”