Commons Sense

House of Commons · Ministers' Questions

Unemployment Levels

Monday 8 December 2025 · 4 questions

Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.

Read the full transcript on Parliament.uk

At a glance

Answered 0 Partly answered 4 Not answered 0

Key points

  • Harriet Cross inquired about the last meeting between the DWP team and the oil and gas sector regarding redundancies and unemployment.
  • Peter Fortune mentioned Bill Perera, who runs nine McDonald's restaurants and employs nearly 800 people, mainly young individuals.
  • Sonia Kumar welcomed the Government's 820 million investment for young people's employment and questioned if the funding would prioritize areas with the highest need.

Topics (select to filter)

Questions & Answers

Q1 Harriet Cross Con Gordon and Buchan
Economy Employment Energy
Context

The oil and gas sector is experiencing significant redundancies and unemployment.

Question

As I am sure the Minister and the rest of the Front-Bench team know, we are seeing huge redundancies and mass unemployment within the oil and gas sector increasing every week. When did any of the Front-Bench DWP team last meet the oil and gas sector to discuss that?

Answer from Diana Johnson (Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions)

The hon. Lady might not know this, but I joined the team in September, so I will have to find out. I am happy to write to her about when the last meeting in that area took place.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Specific date and context of previous meetings were not provided

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q2 Peter Fortune Con Bromley and Biggin Hill
Economy Employment
Context

A McDonald's franchise owner is finding it increasingly difficult to hire young people due to increased national insurance contributions.

Question

I recently heard from Bill Perera, who runs a franchise of McDonald’s in my constituency of Bromley and Biggin Hill. He runs nine restaurants and employs nearly 800 people, 70% of whom are aged 16 to 24. He wants to increase this pathway and opportunity into employment for young people, but he is finding it increasingly difficult, because of the increased national insurance contributions. Does the Minister agree that one way to reduce unemployment would be to reverse this disastrous policy?

Answer from Diana Johnson (Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions)

The hon. Gentleman will know that, for under-21s, there are no national insurance contributions that are payable by an employer. I fully recognise that McDonald’s provides good-quality work for young people and is often their entry into the workplace. I am keen to work alongside employers. That is why we are looking at the jobs and careers service and how best we can engage with employers to ensure that they have a pipeline of young people who are ready to work and can get into those jobs, which is what the gentleman at McDonald’s to whom the hon. Gentleman has just referred is looking for.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not address reversing increased national insurance contributions directly

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q3 Sonia Kumar Lab Dudley
Employment
Context

The Government has invested £820 million to help young people into work, but Dudley has the highest proportion of school leavers not in education, employment or training.

Question

I welcome the Government’s £820 million investment to help young people into work. In Dudley, one in five school leavers—the highest proportion in the country—are not in education, employment or training. Will the Minister guarantee that this funding prioritises areas with the greatest need, including Dudley? Will she commit to visiting my constituency?

Answer from Diana Johnson (Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions)

I welcome my hon. Friend’s question. The growth in the number of NEETs over time is absolutely a matter of inequality. The previous Government failed to tackle this issue and the numbers went up and up. This Government are going to do something, because it is about opportunity for young people and our economic future. We cannot have nearly a million young people not in education, employment or training.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not provide guarantees on prioritising areas with high NEETs or committing to visits

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email
Q4 Helen Whately Con Faversham and Mid Kent
Economy Taxation Employment
Context

UKHospitality reports that 100,000 people will lose their jobs due to the Budget, on top of 150,000 already lost since Labour came to power.

Question

Businesses are cutting jobs at the fastest rate since the pandemic and unemployment has gone up every month under this Government. The number of jobcentre work coaches has actually fallen since they took over. No doubt the Minister will proudly tell us that they have just announced millions of pounds of spending on Government-created jobs for young people, but may I ask her to reflect for a moment? After hiking taxes on businesses so that they cannot afford to employ young people, the Government are spending a load of that tax on state-subsidised jobs for the same young people. Some are calling this the economics of the madhouse, but I simply call it Labour economics. Does the Minister not agree that the Government should get out of the way and reduce the burden on businesses so that they can create jobs, opportunities and economic growth?

Answer from Diana Johnson (Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions)

Of course we want employers and businesses to create jobs, but let me reiterate—as I am not sure that the shadow Secretary of State heard my earlier answer—that for the under-21s, no national insurance contributions are payable by an employer. Let me also refer her to my first answer and repeat that more than 329,000 more people are in work this year.

Partly answered

Not addressed: Did not address reducing taxes on businesses directly

Was this summary accurate? Tell us

How accurate was this summary? (1 = poor, 5 = spot on)

Get updates like this by email