What Britain's parties say and do in public, recorded from the source.
Every entry links to Hansard, Parliament, the Electoral Commission or the party's own channel. Every party is tracked by the same rules. Methodology
Labour Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Conservative and Unionist Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Liberal Democrats
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Reform UK
Latest entry 6 Nov 2026
Scottish National Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Green Party
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
Plaid Cymru
Latest entry 4 Nov 2026
12,832 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
My constituency covers city and rural areas, and the villages I represent have the greatest problem with getting regular deliveries, and elderly constituents there who cannot rely on email are really struggling. Villages like Tean, Swynnerton, Oulton and Fulford must get the support they need, and it is interesting that you are experiencing the same issues in Staffordshire.
I rise to present this petition for a pedestrian crossing across the A34 at Tittensor village. Tittensor residents have been campaigning for a crossing for over 30 years, led by the indefatigable Josie Windsor. The A34 dual carriageway cuts directly through the village, separating bus stops that take people to school, doctors’ appointments and the shops. My constituents cannot safely cross from one side to the other due to heavy and speeding traffic. Sadly, an elderly gentleman was knocked over recently. Staffordshire county council’s own assessment confirms that pedestrians experience delays waiting for safe gaps to cross. Indeed, the council has finally agreed to the crossing in principle but, as yet, has not allocated funds. This petition, signed by over 100 constituents, requests “that the House of Commons urge the Government to compel Staffordshire county council to deliver a crossing” to improve pedestrian safety. My constituents cannot be left waiting for another 30 years to see their crossing delivered. Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent South in Staffordshire, Declares that a crossing should be added on the A34 in Tittensor to improve road safety and pedestrian access to services and public transport. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to compel Staffordshire County Council to deliver a crossing in Tittensor. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003249]
I represent the neighbouring constituency, and of course I have to mention ceramics. Since 2018, employment in traditional ceramics has fallen by 37% in Staffordshire. Advanced and traditional ceramics companies need skilled workers, but local employers are struggling to attract new talent. Stoke-on-Trent college has proposed a national ceramics and advanced materials technical college, which would create a national centre for technical education offering apprenticeships, industry placements and workforce development in traditional and advanced ceramics. Will my hon. Friend join me in recognising the value of the proposal in boosting local ceramics employment by providing the specialist skills required and creating clear pathways from education to high-value careers?
West Dunbartonshire has one of the worst backlogs for civil service pension cases in the country. Although taskforce meetings help me keep constituents informed, the delays remain unacceptable. On top of that, I have found that many pension quotes are incorrect, requiring manual recalculation by Capita, whose revisions team is overwhelmed. My constituents are waiting too long for quotes that are often undervalued, or omit service years, or use incorrect pay rates. Is the Minister aware of these particular issues, and what steps will the Government take to address them?
Figures announced last week confirmed that young apprenticeships have fallen by a third since 2016. We need greater regional control over skills and training. Decisions should be shaped by the people who best understand the industries in order to plug the defence skills gap and take advantage of defence shipbuilding investment. Does my hon. Friend agree that a successful example of this is the applied shipbuilding training academy—a £12 million facility at BAE Systems in Scotstoun, Glasgow, which has offered apprenticeship opportunities to many young people in my West Dunbartonshire constituency?
Ealing Southall is unique, as two thirds of our rough sleepers have overstayed their visas. Many would go home voluntarily but are often stopped at the airport because the police national computer says that there is a pending case against them, when in fact it has been closed. Will the Minister look at how the police national computer can be updated more regularly so that these people can leave a life on the streets in Southall and go home with dignity?
I thank the Minister for her statement, and for the £874 million investment into ending rough sleeping. I particularly welcome this Government giving local leaders the power to make decisions that work best for their own areas. Given the very different character of rough sleeping in Ealing Southall, where the vast majority have no recourse to public funds, will she work with Ealing council and Hope for Southall Street Homeless, based at St Anselm’s church, to give them the funding and powers they need, so that the very unique circumstances for rough sleepers in Ealing Southall can be addressed?
MPs’ safety is paramount. After my speech in the Black History Month debate on Thursday, a shadow Minister posted a racially charged tweet online that has resulted in more abuse against me. Do Ministers accept that MPs are bound by the code of practice, and, at the very least, that they should not be racist online?
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I need some clarification. After I posted my Black History Month speech last week, I received thousands of abusive messages. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), posted: “If you want to tax my constituents more to fund random handouts to your mates overseas then yes, that is ‘stolen wealth’—their money is not yours, they have done nothing wrong, and you can do one.” That resulted in a racist pile-on, and I am troubled and concerned by the phrase “your mates overseas”. What exactly does the Member mean? I am deeply concerned by this. It is not about the reparations debate—I can handle people disagreeing with that—but “The Code of Conduct” states that Members are required to “treat others with respect.” I have emailed the Member to ask for an explanation, but none was given. Mr Speaker, could you advise me on how I can obtain an explanation for what was meant?
In Stoke-on-Trent, whether it is Kidsgrove or Tunstall, residents tell me that they are fed up with being terrorised by off-road bikes that tear through our parks and our streets. Will the Minister please reassure me that Staffordshire police will have the neighbourhood officers, the funding and the powers available to them to deal with those who are making life a misery for others?
Having worked for our local YMCA in Stoke-on-Trent for nearly two decades before entering this place, this issue is personal to me, so I warmly welcome the statement. I was also so pleased to attend the homelessness summit at No. 10 earlier today. At that summit, the Prime Minister rightly talked about seeing people—getting to know their names—and not treating them as numbers and statistics. This is about giving people what we all need in life: it is about love, hope and dignity. We have heard today about the important role played by the voluntary sector. Does the Minister agree that voluntary and community sector partners are absolutely critical to getting this right, as they are they are rooted in the communities they serve? Can I offer her a visit to meet some of our fantastic organisations up in Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove?
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), and many other hon. Members across the House, for their work on this matter. My constituents in Southend West and Leigh, like those of so many other hon. Members, have been rightfully disappointed in the service provided by Royal Mail. I concur with much of what I have heard. Southend was the original pilot area for the optimised delivery model, so we have been experiencing these issues locally for well over a year. It was deeply concerning that the clear indications that the ODM was not working in Southend did not prevent it from being rolled out nationwide. It is increasingly frustrating for my constituents, who feel that they are not getting the service they are paying for. For many people, the poor service has been not just inconvenient but disastrous, and we have heard many stories tonight about how it has been replicated across the country. NHS letters are not the only urgent post not being delivered. One constituent lost a job opportunity when a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate failed to arrive in time and another man, who was terminally ill, experienced unacceptable delays in receiving the paperwork he had requested to arrange his own funeral. I heard many such stories at a public meeting I held back in April, which gave residents the chance to put their concerns directly to Royal Mail’s regional management. Improvement was promised at the meeting, but guess what? It never came. In July, I held a consultation, which received 122 responses in just a couple of days. I am sorry to say that the feedback was overwhelmingly negative. Of those 122, 102 said that they were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the postal service. Only one person considered the current standard of service acceptable. Throughout this time, I have regularly met the CWU—the union that represents postal workers—and heard from it that postal workers in my constituency have been overworked, under immense pressure and unhappy with the standard of service they have been able to provide. They are equally unhappy at the massive variations between the old and new contracts, but I do not have time to talk about that. I was heartened to hear—a bit of positivity—that after a visit in August, having requested my fourth visit to the depot, Southend sorting office, in partnership with CWU reps, was ready to trial a new system that would rebalance the round loads and help reinforce the local link between the postie and their area in an amendment to DM26 that is about to be rolled out. Posties are much more efficient when they know the layout of their rounds, so it is clearly not rocket science to have them on a dedicated round. The trial took place in Leigh-on-Sea in my constituency. A month later, I was glad to visit the sorting office again and see the racks empty—but this time the CWU assured me that things had worked well and that, in that particular round, they were back in control. As of 19 October, the new system has been rolled out across our whole sorting office area. I will be keeping a watching brief, but it is showing real positive signs. I hope that those at Royal Mail will look at the success of the local pilot and roll it out across the rest of the country. If it is working, why would they not?
I share those concerns. We have heard from Members across the House tonight that many people feel that Royal Mail is putting the service into a managed decline. We have to fight against that. The service is vital across the country, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that we do not lose it. Royal Mail has let people down for far too long, and it needs to work at speed to get things back on track. It was great to see the Government’s announcement in September about cracking down on bogus self-employment. That is rightly a priority for the CWU. Delivery companies undercutting Royal Mail’s prices by mislabelling staff as self-employed to avoid statutory obligations—shifting costs on to workers so that nothing is covered—is unacceptable. Those companies do not cover sick pay, employer national insurance contributions, holidays or even the petrol used for deliveries. We do not want to see Royal Mail dragged down to that level. Our Government want everyone to enjoy security in their employment.
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point. The CWU, too, is deeply concerned about the differences in contracts, and it is working with Royal Mail towards contract harmonisation. Royal Mail has shown some desire to move towards that, but, like many others, I am concerned about the speed with which that will happen—and whether it will happen at all. Royal Mail faces challenges on several levels. Through better employment practices, a more efficient delivery model and, most importantly, listening to their posties, the unions and residents, I am hopeful that for the first time in a while, there is a possible route to improvement in Southend. I thank Ministers, past and present, for working with me and other Members across the House on the issue and for the continued focus on holding Royal Mail to account. I will continue to work on this issue as hard as I can to ensure that my residents are getting the service that they are paying for and, to speak frankly, the service that is absolutely essential to so many.
Before I start, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the Communication Workers Union. It is over a decade since the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats oversaw the privatisation of Royal Mail, and it is clear to residents in Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages and—if this busy Chamber is anything to go by—to people across the country that the transition was grossly mishandled. Those parties failed to plan for Royal Mail’s long-term future in a market that was already showing signs of dramatic change. Now we see the results: late delivery after late delivery, leading to countless missed hospital appointments, GP appointments, court hearings, credit card bills—the list is almost endless. The post remains an essential public service, and we need to secure its future. I am proud that Labour MPs up and down the country are leading on this, and I could thank countless Members for their hard work, I am especially grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), with whom I have been working closely to co-ordinate a campaign in Parliament. I am sure that I speak for all Labour Members when I say that we understand the serious and complex challenges facing Royal Mail, but too often the response we get from the company when we raise concerns, and by extension its response to our constituents, is nothing short of dismissive. When we tell Royal Mail that yet another resident has missed cancer treatment or received a threatening message from a debt collector for an undelivered bill, we are too often told that there simply is no problem. Just today, I have had an email from Royal Mail assuring me that everything will be fine in time for Christmas, despite the fact that it has not met its delivery obligations at the Lichfield office at any point in the last five months. It beggars belief.
I have experienced that at first hand as well. I went to one of the arranged visits to my local distribution office, with various people from the Royal Mail comms department there. By the time I got back to my office, I had had three emails from posties at that delivery office saying that every single postal worker went out that day with two routes on their back, just to ensure that the mail was out of the way and I did not see it. It is a real problem that Royal Mail does not want to grasp this.
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the value that posties have in our communities not just in delivering post, but more widely. We saw it over covid where the only person a lot of vulnerable residents would see in a week would be their postie. She makes an important point about their importance to our communities. Returning to Royal Mail’s inability to grasp the nettle and to the fact that it sends us emails saying, “Everything’s fine,” “Don’t worry,” and “Nothing to see here,” that is tantamount to telling every single MP it has sent that communication to that our constituents are lying. Royal Mail needs to change its approach radically and rapidly.
I will make some progress. Royal Mail needs to own the true scale of the problem and the genuinely felt anger—that is essential. I look forward to discussing this with the Royal Mail CEO when he meets Labour MPs in Parliament next month. Labour Members do not want to stand up in this Chamber and attack Royal Mail, and we are certainly not attacking postal workers. We recognise the scale of the challenge facing the industry. The number of letters sent in the UK has halved since the company was privatised, while the number of parcels has risen dramatically, fuelled in many cases by the growth in online shopping. Virtually all the parcel companies competing with Royal Mail, and oftentimes using its network, use a bogus self-employment model for their workers. That means Royal Mail is competing in a market where it has a fundamental disadvantage, and we should not want to encourage the model that these parcel companies are using—it is bad for workers, consumers and the taxpayer. Too many parcel companies pay a pittance for an unmanageable workload, exhausting drivers who cannot provide a quality service to customers as they race to complete rounds that are frankly impossible, and the public purse is ripped off in the process. While Royal Mail pays £650 million a year in national insurance contributions, many of these companies do not pay a penny. The Government are now consulting on upgrading the rights of these parcel delivery drivers, and it is a start, but we need to go further. We need true parity between Royal Mail and its competitors, a level playing field where every company pays a fair price if it chooses to use the Royal Mail network. We need Royal Mail to take a long-term view of its workforce. New entrants get far worse terms, and that is fuelling a retention crisis with a staggering 400 posties leaving the company every week. It may help pinch a few pennies now, but if Royal Mail cannot keep its hard-working staff, the business is destined to fail. I am sorry to say that we need to look again at the delivery model. Royal Mail is currently rolling out DM26, as it calls it, but our posties tell us the process is already chaotic, the workload is unmanageable and it is not a long-term solution. We need to heed the recommendation of the Business and Trade Committee to look at giving Ofcom stronger powers to regulate Royal Mail. It concerns me that the regulator has no solution beyond more fines for Royal Mail, which are clearly not working. We need to build on the Government’s “golden share” in Royal Mail and think about an ownership model for the future, with the voices of customers and workers right at its heart.
The hon. Member makes an important point. As we have heard from many Members today, it is not the posties; it is the system that they are being asked to work in. We need to do a number of things; there is no single answer that will solve this. We need a suite of different responses that lead to a proper outcome. We need to think about bringing Royal Mail and the Post Office back together and look creatively at opportunities for profit, such as Post Office banking hubs. We need to look at the pay and bonuses of Royal Mail’s senior leadership. We are already doing that with the water companies; I do not see why it would be inappropriate in this case. When a private company delivers a public service, it must be held to the highest standards. Just like with those water companies, we cannot see bosses’ pay balloon while workers struggle and customers are let down. I am not arrogant enough to stand here and say that I have all the answers. These ideas are all born out of consultation with organisations across the sector, and that is why it is so important that we get all the parties around the table to share those ideas so we can turn them into action. Two weeks ago, the Communication Workers Union wrote to the Secretary of State calling on him to hold an emergency summit to discuss Royal Mail’s future. I am glad to hear that the meeting will go ahead, and I ask the Minister that my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Corby and East Northamptonshire and I are included in those discussions. Back-Bench MPs and our constituents must have a voice in them. Royal Mail was founded over 500 years ago. It is a great British icon and an essential public service. We cannot and must not be the generation of politicians who allow it to fail.
I am not quite a constituency neighbour, but it is always great to see a fellow Staffordshire MP in this place. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking organisations such as AKG, which operates in my constituency? It is a private company, but it provides services to those who have been out of work for a long time through the restart scheme and the connect to work scheme, both funded by the Government, which are very much designed to provide people with the employment support they need so they can get back into work—doing the real work, not just trying to solve this problem by soundbite. Will he join me in thanking AKG for helping people find those opportunities?
The Minister is right to raise the importance of ceramics to our industries. In my part of the world, it is sanitaryware and Armitage Shanks, and we know the Stokies are all about flatware—it is a huge part of the economy. Will the Minister urge colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to get the funding for the ceramics rescue package out of the door faster than currently planned? We need that rescue package in the hands of companies, not sitting in a bank account in Whitehall.
I thank the Minister and the Secretary of State and congratulate them on securing additional funding for this important initiative—not least because, on the basis of the submission from the shadow Minister, the Conservative party thinks that we should not be doing anything at all. I am pleased to see this Labour Government doing the right thing. We have seen street homelessness increase in our constituencies over the years, not just in the areas where we might normally expect to see it, such as in Bristol city centre, but in vans, on the downs and in the church gardens in Shirehampton in Bristol North West. The prevalence of street homelessness has increased to unacceptable levels. Will the Minister tell us how the Department will decide how to split the pot of money it has received from the Treasury between different councils and communities across the country to ensure it gets directly to the people who need it most this winter?
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and others for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to speak in it, but I am disappointed we are having to discuss this topic yet again, because we have been here before: the owners of Royal Mail prioritising profits over the public service requirements of the business they bought; the regulator seemingly unable to do anything at all about it; and postal workers once again being treated so badly when they are the ones who go out on the frontline day in, day out. The question we therefore need to answer is: why? During my time as Chair of the Business and Trade Committee in the previous Parliament, I spent days and days of parliamentary time cross-examining Royal Mail bosses, the then Government and the regulator. I sought to give a voice to postal workers who, more often than not, felt voiceless in the workplace, and I was proud to support the efforts of the Communication Workers Union to give its members more strength in the power games that were being played between management and the workforce, but quite frankly, what good did that do? The then chief executive was asked to move on, albeit with a handsome exit payment, a new owner has taken over the business, and the regulator conducted its reviews, issued its fines and changed the universal service obligation, yet we find ourselves here in Parliament discussing the issue once again. The only conclusion I can draw is that the business model is not fit for purpose. We should not be shy in coming forward to say that the privatisation of the Royal Mail and its separation from the Post Office was a mistake. The coalition Government got that wrong, and I hope that this Labour Government will put that right. As far as I can see, there are only two real options. The first is to facilitate the end of the public service provided by the Royal Mail, and to let the current owners turn it into a truly profitable business. We should not be surprised that the new owners of Royal Mail want to make the business profitable, and to focus on its profit-making services—that is the business they are in. However, the problem with privatisation of a public service is that profit making comes first. So it falls to us, as the guardians of public services in this country, to decide whether we will protect the public service functions of the Royal Mail or not. Some might say the issue is not that binary. No doubt regulation of the parcels market to ensure fairer competition would go a long way to help, and the Government should ask the Competition and Markets Authority to conduct a market investigation into parcel deliveries irrespective of what happens next to the Royal Mail. However, the House should be clear-eyed about what it will mean if we continue with the privatised model. It will, in the end, be the end of the universal service obligation as we know it. That is important because, as we have already heard, the universal service obligation is not just about delivering letters: it is about having a human connection with the people of this country, at every doorstep of every house, in every community, across the width and breadth of the nation. The covid pandemic showed why the network of postal workers matters so much, and I believe that will become more, not less, important in the future. To those making an economic case about the drop in letter deliveries being the end of the universal service obligation, let me say this: think carefully about the end of this public service, because once it is gone, it will not come back. That takes me to the second option. If Ministers agree with me that privatisation of the Royal Mail was a failure, the only other real option is to renationalise it. The House may be surprised to hear me, of all people, say that—I am not a natural fan of the Government borrowing yet more money to nationalise businesses that can be effectively run by the private sector. However, it has been proven that the Royal Mail is an example of a business that cannot be run effectively by the private sector, and an example of a business that I believe the Government can renationalise fairly easily within its fiscal rules. When the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), updated the fiscal rules in 2024, the debt definition became public sector net financial liabilities, or “persnuffle” among friends. That allowed the Government to borrow money to invest in assets while maintaining the debt rule target that Government debt should fall in the long term as a share of GDP. In practice, that allows the Government to use so-called financial transactions to pay for equity or debt financing of publicly owned assets. That could be done with the Royal Mail, and it would fall outside the fiscal rules. That merely leaves the question of how to raise the money to do so. I am very conscious that our national debt has risen to above £3 trillion, and that the cost of that debt is expensive to the taxpayer, costing over £100 billion a year in interest payments alone, but I think there is a way through that Ministers should consider. When the current owners of Royal Mail, International Distribution Services, bought the Royal Mail in 2025, the deal was valued at £3.6 billion. We should therefore use that number for the purposes of today’s debate. In the spending review that I conducted in 2025, we allocated £23.8 billion for financial transactions alone between 2025-26 and 2029-30, and we are told to expect the Chancellor to increase that budget further this week. However, financial transactions can only be used by Departments to finance deals where there is a suitable public financial institution—or “puFins”—and where the Office for National Statistics agrees that it is a genuine financial transaction, not an attempt to redesign normal Government spending so that it falls outside the fiscal rules. We have several well-established puFins, from the National Wealth Fund to the British Business Bank, which I am sure will spend their budgets well. The Government have also committed to establishing several new ones, some of which have yet to be fully established. In short, it is quite hard to spend the financial transactions capital budget and I therefore assume, with some confidence, that there will be underspends that could be reprioritised. Finally, if that is not convincing enough, I am certain that there will be public interest in a more mutual form of ownership of the Royal Mail and, I would hope, its reintegration with the Post Office. A public share offering and a special scheme for Royal Mail employees could be a nice way to do that, with the Government merely underwriting the risk, while funds are raised by the public in the years it would take to undertake the action. Having looked at this issue for so many years, I believe that this is the only solution to protecting the Royal Mail and its future.
I refer my hon. Friend to my previous comments about how the market needs to be better regulated, whether we own the Royal Mail or someone else does. That is why that work should be undertaken while a debate on ownership may continue with Government. I believe that the end goal that we all want to see, that our constituents want to see and that the Government have the capacity and the ability to enable is a Royal Mail that is back in public hands, reintegrated with the Post Office network. That would be a tangible example of change in every postcode. I put that option on the table today for the Government to consider. I hope that Ministers will come to the same conclusion that I have and get on with doing the right thing.
Let me give my hon. Friend an absolute assurance on how seriously we take those matters. The defending democracy taskforce provides the fulcrum point for us to respond to those threats across Government, and I know my hon. Friend will have heard and welcomed the protective security review that the Home Secretary announced a week ago.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to the Communication Workers Union. The anger about Royal Mail’s failure to deliver a reliable service for our constituents is palpable across this House and across our communities. My constituents in Weston-super-Mare, Worle and the villages are not just inconvenienced by these failures. Some are suffering genuine harm by not getting vital information when needed. From the outset—this has been mentioned by many colleagues across the House—I want to be very clear that my concerns are not with postal workers and those keeping our postal depots going. Posties are facing incredibly demanding working conditions, as well as hostility directed at them by some members of the public. The abuse and targeting of our posties is utterly unacceptable and must stop. My local posties tell me that physical and verbal abuse continues to increase. No wonder so many of them are leaving the job. As the CWU identified earlier this month, 400 posties are leaving every week. Our posties and Royal Mail workers deserve proper support, staffing levels and working conditions to deliver the service people expect. Royal Mail is far more than a parcel delivery service, and it must not be stripped any further of its community value and its unique place in our national story. Physical post is still a lifeline to many thousands in my constituency who do not or cannot manage essential services online. Many invitations to my own surgeries are being delivered to residents so late that the events have passed, even though we have posted them at least a month in advance such is the reputation of Royal Mail. Much of the casework I receive relates to older and disabled people being left at an intolerable disadvantage by a service they should be able to trust. We must answer the question: why are we allowing a service so fundamental to our communities and our public life to deteriorate while customers are left paying the price? I cannot help feeling that Royal Mail’s owners know the cost of everything, but ignore the value of what they put at such risk.
Absolutely, I agree. The splintering of public services in this way is something we really need to take account of in this House. It is a sad statement that can be applied to the state of too much of our public common wealth that has been carved up and sold off to private interests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards) mentioned earlier, I want to remind the House and the Government of the recommendations made by our Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee, specifically that the Government and Ofcom must act decisively if Royal Mail fails to make meaningful improvements within the six-month deadline we set. The current evidence gives serious cause for concern. I worry that carefully crafted and presented statistics, as well as polished corporate jargon, make it easy to present a story to decision makers that bears little relation to the lived experience of workers and customers. I am frustrated that our regulatory system has not evolved to deal with the level of corporate gaslighting that seems to run roughshod over worker and customer interests. This is about what we value as a society, what we trust and the basic functioning of the state. With Christmas just around the corner, families and businesses need reassurance that their post will arrive when it matters. Longer term, Royal Mail must stop making excuses, do right by their workers, and deliver the service that our constituents—its customers—deserve.
12. What steps her Department is taking to support the provision of local policing.
In recent years shoplifting has become an increasing issue for many of the high streets in my constituency, and our shop workers are having to deal with increasingly frightening and dangerous situations. In the light of that, we look forward to seeing meaningful progress towards the Government’s ambitious targets for the expansion of neighbourhood policing. What practical steps are the Government taking to boost local police numbers and neighbourhood policing in the Bristol area?
I welcome this statement and the commitment of the Prime Minister and the Government. I note that in the Minister’s statement, she talked about the commitment being to offer everyone sleeping rough a route off the streets this Christmas. We know that during covid, some people were offered accommodation who were so used to living on the streets that they were not able to take it; in Hackney, the excellent lead on homelessness took a really pragmatic approach to dealing with that issue in the short term. Does the Minister have any idea of the percentage of people who will be affected by that issue and how they will get wraparound support if they refuse to take accommodation?
I congratulate the Committee on this innovative work, as I would expect from the right hon. Lady as Chair, leading that team. What work has she done with the Migration Advisory Committee? It is an important committee that examines jobs that sometimes do not have names yet—certainly, that was an issue in Shoreditch, the tech part of my constituency, a number of years ago. We move from sheepshearers to high-end chefs: my constituency is the hub of some of the best international cuisine and attracts people from around the world. However, one emerging issue is that it is difficult to get chefs in through immigration rules, even if they have studied in universities in Japan, for example, and worked in high-end restaurants around the world. Will the right hon. Lady consider the work of the Migration Advisory Committee and how it can keep up with those trends?
As my hon. Friend highlights, there has been long been a skills deficit in this area. Does the Committee plan to revisit this work to hold the Government to account on the promises made? Over the years, we have heard promises from Governments about apprenticeships, but if we have a stop-start approach we do not get that long-term investment in skills that the defence industry so desperately needs.
Even if my right hon. Friend’s suggestion were to come to fruition, there would still be ongoing running costs. We know there is huge competition in this sector, so how would he propose to deal with that? Is he proposing an ongoing subsidy?
NHS letters have come up a lot, and we are letting Royal Mail off the hook if we say that it is okay to prioritise them. That is a workaround for a failed service, and many other letters are important but, for various reasons, will not be branded. Benefits letters, for example, are often anonymous, and sometimes even health letters can be private. Does the hon. Lady have anything to say about that?
I could list all the issues that my constituents have raised about this issue, but we would be here all night. I concur with a lot of other Members, and I will give some examples. We have a shortage of posties, so I am doing what I can to encourage young people to join the postal service, but clearly I am not going to solve that problem on my own. When I met Royal Mail’s leadership, they said to me, “Don’t worry—in one week, you’ll get a Monday, Wednesday and Friday delivery, and the next week it’s a Tuesday and Thursday delivery,” as though that is somehow okay. That is how the system operates in theory, but a constituent applied for a 60+ oyster card that took so long to arrive that they had to buy a monthly pass, costing over £200, while they were waiting. One constituent received divorce papers weeks late, and five constituents reported not receiving their postal vote for a recent by-election. Exactly as colleagues have said, people are just not bothering to vote because the postal vote is so inefficient. As a canvasser, I panic when I ask someone whether they have voted and they have not posted it yet. If there is only a week to go, I get worried about them putting it in the post. I will start explaining how to go to the polling station to deliver it, and I will see immediately that they lose interest, even if they were going to be around on election day. One constituent nearly lost her home because of delays with their pension administrator sending information backwards and forwards. Letters were not received, and she experienced many delays in getting her pension in place. I will give a couple of local examples. In Hackney Wick, post was delivered on 23 June, 27 June, 1 July and 9 July, and then nothing until mid-August. In Dalston in my constituency, one resident did not receive any post for three months, and another road had no post for eight days. I could go on with such examples.
My hon. Friend saves me from having to repeat exactly the same point. We can all name roads in our constituencies that are not getting post, yet apparently it is being delivered in the wider area. There is one way we can all get our post. Guess what? If someone has a parcel delivered, their post will be delivered the same day, so it is more cost effective for some of us to get small, cheap things delivered and then suddenly receive our mail. There is a bigger issue: the competitiveness of Royal Mail. Since the new owners took over, they have clearly been chasing the competitive parcel delivery market. We understand that how that would interact with Royal Mail was always going to be a challenge, but they seem to have completely junked the letter service. Other providers, some of which have been named, will send parcels. We can even email them our content, and they can mail merge it and put it in an envelope. Of course, in the end the Royal Mail delivers the last part, but we can do that at a discounted postal rate. The leadership at Royal Mail, which has a universal service obligation and the responsibility for delivering letters during the last stage of the journey, are not thinking ahead of the curve about how they could compete with the companies that are undercutting them. That seems utterly ridiculous. I turn to the postal staff, because I have a number of constituents who are reluctant to raise their concerns. They want to raise them with me, but they say that they do not want to make a complaint because they like their postie. Who does not trust their postal worker? It is one of the most trusted professions. David Beckham, members of the royal family—although perhaps they do not get their mail delivered directly to their door—and top celebrities all trust our postal workers to deliver our post, and I have no doubt in my mind about their trustworthiness. This is a group of people who take huge pride in their jobs, and as we heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), very often postal workers can tell us what the solutions are. Over the years I have interacted with Royal Mail, mostly in London for the past 25 years or so. Often the solution is described locally but not delivered by the central office. The new ownership are degrading our letter service, and if we are not careful, we will go down the path of the Danish service. We cannot lose this service. There is a big challenge for the Minister. It is easy to talk about nationalisation, but that costs money. It could be that the leadership want to run themselves down so much that the Government step in, but we should not let Royal Mail off the hook. We need solutions, and we need them now.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Murrison. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for opening this important debate and setting out so clearly the questions he wants answered. I want to begin by acknowledging the strength of feeling behind the petition. More than 100,000 people have signed it and a large number of right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber have made very powerful speeches. I will reflect on the issues raised; I will try to address as many of the points in my contribution this afternoon, but if I do not answer every question, I will reflect on them and I will certainly write to the shadow Minister. There is a very real desire for us to do more to diagnose prostate cancer effectively, treat it earlier and ultimately save more lives. I am grateful to Members from across the House who have spoken so openly about their own experiences and those of their constituents, friends and families. I too am thinking of all those individuals facing a prostate cancer diagnosis and undergoing treatment at this time, and I was very pleased to hear that our former colleague, Gary Streeter, is doing well. I am sure that the whole House sends him our best wishes. As we have heard, prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men in the United Kingdom. Around 68,000 men are diagnosed in the UK each year, and although survival rates are high, tragically, around 12,000 men still die from prostate cancer every year. Every one of those deaths is a loss to their family, friends and community. The Government are determined to improve outcomes for men with prostate cancer. The UK National Screening Committee advises all four nations. Scottish officials are present at committee meetings and officials in the Department of Health and Social Care work with their counterparts across the devolved Governments to share information and good practice. In June, we announced England’s first targeted prostate cancer screening programme. From 2027, eligible men aged 45 to 61 with a BRCA2 gene variant and a family history of prostate, breast, pancreatic or ovarian cancer will be offered a PSA test every two years. We are working with the UK Cancer Genetics Group to identify further men who will be eligible for screening. That is an important step forward, but I recognise that for many it does not go far enough. The petition asks the Government to go further than the UK National Screening Committee’s recommendation and introduce screening for all men at higher risk. I understand that ambition and I share the determination behind it, but we have a responsibility to ensure that the evidence tells us that, when we introduce screening, it will do more good than harm. That balance is particularly difficult with prostate cancer, as we have heard from some of the medically qualified Members. Unlike many other cancers, prostate cancer is often slow growing, and many men who develop it will never experience symptoms or come to any harm from it. At the same time, treatment can have profound consequences. More than half of those treated experience significant side effects, including bladder leakage, bowel incontinence and erectile dysfunction. When we talk about the harms of screening and overtreatment, we are not talking about something abstract; we are talking about potentially lasting consequences affecting a man’s health, dignity and quality of life.
I am going to make some progress, because I am keen to address the points that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk raised. If I have time at the end, I will take an intervention. I want to turn to the issue of ethnic minority men. I have listened very carefully to the concerns about men at higher risk who are not included in the initial screening programme, particularly black men and men with a family history of cancer. We know that black men are twice as likely as white men to be diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that disparity rightly worries us all. What we do not yet know is whether screening black men would identify more aggressive cancers that need treatment, rather than slower growing cancers that may never cause harm. If screening leads to men being diagnosed and treated for cancers that would never have harmed them, we risk causing significant and lasting harm, and that cannot be right. We should not accept the gaps in the evidence that prevent us from giving men the answers that they deserve. That is why the Government are investing and building on the Transform trial introduced by the previous Government by investing £34 million to identify better ways to screen for prostate cancer and enable all eligible black men to be invited to participate at stage 2. Prostate Cancer UK is working with charities and organisations experienced in working with black communities to encourage participation. That matters because we need stronger evidence built with the men most affected to inform future decisions about screening. Family history is another important part of this picture. We know that it can increase a man’s risk, but the evidence does not yet tell us precisely which patterns of family history confer the greatest risk. Work is under way to refine the definition of family history and ensure that it is properly reflected in the UK National Screening Committee’s model. I totally accept that men need support now, which is why Cancer Research UK, the UK Cancer Genetics Group and the Royal College of General Practitioners are bringing together expertise to develop guidance to support GPs when advising men about familial risk.
I will carry on because I want to make these points. The important point is that the evidence and clinical practice are evolving, and our approach must be able to evolve with them. That is why the Government are funding the prostate cancer screening model used by the UK National Screening Committee for a further three years. Work is already under way on family history, risk algorithms and biomarkers, including Stockholm3, and significant evidence from Transform can be considered as it emerges. The initial programme is therefore not the end of the process. Where robust new evidence supports screening additional high-risk groups, that evidence can be considered and screening recommendations revisited.
I will carry on because I am conscious of time and I want to make these points. I want to address directly the concern about the evidence underpinning the current screening recommendation. The committee considered the current NHS standard of care, which includes the use of MRI before biopsy. It did not include newer and innovative approaches for which the evidence is not yet sufficiently established. There are enormously encouraging advances taking place, including more targeted approaches, such as focal therapy. Better diagnosis and less harmful treatments could change the balance between the benefits and harms of screening, and as robust evidence develops, it will be considered. I also want to deal with the point about GPs. I have heard the strength of feeling about PSA testing for men who are not eligible for the new screening programme. I want to reassure men that the policy has not changed. Any man who is concerned about prostate cancer, including a man without symptoms, can discuss PSA testing with his GP. Separate from the decision on national screening programmes, it is my view and the Secretary of State’s view that men who ask their GP or urologist about a PSA test should be able to make an informed choice, based on good-quality information, about the likelihood of being helped or being harmed. The Secretary of State worked on this issue as a Health Minister at the Department almost 25 years ago, and personally ensured that the guidance includes references to the importance of informed choice.