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
The hon. Member has laid out a couple of options on the table. What does she make of the assessment that no regulator will solve the problem and the service has to be brought back into public control? Is that something she would consider?
I thank my hon. Friend for the passionate speech he is making. I have heard similar issues from my constituents about delays from Royal Mail. One elderly lady, who is 96 years old, has been waiting for three weeks to get a replacement PIN from her bank. These are stories of real people across the country who are being let down by Royal Mail. Does he agree that its representatives need to come to Parliament and answer questions from MPs?
I have met many men and their families in Basingstoke who have been affected by prostate cancer. Although many of them welcome the targeted screening programme, we need reassurance from the Government. As more evidence comes to light from the fantastic Transform programme, does my hon. Friend agree that the Government should commit to expanding it as the evidence allows?
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on securing the debate and on their valiant campaigning in this area. Since my election, constituents across Basingstoke and the villages I represent have contacted me with stories similar to those we have heard from many hon. Members—stories in which residents, businesses and public services have been affected. One constituent reported no letter deliveries to their road for over two weeks and items not delivered, including, as many others have said, a hospital appointment letter and a credit card. Another constituent reported that some Basingstoke postcodes were experiencing gaps of between 11 days and some weeks between deliveries. Another constituent informed us that they had only received two deliveries in a month, with first-class items taking up to two weeks to arrive. They also raised concerns about Royal Mail’s complaints handling, which we have now raised with Ofcom’s as the regulatory oversight body, alongside those concerns about local delivery delays. As many other Members have said, this is not a trivial issue. Earlier today, I received an email from a constituent in Oakley, a village that I represent. In his words, “Residents in the village are not receiving their post in a timely manner—not receiving doctor’s appointments, HMRC tax details, documents from the DVLA about road tax, bank and credit card statements. This is a total disgrace.” I know that Members across the House agree. Indeed, he highlighted the fact that he recently purchased a new car but had to wait over 10 days because the document he needed was sat in the sorting office. As many other Members have said, this situation is not the fault of our posties locally or across the country, who work exceptionally hard to get mail out to residents. They see themselves, rightly, as an important public service, and they—more than anyone—want Royal Mail to succeed. It is clear that what constituents in Basingstoke are experiencing is not a mere local blip, but part of a consistent national pattern that includes missed targets on first-class and second-class deliveries, and an estimated 220 million letters delivered late every year, according to Ofcom, which has fined Royal Mail £5.6 million for its performance in 2022-23, £10.5 million for 2023-24 and £21 million for 2024-25—successive years of failure. In June, Ofcom opened a fourth consecutive investigation, this time into performance during 2025-26.
Indeed, I was going to say that I would like to see the Government press Ofcom and Royal Mail to deliver much more granular data on delivery targets. That is really important, because the national performance —woeful as it is—does not represent the even worse performance that we are seeing locally. Indeed, Royal Mail has been set lower targets nationally, but it is not even meeting them. And behind these figures and statistics are the streets and lanes, like those in my constituency, where the post simply does not come. Members across this House recognise this; it is a cross-party concern about a service that the whole country depends on. The Communication Workers Union has highlighted this over and again: persistent delivery failures; a growing recruitment and retention crisis; and an unevenly regulated postal market which threatens the future of the universal service that we have heard so many Members speak about so passionately tonight. Royal Mail has told all of us, I think, that it recognises the problem and is committed and is making promises for change but, frankly, all of us in this House and my constituents have heard these promises before. The test of any plan will not be what it says on paper; it will be whether hospital letters start to arrive before appointments. I welcome the Government’s clear stance in response. Ministers have told Royal Mail’s leadership that its service has been unacceptable for too long and the pace of improvement must increase. The public deserve a reliable postal service and are right to expect better, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to keep holding Royal Mail to account. I hope the Minister will continue applying that pressure. In particular, I hope she will consider whether Ofcom is currently really up to the job of regulating Royal Mail and look closely at how Royal Mail handles complaints. As many Members have said this evening, our constituents find the way in which it deals with those complaints totally inadequate. The Government must also press for greater transparency on local performance, as we have just discussed, and look seriously at the recommendations of the Business and Trade Committee’s May 2026 report on the regulation of postal services and the proposals, as other Members have mentioned, from the CWU, including on a level playing field for the sector, a new regulatory framework and building on the Government’s golden share. Royal Mail remains a vital national institution providing an essential universal service. We all have a stake in ensuring it succeeds, not least my constituents in Basingstoke, who have every right to expect better.
The shadow Minister points to the figures since 2024-25 and refers specifically to the last 18 months, but Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million in 2023 and nearly double that amount in 2024. Does he not recognise that the Conservative Government failed to grip this issue?
T7. Between 2023 and 2025, we saw an 82% drop in net migration. This week, the Chancellor will lay out his Budget and there will be lots of chatter about headroom, tax take and fiscal rules. Given that Government estimates show that the entire 2022-23 skilled worker visa cohort will make a net positive lifetime contribution of approximately £47 billion, what assessment has the Home Secretary made of the economic impact on tax take and other measures of the reduction in net migration and the proposed changes to legal migration policy?
I have taken up 11 constituency cases about the civil service pension this year alone, and only three have been resolved. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s strong statement, because my constituents are fed up of being told by Capita that things are improving when they are simply not. The most heartbreaking case is that of a gentleman I started helping at the beginning of the year, who has since died. His widow is now having to fight Capita, and I am doing everything I can to fight alongside her—I am sure she will be glad to know that the Minister is with her too. What can the Minister say to give my constituents confidence that the situation will finally improve?
I beg to move, That the Committee has considered the Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026 (S.I., 2026, No. 1075). The order was laid before the House on 12 October. Colleagues will know that on Monday 5 October 2026, BT Group plc announced that it had acquired TalkTalk Telecom Group out of administration. As has been widely reported, TalkTalk had been seeking a buyer for its consumer and wholesale businesses for some time, but no deal was reached. TalkTalk has been responsible for, among other things, running telecare services to vulnerable customers. This created potential risk to life, in addition to potentially serious disruption to the continuity and stability of our telecommunications supply, with impacts on livelihoods, the wider economy and national security. That is why, following the announcement that BT and TalkTalk were to merge, I intervened to ensure that the Government act proactively to prevent any sudden disruption to these vital broadband and phone services, affecting millions of people. On 5 October, I issued a public interest intervention notice under the Enterprise Act 2002. This begins a process in which the Competition and Markets Authority investigates the sale and reports back to me on the effects of that sale on competition. I can then weigh up those considerations against other considerations, specified in the public interest intervention notice, before deciding whether the merger must be considered further or can proceed. The considerations that I specified in the public interest intervention notice of 5 October were, first, the need to maintain in the United Kingdom the capability to combat and to mitigate the effects of public health emergencies and, secondly, the need to maintain in the United Kingdom continuity of the supply of telecommunications services, for the purposes of preventing disruption to the economy and society of the United Kingdom, including, in particular, disruption to public services, critical national infrastructure and supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable. The first of those, relating to public health emergencies, is already specified in section 58 of the 2002 Act, whereas the second, relating to the need to maintain continuity of the supply of telecommunications services, is a new consideration, which I believe ought to be specified in the Act. If Parliament agrees, this will allow me to consider, alongside the effect on competition, the impact on society and the economy of widespread or significant prolonged disruption to connectivity. I believe it is right to consider the potential for disruption that would affect businesses, work and Government services and result in significant difficulties across the country. I also believe that Government must be able to fully consider the impact on vulnerable people, such as those who rely on telecare services, people with disabilities and health conditions, older people and people dependent on communication services to access emergency assistance. I believe that our legislative framework should reflect the importance of telecommunications in society and allow us to guard against the serious consequences that widespread disruption of this kind could have. In this age above all, the resilience of the public services that we all rely on, on which lives, livelihoods and critical national infrastructure depend, must be taken seriously by Governments across the world, and we intend to live up to that responsibility. The Competition and Markets Authority has now reported to me with an assessment of competition considerations and a summary of representations received on public interest considerations. In the coming days, I will consider its report alongside wider evidence on the public interest considerations, and on the basis of that evidence I will then decide whether to refer the case for a more detailed investigation on competition or public interest grounds, or both, or to clear the transaction without further investigation. The Government are committed to promoting competition in the broadband market as a route to protecting customers and driving investment. However, we also believe it is right to ensure that we have the ability to protect the public by stepping in in circumstances in which we believe it is necessary to prevent disruption to vital public services. By taking seriously our responsibility to safeguard the infrastructure that we depend on to keep us connected, we are enabling people to live their lives and keep working, and protecting our families, our communities and our country. I commend the order to the Committee.
I will try in the short time available to give comprehensive answers to those questions, but I will of course make myself available to all Members of the House to discuss this matter in further detail should they wish to do so. First, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk, asked whether the order gives me grounds to overrule the Competition and Markets Authority. It gives me additional considerations that I can take into account when I weigh up the competition issues that may be raised by the Competition and Markets Authority against other public interest considerations. I already have grounds, should I require them, to overrule competition concerns in the public interest, but it is my belief that the considerations that I am allowed to look at are too narrow for this case and potentially for many others in the future. The shadow Minister asked whether this outcome has been predetermined. I want to say to the Committee that it absolutely has not. Not only does the law preclude me from doing that, but, as was set out very well by the Chair of the Select Committee—I know the view will be shared by those on the Opposition Front Bench—there are of course risks of this deal unravelling, but there are also risks of harming the competitiveness of the sector where that competition has helped to drive down bills, protect consumers and drive investment into the industry, and helped protect the resilience of the industry. This is a genuine attempt to make sure that the Government can consider all these considerations in the round and come to a conclusion that is in the interests of the public as a whole. The shadow Minister asked whether we have interrogated to the fullest extent whether existing powers could be used. We absolutely have. The relevant Minister and I, and a specialist team in the Department, have looked at every different power available to us. What we found, having—a bit like the Chair of the Select Committee—had responsibility for this area for only a matter of weeks, was a great big gaping hole in the legislation. The order will not fill it in its entirety, but it will enable us at least to come to a good judgment, whatever that judgment may be, about what is in the public interest when it comes to this particular deal and deals like it. The shadow Minister asked whether we have considered introducing a supplier of last resort, and the hon. Member for Gosport asked a very similar question about whether we would consider new legislation where a provider fails and a new buyer cannot be found. There is nothing that we can find in existing legislation that allows the Government to intervene or to facilitate an intervention in that instance. I believe that is a problem. It is something that I am sure the Select Committee will want to look at, but I would be very happy to discuss it with the shadow Minister and the shadow Secretary of State as well. Telecoms is increasingly important to the way that we live, our national security, our energy infrastructure, and people’s lives and livelihoods. I think we do need a new approach to regulation in this area, not to be overburdensome and certainly not to harm competitiveness, but to make sure that we have the resilience that we need in a critical industry. The shadow Minister asked about the speed of the process, and whether the CMA had sufficient opportunity to consider the matter. I recognise that the speed with which we are doing this is not the way that we would normally seek to legislate. Those across the House who know me will know that I like to give Parliament time to fully consider what we are proposing, and there have been a number of instances when we have changed our approach as a consequence of the views of Members of both Houses, who have pointed out both technical deficiencies and policy issues with some of our original proposals. However, we did discuss this with the CMA. Obviously, it was acutely aware that the timing was very tight, but it felt that the time we gave it was manageable in order to give us a preliminary view that would enable me to proceed to the next stage and make a decision about whether further investigation was warranted. I intend to respond as quickly as possible; I would not have brought the order to the House with the urgency that I have done if I did not believe that we also need to act with urgency. I have to make the right decision, I have to balance all those considerations, and I have to fully consider the impact on the competitiveness of a market that is underpinned by decent competition. I cannot act with haste, but I can act with as much speed as is possible. The Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport, asked why the existing legislation is deficient. Put simply, it is because in this case there was only one ground on which we could intervene: the public health emergency provisions. That may cover the existing telecare customers, but we do not believe that it would cover customers who are vulnerable and rely on being connected in order to access emergency services outside of that system. In any case, it would not cover the 1.5 million customers, many of whose livelihoods depend on this, or the critical national infrastructure that I talked about. The hon. Lady asked about the overall financial resilience of the sector. I am concerned about the fragility of the sector. Although we have a telecoms industry in this country to be proud of, and we have, over successive Governments, managed to drive investment into it, to retain competitiveness and to keep bills for consumers lower than in many comparable countries, I do think it warrants a fresh look from us all, collectively, as a House, at whether we have the resilience in the sector that we need. On whether we will consider setting out a framework for how this measure is used, I think that framework already exists. I would be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Lady, but I think the framework is already quite tightly defined by the process in the Enterprise Act under which I am required to operate. What are too tightly defined, in my view, are the considerations that a Government can take into account, which would have precluded me from taking into account a number of key areas of public interest and public benefit in this case. The hon. Lady asked what evidence I would need to see in order to intervene further. There are certainly circumstances in which the dominance of one player in a market could have major implications for the viability of that market. In those circumstances, I would need to be satisfied that, if a deal was detrimental to competition, that would not in itself lead to the outcomes that have driven me to bring these additional public interest considerations before the House. I want to be clear— I gave this commitment to the shadow Minister—that this is not in any sense a done deal or a predetermined outcome, but I do think we owe it to the public to ensure that, in coming to that decision, we take into account things that are of great interest and importance to them. On how I will assess competition issues, I will take account of the report handed to me just last week by the Competition and Markets Authority. I should say to the Committee that I have not yet had an opportunity to digest it, because officials are reading through it in technical detail and providing me with advice on it, but I will look at the report in full later this week, along with the advice I have been given, and do my best to come to a decision quickly. The hon. Lady asked about other current cases. I cannot comment on those currently, but I would be very happy to discuss with her the framework as a whole and how we ensure that it is as robust as possible. Finally, I reiterate that the pace with which we have acted is unusual. I do not believe that is an ideal way to legislate in ideal circumstances, but these are not ideal circumstances. We do not have the resilience in the legislation that we need to enable us to live up to our responsibilities, as a Government and as Parliament, to protect people and act in the public interest. The expanded scope will give me the opportunity to look at all these issues in the round and come to the right determination. I sincerely thank the House for its willingness to engage with us over the past couple of weeks since we laid the order to ensure that we have the powers we need to act in the public interest, and I welcome the opportunity to have a much more thorough debate and discussion about how we collectively shape the legislation surrounding this critical industry in the future. Question put and agreed to.
What has gone remarkably unremarked on in this debate is the role of Ofcom, to which we give £222 million a year. It is systematically failing to put in place a plan to improve the service at Royal Mail. The Select Committee has given Ofcom six months, expiring in a month’s time, to show that it is improving performance at Royal Mail. We insisted that at that point Ofcom tells us what new powers it needs to get Royal Mail to deliver, because fining Royal Mail into improvement has failed, and is likely to fail again. Can the Minister tell us what conversations she has had with Ofcom? What powers will she seek to give it if the situation persists?
I rise to present this petition on behalf of residents of Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North. It insists that Ward End fire station must stay open. The Fire Brigades Union has been warning for the last couple of months that un-thought-through cuts by West Midlands fire service imperil this fire station, yet the wildfires that we had across the constituency over the course of the summer underline how every single second counts and why these plans are wrong, wrong, wrong. They have not been discussed with the mayor; they are precipitate, and they need to be dropped now. The petitioners therefore request “that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the West Midlands Fire Service and other relevant bodies to keep Ward End Fire Station open. And the petitioners remain, etc.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of Birmingham Hodge Hill & Solihull North. This petition declares that the West Midlands Fire Service must keep Ward End Fire Station open; further that firefighters have warned that the Service is considering the closure and sale of the station; further that such a closure would leave a gap in local fire cover for residents of Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, with crews having to travel further to reach emergencies; further that fire engines would be moved to the Fire Service headquarters near the city centre and that one vehicle's cover would be reduced from 24 hours a day to daytime-only operation, increasing danger at night; and further that residents fear that closing Ward End Fire Station would place both local people and firefighters at greater risk. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to work with the West Midlands Fire Service and other relevant bodies to keep Ward End Fire Station open. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003248]
On the point about Staffordshire county council, I recently held a roundtable to talk about youth services in Stafford—by the way, Staffordshire was the third worst hit part of the country for youth service cuts—and youth service providers told me that Staffordshire county council categorically is not engaging with the Department for Work and Pensions on youth hubs. We are fortunate enough to have one in Stafford, and I am pleased that we also have them in Newcastle-under-Lyme and in Tamworth. Does my hon. Friend agree that if Staffordshire county council does not get its act together and start participating in conversations with services that can wrap around our young people, we will fall behind?
I held a roundtable—a different one—in Penkside, in Stafford town centre, to talk about the issues people face in getting to and from work, and buses came up as the major issue. The first bus is after 9 o’clock, and the last bus gets home before 3 pm. For someone trying to do a course at college, those times just do not work. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that Staffordshire county council uses the money it has been given by this Government to support young people in our areas in getting into work?
My experience with Staffordshire county council is that funding has been allocated to it to deliver employment programmes, which is great, and we have the DWP jobs hubs as well, but they will not talk to each other, so there is real disengagement. If the Minister could push Staffordshire county council to have conversations with partners, it would really help the rest of us trying to do this work.
Today’s announcement is a hugely important step forward, as is having a Prime Minister who has put ending rough sleeping at front and centre of the political agenda. As a patron of Doncaster Housing for Young People, I see the difference that wraparound support makes to people who are vulnerable to homelessness. Will the Government ensure that we measure success not just by the number of people helped off the streets, but by how many people are able to rebuild their lives and remain in secure accommodation for the longer term?
T6. I spoke to one of my constituents, originally from Zimbabwe, about the Government’s proposed immigration reforms. She works two jobs caring for elderly residents while also raising her two kids as a single mum. She does not yet have indefinite leave to remain, and she said to me:“I am a hardworking person but day in, day out I live with anxiety due to not knowing what our future holds.”Can the Minister reassure me that we will do right by people such as my constituent who are working hard, contributing to society, and building their lives and futures here?
4. What steps she is taking to help reduce levels of abuse experienced by retail workers.
In 2021 my colleague Daniel Johnson MSP introduced landmark protections for Scottish shop workers, following a campaign by USDAW and the Co-operative party, but legislation is not enough. Community policing has declined in Scotland, and my constituents in Winchburgh, Armadale and Bathgate report rising retail crime and abuse of shop workers. Ahead of legislation commencing in England, what discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government to learn from Scotland’s experience, and what investment has she made in frontline policing to protect shop workers and communities?
I thank the Minister for her update. I appreciate the focus on complex cases—Members across the House are dealing with many of them—but can I ask that she also looks at the paid-for fast-track services? I have a constituent who paid almost £700 for a pension valuation in order to finalise his divorce. It was expected within 10 working days, but it took nine months; the wait cost him several times the original amount. Does the Minister agree that that is entirely unacceptable? What action will she take to ensure that Capita refunds any payments taken for so-called fast-track services that are nothing of the kind?
I thank the Minister for her statement, and indeed this Government for their willingness to grasp the nettle in order to end rough sleeping and homelessness. I am grateful that she mentioned temporary accommodation and the wider impact, particularly on children, of not having somewhere to permanently call home. The number of children living in temporary accommodation in Scotland has risen by 22% since 2022, despite the Scottish Government declaring a housing emergency in 2024. What conversations has she had with the Scottish Government about how, if both Governments are to be successful in meeting their goals of ending child poverty, they are tackling the number of families languishing in temporary accommodation?
I thank my hon. Friend for her statement and her leadership in this wide-ranging inquiry. Our Committee heard from defence companies and, as my hon. Friend mentioned, they spoke of debanking. They also spoke about sites being vandalised resulting in significant costs. They talked about careers fairs being disrupted and sometimes forced to close due to direct action by protesters. Not only does this present barriers to recruitment but it undermines investment in a key sector. Does she agree that this further underlines the need for a national conversation about defence, security and the ever-evolving threats facing our country? Does she also agree that elected representatives and Governments should engage in such a conversation in a responsible way that is fully cognisant of the geopolitical realities that we face?
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on leading today’s important and popular debate. I am particularly grateful to all 190,000 people who signed the petition, including more than 400 of my own Stevenage constituents. For many in my constituency, cats are really important. Many residents love their cats, and all of us—whether we have our own cat or not—had a very special cat in our daily routine: Nala, the Stevenage station cat. Anyone passing through the station will likely remember her perched on the ticket barriers, greeting commuters and keeping a watchful eye on the daily rush. She became a familiar face, bringing a little warmth to thousands of journeys and earning a special place in our town’s heart. Tragically, Nala passed away last year. How much her loss was felt by our community was proven by the overwhelming support given to fund a statue that will be installed outside the station to ensure that her memory lives on. Nala’s story reminds us that cats are not simply pets; they are companions, familiar faces and much-loved members of our families and communities. When they are injured on our roads, we have a responsibility to do what we can to help them. I have heard powerful stories in the debate today, and I have also heard from several of my own constituents who feared the worst while being denied the certainty that would allow them to grieve. They were left not knowing the fate of their feline friends. That is the result of a simple but stark discrepancy in the law that bestows an obligation on drivers to report collisions involving dogs but not cats. To grieving owners, that distinction is deeply difficult to understand. A cat injured on the road cannot call for help, and it cannot tell a passing driver where it lives or how much pain it is in. It depends on someone stopping, showing compassion and seeking help. For a driver, that may mean a few minutes out of their day, but for an injured cat, it could mean the difference between life and death. For the family waiting at home, it could mean the difference between heartbreak and bringing their beloved pet home. I am grateful to welcome my constituents Fern, Anthony and Leo Doyle to the Gallery today. They have experienced the devastating consequences of the current law. Their cat, Buddy, disappeared in November 2024, after climbing out of a bedroom window. For nearly a year, their family searched relentlessly, distributing more than 1,000 leaflets and contacting vets, councils, rescue centres and local Facebook groups. Nearly 11 months later, they finally learned the truth—Buddy had been struck by a vehicle and the driver had left without seeking help. Fern has spoken about the thought that, had the driver stopped, Buddy might have survived and returned home. Explaining his death to Leo was one of the hardest conversations she has ever faced. As Fern said: “They are never ‘just a cat’. They had a soul. They were part of a family. They were deeply loved.” That cuts right the heart of the debate. The loss of a pet is painful enough without the added anguish of wondering whether someone could have helped, or whether a beloved companion suffered alone. Of course, we must get the law right. There are concerns that extending the Road Traffic Act could unfairly expose owners to criminal or civil liability following a collision with a cat. Those concerns deserve proper consideration. However, we have also heard about alternatives. Where there is a will, there is a way, and we have a duty in this place to find that way. We have heard about amending other legislation, such as section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act, which could require drivers to remain with an injured cat and contact the appropriate authorities, or putting the highway code provisions into statute. Whatever we do, the focus must always be on preventing unnecessary suffering. There may be different ways to achieve these aims. I urge the Minister to work with campaigners and animal welfare organisations to find a practical solution. We should also encourage the devolved Governments to follow England’s lead on compulsory cat microchipping. We cannot prevent every collision, but we can expect drivers to stop, where it is safe, check on an injured cat and seek help. Finally, I return to the Doyle family. No change in the law can undo their loss, but we can act to prevent other families from enduring the same uncertainty, and we can give injured cats a better chance of survival. Every cat is important to someone. Our laws should reflect that and ensure that when a cat is hurt on our roads, compassion and responsibility come before simply driving away.
I thank my hon. Friend for this statement. Like everybody else, I have cases that I have contacted the Minister about, but today I want to raise something else—something that has been consistent across all the cases that my office has dealt with on a regular basis, which is how my constituents are being treated when they call the Capita helpline. My constituents describe being laughed at and being told that, regardless of what happens in this House, it will be up to Capita to decide when they actually get their pensions. These individuals—people who have served this country well for many years—are getting increasingly desperate, as they have often had no income for up to a year. Nobody should be treated without dignity or respect by anybody acting in the name of this Government. I ask my hon. Friend to engage with her officials to ensure that the message that this is completely unacceptable is driven through to Capita.
Like many other MPs, I am still being contacted by constituents about their civil service pensions and the unacceptable delays. It is deeply concerning that my constituent Julie, who retired from the civil service in February, had her pension finalised only in September, and these delays are causing huge distress and financial hardship. If we are going to pay compensation, should it not be paid by Capita, not from any pension pot, and will that be done without having to navigate any lengthy or tiresome claims process?
I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on securing and leading this important debate and for their tireless campaigning on this issue on behalf of their constituents. I also thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. Even if, as the hon. Member for Horsham (John Milne) suggested, it may at times have been a therapy session, Members have raised extremely important concerns on behalf of their constituents about the quality of service. We discussed this issue at length last week, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), referenced it as an issue that has united the House, and I think we have heard such reflections from all Members across the Chamber. Royal Mail is one of our great national institutions. For generations, it has connected people and communities across our country. It is a lifeline for some of our more vulnerable members of society, our elderly included. For many people, their postie is a regular and friendly face. The public’s affection for Royal Mail is enduring, but patience with its poor service is not. We should not assume that the post matters only to the older generations, because it does not. Citizens Advice research published last week shows that younger adults are using postal services more frequently than older people—to apply for jobs, manage their finances, send letters to healthcare providers for appointments and access Government services. Post is not just part of our history, even though we have heard some very interesting reflections and historical stories. It is still part of people’s everyday lives, which is why it is so important to ensure that we secure a reliable service for the future. Behind that service are our posties, and I too want to put on record my thanks to postal workers up and down the country for everything they do. My grandad proudly served his community as a postie, and I know that many other Members have a personal connection to their postie or a postie. As I did last week, I would like to thank and pay tribute to all the postal workers who work so hard to deliver for their communities, and go above and beyond. I know that, for many of my constituents, they may be the only person they speak to and interact with that day, and the incredible work posties do should not be underestimated. We are all clear that the service failures Members have described are not the result of their postie or of postal workers across the country. Our affection for this national institution, however, must not mean accepting poor performance. I absolutely share the strong concerns expressed today and last week by Members across the House. I will be very clear again: Royal Mail’s performance has been unacceptable for far too long, and it needs urgently to restore service standards to levels that we all expect in our villages, towns and cities. The Prime Minister was similarly clear at this Dispatch Box last week, as was the Secretary of State at the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee last Tuesday. I hope Royal Mail will be listening to this debate, and will hear the clear message that Parliament is sending. We have heard about the serious consequences associated with late deliveries. Late letters—whether they contain a greeting card for a loved one, important medical correspondence, including hospital appointments, or financial information—are deeply frustrating, but they can also lead to serious consequences. I thank Members for sharing the terrible stories of the real-life impact that they can have, as well the impact on colleagues in this House when carrying out their responsibilities and duties as constituency MPs, for example, sending letters about coffee mornings and surgeries. Hon. Members have raised the vital impact of high-quality and timely postal services on our democracy. We have made clear to Royal Mail the importance of the successful and timely delivery of election-related mail for returning officers and election readiness and performance, and I reassure Members that we will continue to do so.
I will be raising this issue with Royal Mail, and I will touch on my interactions with the chief executive later in my speech.
Colleagues have raised numerous concerns about missed mail in the Chamber and outside, and I will always raise that issue with Royal Mail. Where I need to push for transparency, I will do so. I will come shortly to what I have pushed the chief executive on. With Christmas approaching, improvements clearly cannot wait. This is Royal Mail’s busiest period. Families and businesses that we have heard about are relying on timely deliveries. I welcome the commitment from Royal Mail to recruit 22,000 staff to help deliver this Christmas, and I will be seeking reassurances that it is doing everything it can to meet the demand. As colleagues know, the Government do not run the delivery operations of independent businesses such as Royal Mail, but that does not mean that we are a passive observer. I have challenged Royal Mail’s leadership on performance, and I have been frank with them, as has the Prime Minister, that the pace of improvement needs to urgently increase.
I thank my right hon. Friend for the work that his Committee has done on this issue for his constituents and people across the country. I am aware that his Select Committee has written to Ofcom—I thank him for raising the issue again today—to seek further information about its plans to improve services. I met Ofcom last week, and I will continue to work closely with it. I will pragmatically consider any requests for additional powers, as we heard from the Secretary of State, where those are needed to support improved outcomes for constituents and customers across the country. We will be pragmatic about any requests, and I am meeting with Ofcom again soon to hear further. In the meantime, I expect Ofcom to use the full range of tools at its disposal to secure a more reliable service for users. My right hon. Friend knows that I will continue to hold Ofcom and other regulators to account. On that point, in my recent meeting with Ofcom, I raised colleagues’ concerns about data on Royal Mail’s performance masking serious local issues. I have also stressed that the review over the coming months must take into consideration the wider challenges and the staffing, resources and workforce changes. I will continue to raise the concerns, including those that lots of colleagues have mentioned. I am grateful to those who took the time to meet Ofcom directly the week before last to reflect constituents’ concerns, particularly parcel prioritisation, which we have talked about. I have heard about that at length from colleagues. Ofcom has confirmed that it is considering the role of the alleged prioritisation of parcels over letters as part of its ongoing investigation into Royal Mail’s performance in 2025 and 2026. I expect Ofcom will publish its findings in the coming weeks. Ofcom will be in no doubt about Members’ concerns following the meeting it had with them directly, today’s debate, the Westminster Hall debate and the concerns expressed by the Select Committee. I thank all colleagues for continuing to engage with myself and Ofcom on what they want to see and what they expect to improve. On improvement, while there were some encouraging signs in the first quarter of this financial year with the roll out of the delivery model, that is only the start. Reflections clearly vary across the country on the impact of the roll-out, given what colleagues have said, and Royal Mail needs to turn this into sustained improvement that our constituents can rely on. That is why it is critical that any issues with the model between the workforce and management are resolved urgently. I welcome the positive announcement by Royal Mail and CWU earlier today, which demonstrates a shared commitment to improving service performance, supporting the workforce and ensuring that the company is well prepared to meet customer demand over the Christmas period. That includes restarting the roll-out of the new USO delivery model, albeit over a slower timescale to account for the Christmas peak period. To ensure that our constituents get the service that they deserve, it is critical that this engagement continues. The Secretary of State and I will be meeting with both Royal Mail and CWU next week to seek updates on progress. I know that postal workers have valuable insights on operations and thoughts about how things can be improved, and I am grateful for colleagues raising the reflections of the posties they have interacted with and met. It is important that they are also on board with any changes. Hon. Members know that improving working conditions and standards for workers across the economy is important to me and this Government. The postal sector needs to work for consumers, businesses and workers. I am aware of concerns about the treatment and status of workers across the postal sector. The current employment status framework can leave very vulnerable workers without core and basic employment protections and rights. Last week, along with some colleagues who are in the Chamber, I attended an interesting discussion on work and employment in UK parcel delivery with Sheffield University management school. That discussion aligns with the Government’s recently published consultation on proposals for targeted reforms on employment status, which will seek to address many issues—particularly around bogus self-employment—that colleagues have raised today; we discussed those issues at the roundtable, too. I will move on to Royal Mail’s communication with colleagues. While local operational issues are for Royal Mail’s management to explain and address, I know that many hon. Members—as has been raised in this debate and beyond—are dissatisfied with the level of engagement that they have had with the company’s leadership. It is crucial that Royal Mail meets with Members of this House, listens to their concerns and sets out clearly what it is doing to put things right. That is the least that our constituents deserve. I know that Royal Mail’s chief executive will now be meeting a number of hon. Members in Parliament next month, and I will continue to reflect Parliament’s concerns in my engagements with him—in particular, detailed information on local data and assessments of what is happening at constituency level. In my first engagement with the chief executive, I said that I would take seriously every complaint that is raised directly to Members via their constituents. As a constituency MP, I can share in the reflections and frustrations that colleagues have raised; when we receive those complaints, it is important that we have as much information as possible available to us—and early on. I would like to see that in a more proactive form from Royal Mail. In addition to engaging constructively with Parliament, it is important that Royal Mail also listens to the concerns and suggestions of its workforce, who work so hard to deliver post across the nation. I welcome engagement, whether through formal or informal channels that are currently in place, such as the Q&A sessions that Royal Mail has introduced, or more directly from staff to senior leadership, but I urge Royal Mail to also to continue to listen to its workforce through their recognised unions and reps. The expertise and first-hand experience of the workforce must help to shape improvements. Some Members also raised the idea of linking any further price increases to improvements in quality of service. I understand the frustration when people see prices rise but do not see the improvement in services that they rightly expect. Every pound matters to our constituents who are still struggling, and our constituents need to see the value as well as the reliability. Considerations around pricing regulations are a regulatory matter for Ofcom, which is considering this very issue as part of its consultation on pricing and affordability, which was launched on 16 October and will close on 27 November. Our priority for Royal Mail has been scrutiny of the takeover and securing important undertakings to support the financial sustainability of the company and the long-term provision of the universal service obligations. Colleagues have given careful consideration as to where the Government can continue to play our part—some in quite significant detail—and I am grateful for all the contributions this evening. I commit to continuing to engage with all colleagues in the Chamber on the progress of the quality of service with Royal Mail. Colleagues know that, alongside the Secretary of State, I am meeting with the leadership next week, and we will always be happy to update colleagues following those discussions. Royal Mail’s performance has not been good enough. Our constituents know it, the Government know it, the House knows it and Royal Mail knows it, so we will continue to engage with Ofcom, and Royal Mail, its owners and its workforce. But people do not want excuses—they want their post delivered on time. Ultimately, that is the only test that matters. It is a test that Royal Mail must pass, and it is the test that this Government will continue to hold it to. I will conclude by once again thanking our incredible posties across the country. This is not a reflection on them, their hard work, and their service to our constituents and our communities. We are committed to bringing all parties to the table to resolve the issues that we have discussed today, because Royal Mail is a national institution that we want to protect long into the future and an essential public service that our constituents rely on. I thank all colleagues for bringing their voices and those of their constituents to the Chamber today—I hope that they have been heard loud and clear. I look forward to working with all colleagues going forwards.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Martin Wrigley) on opening the debate and setting out the various issues that have led to us considering the petition. We have heard a great many contributions. We heard from the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon); from my hon. Friends the Members for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge), for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), for Stourbridge (Cat Eccles), for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia), for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Johanna Baxter) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); from the right hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale); and from the hon. Members for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon), for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). That indicates the widespread interest in this matter across the nation. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), to her place. We have worked together on a Select Committee, and I hope that, in her new role, we can continue the constructive relationship we enjoyed on the Committee. The strength of feeling is clear. As we have heard, 189,000 people signed the petition, many because they know at first hand the distress caused when a cat is struck on the road and the family is not given any answers. A number of Members spoke with great personal knowledge and sincerity about their own situations. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot spoke about his sad experiences and about the sense of unfairness that people feel about the different treatment, which I will come to. He also rightly pointed out that the RSPCA questions whether the resources are in place to deal with what the petitioners ask for. My hon. Friend the Member for Alloa and Grangemouth had a cat who lived for 20 years, which is an incredible achievement; he obviously looked after it very well. Both he and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich spoke clearly and passionately about the question of decency. It really is a question of decency: any decent person who hit an animal on the road would not just leave it there in pain, and would try to do something about it. It is fair to say that there are practical considerations about how easy it would be to put on a statutory footing what I think everyone in this Chamber would instinctively feel is the right thing to do. The right hon. Member for South Holland and the Deepings talked about his time in office and the statutory guidance issued then. He is no longer here, but I am sure he will read Hansard in the morning. That guidance remains active across the strategic road network, and there is a requirement on National Highways operators to collect, log and scan deceased domestic pets, including cats, and to make a proactive attempt to contact the owners. The microchip registration system that we now have in place will hopefully mean that, in most cases, owners are contacted when one of those sad incidents occurs. We heard a number of other excellent contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood gave us a long list of the cats in her family. It sounds like Fanny is a local celebrity in the constituency—I am sure she will appear on some leaflets in the not-too-distant future. My hon. Friend spoke movingly about the depth of the bond between cats and their owners, which all Members have spoken about with a great deal of sincerity, and made an important point about needing clarity on who a driver should report a collision to. I understand that officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be meeting representatives from CatsMatter to discuss that issue further, because although we may not be able to change the law in this Chamber, we can certainly pick up some of the practical measures that can be taken to make this difficult situation easier. We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge, who is clearly an active campaigner in this area. She made it clear that she is a cat lover as well, and she is, of course, the most appropriately named Member of us all. She recognised that there is a difference between cats and dogs and talked about some of the alternative measures and solutions we can consider, which I will come to. She also asked about other jurisdictions, which a couple of other Members mentioned. Most of those countries were self-contained and small, but I will ask officials to look at how the laws have operated in different countries. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West gave an excellent speech, giving us a little insight into his cat issues. I join him in his praise of the PDSA, which does excellent work. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage spoke with great sincerity about his constituents Fern, Anthony and Leo and their sad experience of trying to find Buddy for almost a year. His comment that cats are never just pets is a statement that all Members who have spoken would recognise. My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South has made it clear to me on many occasions that she is very much a cat lover. She also declared her work on the APPG, which I commend. She acknowledges that there are concerns with the proposals, particularly from Cats Protection. She also made a point, which I will come to, about how it is quite problematic to have an equivalence, for the reasons she outlined. I agree that that does not mean nothing can be done. We will certainly look at what can be done.
I am sure we can find a way of publishing it. I have sprung that on my officials this evening, so I do not know exactly what form it will take, but at the very least I can commit to writing to Members who have taken part in the debate to advise on what we find from that review. As I say, I am not familiar with the other jurisdictions, and it may be that the laws and requirements are different—we know that the demography and topography of those countries is different—but it is fair for us to consider that. As Members have pointed out, the current position is that although drivers are not required to report every animal death on the road, they should, where it is safe and practicable, try to identify the owner of a domestic animal and let them know what has happened. A number of Members spoke about wanting to make that mandatory, and I understand why, but we have to have legislation that is both workable and safe. As several Members acknowledged, cats are mostly smaller than dogs, and a driver may not actually realise that a collision has occurred—that is probably more relevant given the propensity for larger vehicles nowadays. When the nights are drawing in, if it is a rural road with high-speed traffic, it is actually quite dangerous to ask people to leave their vehicle to search for a cat. That could create more danger and injury. There are also practical difficulties—we must consider locating the animal, arranging identification and ensuring that any reporting system can be enforced consistently. I recognise the concern that owners should have the best possible chance of knowing what has happened to their pet when cats are found by the roadside. As Members have said, any decent human being would want that to happen and would try to do their best. One of my family’s cats, Ruby, was returned to us by a good-natured neighbour who had discovered her on the roadside after she was run over. It was a very sad time but, thinking of my children’s perspective, I would rather things happened in that way than for them to discover Ruby on the roadside on the walk to school the next morning. I applaud the public spiritedness of the individual who returned Ruby to us that night. That shows that such gestures, difficult though they are, really do go a long way to providing some comfort to people who in a distressed situation, and that is the purpose behind the public campaign known as Gizmo’s Legacy, which calls for local authorities to scan microchips so that owners can be identified and informed. We support the principle that local authorities should have effective processes in place in such circumstances, and we want to encourage councils to be as helpful as they can be in those situations. As Members have acknowledged, that is why DEFRA has commissioned research into how its processes affect the reunification of owners with cats and dogs that are found dead by the roadside, with the aim of identifying both best practice and barriers. When the findings are published, they will support the development of best practice guidance for local authorities, so that more owners can be notified, where possible. The hon. Member for Yeovil asked when the research would be published. It is fair to say that the research project is still being reviewed, but it will be published as soon as the process has concluded. I doubt very much that he was told to go away, but I assure him that both his comments and those of other Members about their desire to see that report will be transmitted to DEFRA after the debate. Microchipping it is clearly one of the things that makes the research much more valuable than it might have been a few years ago. As the Opposition spokesperson pointed out, since June 2024 it has been compulsory for all cats over the age of 20 weeks to be microchipped and registered on a compliant database, unless they are exempt or free-living. Microchipping supports responsible pet ownership and gives owners a better chance of being reunited with their pets if they are lost or have strayed. I have personal experience of lost cats. A few years ago, one of our cats, Trixie, went on a six-week holiday to Chester. We were very grateful to the public-spirited individual who brought her back. Trixie has never told us what she was up to for those six weeks, or how she managed to get to Chester in the first place. I think most Members recognise that cats have quite a secretive nature. DEFRA is working with the pet-microchipping sector to make the regime more effective, including by improving the accuracy and accessibility of records, and by strengthening the oversight of microchip databases. I am pleased to report that, from the end of last month and following close work with DEFRA, the Association of Microchip Database Operators has launched a single point of search for microchip databases. This was introduced to make it faster and easier for vets and local authorities to access microchip records. We will continue to support the roll-out of cat microchipping as part of the wider work to help owners to identify and recover their pets. As Members recognised, and as Cats Protection has acknowledged, there could be numerous unintended consequences if we were to make stopping and reporting compulsory. Instead, our priority is to prevent collisions in the first place by making roads safer for everyone. That broader approach should reduce the number of cats that are killed or injured. A number of reasons have been put forward as to why cats and dogs are classified differently. Clearly, the origins of the distinction are historic, but there are still pertinent differences today, and the effective right to roam is something that makes it very difficult for us to put dogs and cats on an equivalent legislative footing. Making reporting mandatory would create a new criminal offence that would be difficult to enforce. On balance, then, we believe that the existing distinction should remain. We will continue to engage with advocates in this area. We will look at the emerging research and do what we can to encourage responsible actions from the wider public. On that note, Mr Vickers, I will give the hon. Member for Newton Abbot an opportunity to respond to the debate.
My hon. Friend is being generous. This is such an important debate. I have a constituent who had exactly that problem—they received delayed post for scans and cancer treatment plans. That is unacceptable and distressing. Does he agree that this is the worst type of post to be delayed?
I call the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Order. I want to get in as many Members as I can on this statement, so can we have shorter questions and shorter answers, please?
We come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Home Affairs Committee. Dame Karen Bradley will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members may ask questions on the subject of the statement. Those should be brief questions, not full speeches.
We come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Scottish Affairs Committee. Patricia Ferguson will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members may ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches.
Order. Members may wish to be aware that I will let the Select Committee statement overrun slightly to get everybody in. Please can we keep questions and answers concise?
I call Chris Bloore, who may speak for up to 15 minutes.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch (Chris Bloore) and for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for their steadfast work on this issue. Ahead of today’s debate, my team and I spoke to Zoe from Hednesford—not by letter, of course, because it would probably still be on its way. Zoe told me that her parents rely on post for important correspondence such as, as we have heard from many hon. Members, hospital appointments, particularly for their daughter Emily, yet they often go weeks on end with nothing at all. Emily was diagnosed with a very long list of long-term health conditions. Because of the lack of post, Emily missed extremely important medical appointments on many occasions. As we know, missed appointments are a big drain on NHS resources, from GPs right through to hospitals. There has also been a direct financial consequence for Zoe’s parents, who received a parking fine that would have been £60 if paid within 14 days. However, because the correspondence was not received, they were unaware of the deadline so ended up having to pay the full £100. Zoe’s sister Emily has, very sadly, passed away since her family first got in touch with me, and I want to place on record my condolences to Zoe and her whole family. Sadly, stories like theirs are not unusual in Cannock Chase. I have heard from constituents who have missed court information and jury duty and have had Christmas cards arriving in January. My constituent, Julian, told me that he had to collect his post from the sorting office in Rugeley after receiving nothing whatever in July, and found 16 letters waiting for him. I hear time and again from my constituents, particularly in Rugeley and Brereton—WS15 in Royal Mail-speak—that they are getting a month’s-worth of letters shoved through their door in one go. So to get emails from Royal Mail’s public affairs team like the one we had this morning that my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield referred to, telling us that things are going swimmingly in most of the country is, frankly, galling. I invite them to come to Cannock Chase and speak to the people I represent if they want to really find out how the service is doing.
I know that the Rugeley sorting office does not cover your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker, or my hon. Friend’s constituency, but the story she tells about the particular difficulties of the service experienced by her rural constituents is echoed in my constituency. On Saturday, I held a coffee morning in Prospect Village, quite an isolated rural village, and I heard exactly the same concerns, so I am completely with her on that. A constituent of mine—I will keep them anonymous because I do not want to put them in a difficult position—has shared with me some of the things that are happening to postal workers locally. I am told that overtime is rarely permitted, meaning that when a postie cannot finish their round, some of the post inevitably has to go back to the sorting office, where it builds up. Some workers are now doing what two postal workers would previously have done, with tracked parcels and first-class post taking priority. That inevitably raises questions about what is realistically expected of staff, and what happens to the letters that have to be left behind. I am told that new recruits are being sent out alone very quickly, moved between unfamiliar rounds and put under pressure to meet targets, sometimes facing managerial meetings when they fall short. That is a considerable ask for someone who is still learning the job. In the past, new posties would spend months learning alongside experienced colleagues before being expected to manage a round independently. Many new starters leave within a short time, and I am told that the way some staff are spoken to by managers is completely unacceptable, with conversations that should be about helping people to improve instead leaving them feeling belittled or intimidated. I have heard stories of multiple managers waiting for posties to finish their rounds, only to tell them that they are too slow, even after they have faced wind and rain, or got held up by uncontrollable things like roadworks or livestock on country lanes. Knowing a round takes time. Knowing that community, spotting when members of the public might need help and taking pride in getting the job done are all part of what made our postal service the envy of the world, and worthy of its royal moniker. What particularly struck me was my constituent’s description of postal workers as a tight-knit group who continue to look out for one another and pull together. That sense of solidarity is clearly still there, but it is being strained to breaking point by the pressure from management that workers describe and by the uncertainty around hours and rounds. I am also told that trade union reps are struggling to keep up with the number of staff seeking their help, such are the difficulties in many sorting offices. Fixing the issues Royal Mail faces is far from straight forward. A lot needs to change, but that change has to work for the people delivering the post and those waiting for it at home. Given what all of us in this House are hearing, it falls to us to ask whether we are even on the right track. The consensus tonight is a resounding no. Royal Mail execs should meet with us here in Parliament, explain what is going wrong and set out what they will do to put it right. Our constituents deserve more than apologies and hollow promises. They deserve a reliable service and we need to see meaningful action, right now, to make that happen.