5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them

1. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Fuel Duty

   Back when we were in government, one of the ways we tried to solve this problem was by changing the universal credit cut-off limit from 63% to 55%, which meant that the more work people did, the more money they kept. That is exactly the way to support people back into work: making sure that they keep more of their own money. That incentivises work, rather than disincentivising it. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is an ideological difference here? We support work; the other option is just a handout.

   Hansard source
2. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Fuel Duty

   It would be remiss of me not to point out that in July the price cap will be reviewed. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a decent chance, given what is happening in Iran, that we may well see an increase in energy bills anyway?

   Hansard source
3. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Fuel Duty

   The Minister is right to talk about de-escalation and look to the international side, but, as I raised in my speech, there are domestic factors at play here too. What are the Government doing to set out a timeline to make these decisions and assess their implications so that the country can plan around what may or may not be going on? We do not know how long this will go on. What points are the Government looking at to make and inform their decisions?

   Hansard source
4. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Student Loans

   Is my right hon. friend also concerned by the fact that, last year, the Office for National Statistics said that 257,000 people left the UK, up from an expected 77,000? Three quarters of those people were under the age of 35. That shows that young people are fleeing this country to look elsewhere for work. Does she share my concern that that is the case?

   Hansard source
5. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Student Loans

   The Opposition have made the argument that 30% of courses leave people with a negative bank balance. That is the problem that we are trying to solve. We are not denigrating anyone for wanting to choose; this is about ensuring that the quality of the course means that people have a positive life outcome, not a negative one. Does the Minister agree with that principle?

   Hansard source
6. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Student Loans

   I have said this in the House before, but I will say it again: this is a Prime Minister who promised change and then changed his promise. On this subject, we only have to look at his 10-point plan from 2020. He said: “My promise to you is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power—so that we can advance the interests of the people our party was created to serve. Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.” In point 2, he said: “Support the abolition of tuition fees and invest in lifelong learning.” He was right that Labour won a landslide election, but, strangely enough, that promise has gone.

   Hansard source
7. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Student Loans

   Exactly. It was not in the manifesto, and the Prime Minister made a promise. He made a promise when he stood to be Labour leader, and it was not there. Worse still, what did he do in his first Budget? He increased student fees from £9,250 to £9,535. And last year, he froze the thresholds. That is important, because he promised one thing and then changed his promise. When it comes to student loans, we have heard a lot of tittle-tattle on both sides of the House, but all parties—including the Liberal Democrats, wherever they happen to be—have a responsibility. In 1998, it was Tony Blair who brought forward tuition fees. He then increased them in 2004. Then there was an increase in the coalition years, which the Liberal Democrats stood on an election manifesto not to do. And here we are now, having just been over what the Labour Government said they were going to do and now have done. Does it really matter? Yes, there was an issue hidden in the plan 2 student loan, but it has come to fruition because of what we have seen across the globe. I do not think anyone was raising those concerns back then, but the Government have to deal with things that come up. That is what we are looking for today. That is what students outside this place will be listening for. Two years in, what is the solution? At the end of the day, it is the middle earners who are being squeezed. It is unfair, because no matter how hard they work, their debt is going up. Principally, regardless of our political position, I think we all agree that is unfair. The question is how we solve it. When the Chancellor was asked that question, she said: “So, yes, we want to fix it. Yes, we want to make improvements. But is it front of the queue? No, it’s not... Politics is about priorities. I’m not denying there is a problem. I’m not blind to that, but what I do say is there has to be some patience.” Tell that to the hon. Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) or the people from Hinckley and Bosworth whose debt, no matter what they do or how hard they earn, is going up.

   Hansard source
8. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Student Loans

   The hon. Member is absolutely right. I expect his constituent will be shocked to hear that this is not a priority for the Government. It is unfair, which is why the Opposition at least tried to put up a solution. I was expecting the Government to turn around and say why it does not work, and perhaps offer us something different. That is what the public and his constituent want to hear, and certainly what mine do. The Chancellor went on to say: “If you say to me, ‘you shouldn’t have done child poverty and you should have reformed the student loan system,’ I just strongly disagree with that.” Actually, that is very honest. I give her credit for that, but look at the wider context and what that means for younger people. As we have heard, unemployment in the UK is at its highest since 2021, and since 2015 for those aged 16 to 24. UK youth unemployment, for the first time ever, is above the European average. Let that sink in. As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), 257,000 people left the UK last year when it was expected to be 77,000, and three quarters of them were under the age of 35. Those people will not be recorded among the number of young people who are not in employment, education or training because NEET numbers are not calculated to include such cases. So not only do we have youth employment going up, but herds of young people are moving elsewhere. That is a tragedy for our economy and for those young people, because they are having to look elsewhere to find work, the lifestyle they want and their place in the world. To me, that is really sad. What is the Government’s solution? They have already increased taxes on businesses, introduced more red tape and seen youth unemployment go up, and they have said to businesses, “Do you know what we are going to do? We are going to give you £3,000 to rehire the person who lost their job.” They have created a hole and they are now trying to fill it themselves, but they are only filling it halfway. The Conservatives have set out a solution in the document that we have brought forward. Agreed, it does not fully cover the entire student loan system, and I agree with my hon. Friends that the whole approach needs to be carefully looked at, but at least the Conservatives are offering solutions and have time to develop them. The Government are having meetings and talking, but I see no solutions, and that is a shame.

   Hansard source
9. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

   Student Loans

   As a doctor, I was lucky enough to have funding to go towards my education, but I am always surprised to hear people saying that we should put more funding into students on the back of the porters and the receptionists who never went to university. It is those people’s taxes that are supporting those students—that 50% helped to get me where I am. What does the hon. Gentleman say to people like those in his community? They are the ones who are being left behind by paying their taxes for other people to have their time at university.

   Hansard source
10. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Luke Evans

    Student Loans

    Given that the Minister has just listed a great big set of problems facing students, what does he say to students when the Chancellor has said that they are not at the front of the queue?

    Hansard source
11. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    UK Research and Innovation

    Modern warfare is technological warfare, so UK research and innovation is critical for our defence. When the Secretary of State has spoken with the Defence Secretary about the defence investment plan, as I assume she has, which sectors has she prioritised for investment in UK companies in research and development—drones, space, cyber, chips? Could she spell out her vision of the role of UK tech in defence, if she has one?

    Hansard source
12. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Student Loans

    I thank the Minister for giving way: she has been very generous with her time. I think there is a point of principle in this debate, and I should like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on it. Does she believe that there is any degree offered by a university in which it is not fair to invest taxpayers’ money? If the quality is not good enough, surely it is not fair for the individual to be indebted. Will the Minister concede that there probably are some courses, across the country, that it is not fair for the taxpayer to subsidise?

    Hansard source
13. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Student Loans

    On the broader point of principle about the value of certain subjects, I intervened on the Minister and she failed to answer, so I will ask the hon. Gentleman the same question. Does he think that there are some subjects offered by some universities for which the value is quite poor and that it is unfair for the taxpayer to subsidise them? Does he think that in principle it is possible that those subjects exist?

    Hansard source
14. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Student Loans

    I am not privately educated, and nor did I go to Oxbridge. I am where I am today because I went to a state grammar school. The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech about breaking down barriers to social opportunity. Would he agree that grammar schools are a key part of that?

    Hansard source
15. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Student Loans

    I am going to talk about hope and fairness, to which many Members across the House have referred in their speeches. It is important that everyone has hope for the future, but particularly the next generation. There are many challenges facing younger people at the moment, from youth unemployment, with the graduate jobs market unfortunately in decline, to the uncertain world we live in. The people who will inherit this world from us are concerned about conflict in the middle east, the position of our defence, and the direction in which our country and society are going. It is younger people who have borne the brunt of the decisions made during covid, and it is younger people who will have to deal with and find solutions for the changing demographics in our society, particularly the ageing population. It is important now more than ever that the next generation—the younger generation—has hope for the future, and we Conservatives have a plan to bring that back. The key to that plan is fairness. Our motion today goes to the heart of fairness. It is fair to say that the repayment system for the people paying back plan 2 loans, with the thresholds and the interest at 3% above RPI, has essentially turned into some form of Ponzi scheme. The Conservatives have a plan to start resolving that. As has been said, it would not be possible to get these loans on a commercial basis; they are fundamentally unfair, and we have a plan to go about fixing it. When we talk about education more generally, we talk about the fact that all different types of education have intrinsic value. There is no hierarchy between people who go to university or further education, people who do apprenticeships and people who go straight into work. It is about providing the right education for the individual person. Whether someone has gone to university or done an apprenticeship—whatever route they have gone down—it does not make them a better or worse person. The key is that it is the right plan for them. It is only fair that we reverse some of the historic biases against apprenticeships in particular, and that is why I am so pleased that apprenticeships and vocational training are central to the motion that we will be voting on later. Fairness means fairness both to the taxpayer and to the people taking the courses. I intervened on both the Minister and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), to ask whether they would at least concede that there are some courses—particular courses at institutions across the country—that are really not worth it because they are not value for money and will not help the student.

    Hansard source
16. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Student Loans

    I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), sitting behind me, will give a more extensive answer to that question in a moment. There are lots of ways to measure degrees. An example that I often give is the degree in David Beckham studies, which I think existed. I am a big fan of David Beckham, by the way, but I am not sure how many degrees in David Beckham studies we need, or how it would benefit the economy or the individual. Critically, I am not sure that taxpayers should be subsidising that. All our constituents are contributing to this system, and it is only fair that we ensure that there is value for money for taxpayers, as well as for the people taking the courses, and that there is a broader contribution. It is absolutely right that, as part of this motion, we look at fairness in the system, particularly to make sure that degrees, which are regulated, give the value that they are purported to give, and that we do not have fake degrees or degrees with a disproportionate difference between the offering—what people think they are going to get—and the outcomes. When people are starting on a degree course, it is important for them to know where they can expect to be in five or 10 years’ time and what their status in society will be, so that they can make informed choices given the substantial cost, in terms of both time and money, of their investment. On that basis, I wholeheartedly support the motion and look forward to voting for it later tonight. I hope Labour Members do so as well, because this motion brings back a bit more hope and a bit more fairness to the system.

    Hansard source
17. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Ben Spencer

    Flooding: Rural Communities

    We are still waiting for delivery of the River Thames scheme in my area. While that is happening, we would be very grateful for some dredging, because at the moment there is no River Thames flood alleviation scheme. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reconfirm the Government’s commitment to delivering the River Thames scheme, which affects my constituency but also the neighbouring constituency of Spelthorne?

    Hansard source
18. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Fuel Duty

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government’s policy fails on its own terms, because they say they want to subscribe to net zero and make us much greener in how we approach our energy consumption, yet we know that importing liquefied natural gas from countries such as the US has a carbon cost that is a multiple of extracting the stuff in this country within our own territorial sea? If the Government are serious about net zero, they would therefore be pumping LNG from the North sea, not importing it from the US.

    Hansard source
19. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Student Loans

    Vacancies for graduates have gone down precipitously this year compared with the same time last year. That should worry those of us who are interested in the future. How can we rebalance the offer to young people so that they are not sold a pup—as they have been by consecutive Governments over many years—in relation to what a degree will mean for their future career prospects? How can we ensure that our incredibly valuable further education sector is supported—probably at the expense of some of our lesser universities?

    Hansard source
20. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Student Loans

    My constituents are not interested in the past, particularly the distant past; they are interested in the future. They have heard what the Conservatives would do, but we have yet to hear from the Government of the day what they will do. Will the Minister enlighten us?

    Hansard source
21. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Student Loans

    Does the Minister think that the creative industries are the exclusive province of universities? If that is what she thinks, can I invite her to visit Trowbridge college in my constituency—an excellent further education college—and see what it is doing with multimedia to give kids the skills they need, as part of the growth in the economy that the Government are sorely lacking?

    Hansard source
22. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dr Andrew Murrison

    Student Loans

    With hindsight, does the Minister regret Tony Blair’s announcement in the late 1990s that more than 50% of school leavers should go to university? Would it not have been better to have said that all young people leaving school should either go to university or into high-quality apprenticeships or training?

    Hansard source
23. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

    I declare that I am an unpaid parliamentary vice-president of the Local Government Association, which has supplied one of the witnesses for this panel.

    Hansard source
24. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (First sitting)

    Q There are two areas I would like to explore briefly. We heard a lot from the local government family about the chaos created by elections being cancelled, then uncancelled, and so on. Part 3 of the Bill includes a number of provisions to change the arrangements for elections. We heard about police needing to be put on the rota, then cancelled, then put back on again and schools needing to close, then reopen, then close again because polling was going ahead and then not. What are your reflections on the timeline, the consequences of those changes and the considerations that go with that? Secondly, new clause 37 is about the provision and use of election materials in non-UK languages. We heard a great deal about that in the recent Gorton and Denton by-election, when cross-party concern was expressed. What should the Bill say? Should that new clause be part of it? Do you have an alternative body of evidence suggesting that a different approach is required? Councillor Bentley: I would put in a plea for village halls, because they are vastly used and other organisations cannot use them for that entire day. If you are going to make changes to the electoral system, there needs to be clarity around that in advance. We do not want knee-jerk reactions so that suddenly all plans are off, then on, then off, then on again. We cannot have that. We need to be clear if elections are going to change. We are going through a great period of local government reorganisation, which may happen on other occasions. We need early indications so that we can prepare properly—not only the people organising the elections and the candidates, but people who may think that they can use their village hall or school and suddenly cannot. We need to have clarity in advance. It cannot be left to the last minute. On languages, from an LGA point of view all I would say is that it is important that everyone entitled to vote has the ability to understand what is actually happening. I think that is a fair way of putting it. Peter Stanyon: I echo the comments on timing. The word I often use around elections is “certainty”. For scheduled polls, you usually plan six months in advance. In reality, I think a lot of the authorities carried on during the on-off period when the local government polls were rescheduled recently. Parliamentary elections have six or eight weeks’ notice; you are doing six months’ work in eight weeks. It puts on pressure. Going back to the earlier point on the timing of postal votes, for example, anything that gives two or three days in a timetable is a huge benefit—not just for administrators, but for the suppliers who deliver those things. Going back to the earlier point on harassment, intimidation, translation into different languages and things like that, there needs to be a wider understanding of what elections are all about. We are living in a modern age, but elections are very much based on paper and pencil. They are trusted, in the main, but at the end of the day it is about making clear what the electoral process actually is. Some of the feedback we received about recent by-elections was simply about a misunderstanding of what the process is. There is an obligation on returning officers, the Electoral Commission and local authorities to do what they can to explain it, but there is also an obligation on candidates and parties to understand the changes coming in. We almost need a reset, to say, “What is the best way of engaging with voters to give them what they need?” I am sure Emily will echo this point, but the one thing that an RO will not want to get dragged into is any debate about whether something is crossing a line that they do not have control over. There are very, very strict boundaries at the moment. I will not say it is a safe place for returning officers to be, but it means we have the certainty to say, “That is a police matter,” or “That is a commission matter,” or “That may be a planning control matter,” for example. It is about taking a step back and learning about how we deliver elections, and that goes right from young people all the way through the system. It is also about having a reset, to say, “Where are we now?” because there is lots of misinformation flying around from various sources. Emily Yule: I echo Mr Stanyon’s points about the different sources of information. The Electoral Commission and the returning officer must be the trusted source of information for the democratic process for electors. We would, of course, welcome any provisions that improve accessibility and engagement, but it has to be within those boundaries of trusted and credible information. In terms of changes in electoral law, we always seek a six-month implementation window. Any change to this system will bring an element of risk, but our very skilled administrators and leaders across elections know how to deal with change and address it, and they will deliver safe elections. But having a six-month lead-in provides that security. I will repeat a comment that Solace often makes on behalf of its members: we would ask for indemnity for returning officers when any changes are brought in very close to an election, which may result in issues that are not any fault of the returning officer.

    Hansard source
25. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q I have a brief question about clause 47 on the voter identification requirements. We have heard quite a lot on the point about bank cards. I am mindful that the Government’s own MoneyHelper website sets out how to get a bank card if you do not have any ID at all and also if you are of no fixed address; I know that is routinely used in electoral processes to establish your entitlement to vote in a particular place. Clause 47 is also silent on the use of virtual cards. We know many banks issue payment cards that are online, so quite a lot of people have their payment card on a mobile phone and do not have any physical item with them that would meet that standard. Are the Government open to amendments to clause 47 to try to address that and at least bring clarity to what is meant by a bank card, so that polling staff, who may have to have that conversation with people, know exactly where they stand? Samantha Dixon: You mentioned digital ID. For example, we have introduced the digital veterans card as a form of ID. It has the holographic clock in it, which means that it cannot be screenshotted or used fraudulently.

    Hansard source
26. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Simmonds

    Representation of the People Bill (Second sitting)

    Q Just to be clear, the question is about digital bank cards. A lot of people have on their phone an image of a card; they will not have a physical card. Samantha Dixon: Right. My point is that, where a digital ID has that holographic clock, it is possible that the Government would consider that measure. But I do not believe that digital bank cards currently do.

    Hansard source
27. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Royal Mail: Performance

    I beg to move, That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to ask everyone to go along with me for a few seconds by closing their eyes and visualising what the Royal Mail means to them. I picture the intrepid and hardy postie battling through snow, hills, rain and fog to ensure that our post is delivered. I picture the regular encounters with my postie wherever I have lived, and the kind, warm and friendly conversations we have had on the doorstep. Members will be happy to know that I am not going to go round the room asking what they visualised, but I imagine it was fairly similar to what I just described. If there was one word to sum it all up, it would be “trust”—trust in the Royal Mail service and in an institution that has been a constant in British life for over 500 years. But we all know that that trust is waning. We feel it ourselves, and we hear it from our constituents, families and friends. The institution that so many of us have known, valued and trusted is changing, and something must be done by us in this House to stop the decline. Before I turn to some of the issues and recommendations, I want to address the elephant in the room: Royal Mail is facing significant external pressures—we all know that. Modern technology such as email and online messaging has gradually sidelined traditional letter mail. Royal Mail itself often says that it used to be a letters organisation that delivered parcels, and now it is a parcels organisation that still delivers letters. This challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom. Our friends in Denmark, for example, saw their state postal operator, PostNord, deliver its final traditional letter in December 2025, ending more than 400 years of national letter delivery. From 2026 onwards, PostNord will focus solely on parcel delivery, after letter volumes fell by around 90% since 2000. We have faced a similar trend here in the UK. For all of us here, that raises a broader question for our country: in this increasingly digital world, do we still value physical letters? My answer—I imagine it is the same as that of everyone else here today—is a resounding yes. There is something secure about a letter passing through trusted hands on its journey to its destination. As we all know, digital systems can fail or be hacked or manipulated. At a time of growing international uncertainty and environmental disruption, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and resilient network of physical mail delivery. In this new era, with Royal Mail now operating as a privately owned company with overseas ownership, we must work with the company to ensure that the universal service obligation is fit for purpose and, crucially—this is the key point—understood by the British public. I am sure this will come up in many Members’ speeches, but the failure to meet delivery targets is a significant problem. Under the current USO, Royal Mail is required to deliver 93% of first-class letters the next working day and 98.5% of second-class letters within three working days.

    Hansard source
28. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Royal Mail: Performance

    I have been looking at the numbers over the last few years, and Royal Mail has gone from significant losses of about £400 million three years ago, to £200 million losses, to making a £14 million profit last year. Because it is a privately owned company—we will come on to that—it has cut a lot of fat away, but it has also cut away muscle. Prices have increased, but the service has gone down. That is completely unacceptable, and it is probably the reason why we are all here today.

    Hansard source
29. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Royal Mail: Performance

    That is a serious point. We can talk about the Royal Mail service for our constituents, but the posties themselves are experiencing significant trouble at the moment. I am sure we have all heard about it in our inboxes recently. I will come to the issue later in my speech, and I am sure other Members will raise it, but I do agree with the hon. Member. Royal Mail has failed to meet both those delivery targets for three consecutive years, and I have very little confidence in when a letter would arrive if I sent one today. If anyone could give me an insight into that, I would be very happy to hear it. Furthermore, Royal Mail offers economy access mail, a non-priority service for bulk non-time-critical letters that provides savings compared with first and second-class services. It typically delivers within four working days, often arriving alongside other post, but it can take up to five days or more. The fact that companies or organisations such as banks and the NHS use that product helps to explain the correspondence in our inboxes and the conversations we have in our constituencies, in which people ask why their post seems to disappear for weeks only to arrive all at once. That crucial point has not been communicated to the public in any meaningful way. Set against the backdrop that competitors can offer reliable same-day or next-day parcel delivery, it is easy to understand why public confidence in Royal Mail has declined. At the same time, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) alluded to, our local posties are under significant pressure, working in an increasingly demanding environment in what I am sure can feel to them like a thankless job. Members will, like me, have received emails from local postal workers asking for support and for their concerns to be heard. It is right that we give them a voice in this conversation. I have no doubt that Members will set out a wide range of issues that they and their constituents have experienced. I want to leave ample time for those contributions, but I do want to share one example of poor delivery service that I have experienced with Royal Mail. It reflects what many of my constituents have been dealing with for some time; it is clear that the problems are not isolated, but getting a straight answer about them is far harder than it should be. In my case, public money was involved: every Member knows that they can produce a non-partisan, publicly funded annual report to communicate with constituents, yet in parts of my constituency that report simply was not delivered. I pressed Royal Mail on what went wrong and did not receive a proper answer. I am still waiting to receive one. When public money is used, there should be clear accountability, but that has not happened here. The same applies to those paying out of their own pockets. Our constituents are paying increasing amounts for stamps and not getting the service they have paid for. Again, there is little accountability. I am sure we will hear similar experiences from colleagues today. If Royal Mail cannot provide an answer to a Member of Parliament about delivery failures—I gave it ample opportunity to do so, on many occasions—it raises serious questions about what an ordinary member of the public can expect to experience when they ask the same questions. This is the United Kingdom, not Russia or North Korea. When people pay for a service, they rightly expect it to be delivered well. When it is not, they expect, at the very least, a clear explanation and reassurance that the problem will not happen again.

    Hansard source
30. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Royal Mail: Performance

    At no point have I laid any blame at the posties’ feet; this is a structural issue. The point that I am making—this is important, because it is affects all of us in this House—is that Royal Mail underpins a large part of our democracy. At the time of elections, we all expect election leaflets to be delivered. That is part of our democracy; it is an obligation that Royal Mail has to us, and we expect it to be upheld. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are structural problems. I want Royal Mail to meet the union and have those conversations. It is no fault of the posties, who work very hard—as does everyone in this House.

    Hansard source
31. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Royal Mail: Performance

    The hon. Lady makes a serious point, and I hope the Minister will address it. Bear in mind that Royal Mail is a private company. Many organisations choose the deferred mail option—the economy of economies option—because it is the cheapest. Why would they not? But because they choose that option, people do not receive their post for a long time. Many of my constituents are fairly elderly and rely on letters for NHS appointments or bank statements. If they receive nothing for two weeks and then get it all at once, they find that difficult to understand. It has not been communicated meaningfully, so Royal Mail needs to do that very quickly. I was grateful to sit down with the Royal Mail leadership last week. We broke bread and discussed the serious challenges that the organisation faces, as well as the shortcomings in the services that many of our constituents experience. From my conversations, I believe there is a genuine desire to improve and an acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge ahead. However, given the volume of correspondence that flows into Members’ offices on this issue, it is vital that we convey our constituents’ strength of feeling. The message must be heard loud and clear: people are not satisfied, and they expect the service to improve quickly. My message to Royal Mail is this. You are not just a company; you are a British national institution. Do not wait to be criticised in the press, complained about by customers across the country or summoned before Select Committees or the Secretary of State. Be proactive. Communicate clearly what you are doing to improve the service. Most importantly, begin an honest national conversation with the British public about what they can expect. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.

    Hansard source
32. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Royal Mail: Performance

    I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this important and timely debate. Most importantly, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for turning up this morning and making their constituent’s voices heard. A number of wide-ranging issues have been brought forward. It has been a productive debate, and it is clear that we all want to retain a letter postal delivery service in the UK. However, as many Members have said, there are structural issues across the service, and we are going through a period of unprecedented technological change. Those changes are affecting people up and down the country. People are not receiving post such as NHS letters or important legal documents. These issues are affecting posties’ morale, they are affecting recruitment and retention, and they are affecting our democracy and the use of public money. I thank the Minister for his speech and the points that he raised. I know that he and his team are working very hard with the Secretary of State to make Royal Mail accountable for a lot of those issues. I hope that the Business and Trade Committee can bring forward an inquiry to look into this issue in a granular way and report those findings back to the House. Looking across Westminster Hall today, it is clear that there is cross-party support to improve the situation, and this has been a productive conversation. I say to Royal Mail, “We are getting on the job; we are going to improve this service, and we will enforce the USO and make sure that it is fit for purpose, because we all deserve this service that we are paying for.” I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make sure that that happens. Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.

    Hansard source
33. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Student Loans

    I say to Labour Members that we all want to get this issue sorted out. When I spoke to the Chancellor during the spring statement, she said that the way that she was going to control student loan interest rates was by controlling inflation, but we all know what is happening in the middle east at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that policy is wishful thinking and that we need to think about the issue properly in order to change the system?

    Hansard source
34. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Student Loans

    We have heard the argument repeatedly that it was the Conservatives and the coalition Government that brought in these changes. I am someone with a plan 2 loan. I was in the generation that Blair told to go to university, and at no point did anyone in that Blair Government talk about how the jobs market would take on so many graduates or, most importantly, who would pay for those people to go to university. Does the Minister agree that the 50% of school leavers who went to university should be paid for by the 50% that did not?

    Hansard source
35. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Mundell

    Fuel Duty

    Does my right hon. Friend agree that in large rural constituencies such as mine, it is not just about constituents having to pay additional fuel duty at the pump, because they also pay it through everything they buy? Everything has to be transported into these rural areas, and there are services that they require. They therefore pay twice, which makes this tax rise doubly regressive.

    Hansard source
36. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·David Davis

    Engagements

    Q7.   Last week, in the Government’s attack on jury trials, the Prime Minister’s own Back Benchers said that the plans were“unworkable, unjust, unpopular and unnecessary”,—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 213.]“wrong in principle and wrong in practice”,—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 265.]and“oppressive, authoritarian and, quite honestly…reactionary.”—[Official Report, 10 March 2026; Vol. 782, c. 241.]Some 3,000 of the Prime Minister’s fellow lawyers say that juries have not caused this crisis. Earlier in his career, the Prime Minister himself said that scrapping juries “enables wrongful convictions”. The Institute for Government says that the Government are massively overestimating the savings that they will make from the plans. Let us be clear: the Prime Minister’s Back Benchers oppose it, his professional colleagues oppose it, and, in a previous life, he opposed it, so why is he forcing through a policy that is unjust in principle, unworkable in practice and opposed by everyone?

    Hansard source
37. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Student Loans

    It is an honour to be the final Back-Bench speaker in this debate. I do not feel like I am at the back of the queue; I am just not at the front. It is good to see some Liberal Democrats with us today. We know that student finance is a particularly important subject for debate in the Liberal Democrat party. In fairness, though, the Vince Cable plan, sometimes also known as plan 2, is not only about the Liberal Democrats. The Conservatives were also in government at that time, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats. We shared responsibility. The whole thing was largely based on the Browne report, which had been commissioned by the previous Government under the other Brown, who somehow managed not to mention it during the course of the 2010 general election. To be fair, the existence of a real interest rate in both the Browne plan and the Cable plan was intended to make the system more progressive. None the less, it has become clear over time that that system needs to change. It has also become clear that, with all the pressures on young people and graduates at the present time, including unemployment, now is not the time to squeeze them further on the repayment threshold. In the short time available, I will talk primarily about apprenticeships and degrees. In particular, I want to focus on the necessity of concentrating on quality apprenticeships.

    Hansard source
38. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Student Loans

    I will, but I will start by telling my hon. Friend about the lack of quality in some previous apprenticeships. I draw the House’s attention to the 2012 National Audit Office report on adult apprenticeships. I have time for only a couple of very short excerpts. The number of apprenticeships had increased dramatically in the three years up to 2012. The vast majority of apprentices were over 25. One in five apprenticeships lasted fewer than six months. Only one third of apprenticeships were at an advanced level, compared with something like 60% in France. In a separate study, there was the amazing discovery that, at that time, one in five apprentices—and this was to rise even further—did not even know that they were on an apprenticeship, so poor, thin and flaky were those courses. So, yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, we reformed the system. First, in 2012 we introduced the minimum length of one year. We then had the substantial package of reforms in 2017 to make sure that there would be 20% of time off the job and to introduce the apprenticeship levy. It included the move from frameworks, which were sort of tick-box standards in many cases, to proper standards that would be designated and designed by employers and would have a proper end-point assessment to guarantee that that person had learned those occupational standards. And yes, of course the number of people on apprenticeships then fell. The Government amendment says that they want to reverse the decline in apprenticeships under the previous Government. The reality is that the number of apprenticeships first grew like crazy under the previous Government as a result of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and then it came back down following our reforms to make the apprenticeships higher quality and more exacting. In 2010, the 280,000 figure was still lower than the 340,000 that we achieved in government. Now it looks like the Government are set on restarting that rollercoaster by reducing the standard of apprenticeships.

    Hansard source
39. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Damian Hinds

    Student Loans

    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we need quality apprenticeships. That is why I regret the fact that the independent Institute for Apprenticeships is being dissolved to be replaced by Skills England, which is not independent, does not have guaranteed business involvement in setting standards, and has now been moved from the DFE to the Department for Work and Pensions. I regret that the Government are watering down end-point assessments, and I regret most of all that the new minimum length of an apprenticeship is eight months, down from 12 months. By the way, a 12-month apprenticeship is already short by international standards, and it is now being reduced even further to eight months. Try telling a German captain of industry that an apprenticeship can be done in eight months. There is nothing wrong with eight-month training courses, just do not call them apprenticeships. Call them something else so that we maintain the standard, brand and integrity of an apprenticeship. The Government say, “We are doing all these things. We are reducing the standards and making it easier to access the cash and pass the course, and we believe that we may be able to grow the numbers.” I should actually apologise to Labour Members, because I think it insults their intelligence when they are given a piece of paper and asked to read something that says: “We believe that with our plan the number of apprenticeships will grow.” Of course it is going to grow—it could not fail to grow. The point is that it is not a like-for-like increase in the number of apprenticeships. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know I am out of time. I had a load more to say—perhaps another day. Thank you for calling me.

    Hansard source
40. 18 Mar 2026·Parliament·Dame Harriett Baldwin

    Royal Mail: Performance

    This has been an incredibly powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for their contributions. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. There has been a consistent theme and a consistent message, but I will try not to repeat all the powerful speeches that we have had. I will try to focus my speech on the questions for the Minister. I have had a lot of casework in West Worcestershire on this issue, and it seems to have happened post Ofcom’s decision in July 2025 to allow a change to the universal service obligation. That seems to be the point at which I observed a huge increase in casework. We have heard about really serious consequences on our constituents’ lives. It is incredibly important that the Minister gets to grips in terms of his responsibilities vis-à-vis particularly the regulator. I want to focus on the meeting that the Minister had last week with Ofcom, and I want to add my appreciation for the amazing work that our posties do in West Worcestershire. The meeting with Ofcom came about on the afternoon after last week’s urgent question, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the action that he is taking. Ofcom agreed that the new Czech owner of Royal Mail could change the universal service obligation, and that change started last July. The new delivery model means that first class should continue to be delivered on a daily basis, and second class should be every other day. But what we have heard loud and clear in this debate today is that that does not seem to be happening. We buy a first-class stamp for a reason—because we want a delivery the next day. How is Ofcom justifying its decision to allow Royal Mail to have higher costs for a service that is clearly getting worse? What did it tell the Minister at the meeting that he had? Did he secure any commitments from Ofcom about its powers vis-à-vis Royal Mail? I know that the Minister also sits down regularly with Royal Mail. What discussions has he had with Royal Mail about the issues that have been so well articulated across the House this morning? Staffing cuts, delivery revisions and operational changes have clearly contributed to this collapse in performance. Does the Minister believe that the current regulatory framework for this precious part of our critical national infrastructure is fit for purpose? Is he considering any reforms to the regulatory framework for Royal Mail? Royal Mail continues to say—I think we have heard it illustrated by the contributions this morning—that the universal service obligation, as currently defined, is impossible to deliver. When the company was bought, the new owner must have done due diligence on what the obligations were. Does the Minister accept the premise that the current universal service obligation is impossible to deliver, or does he think that, with the right regulatory interventions, the owner can meet it? The recent letter that Royal Mail sent to the Business and Trade Committee refers to its contingency plans to prioritise parcels to prevent unsafe build-ups, but I think all of us believe and have heard anecdotally that the prioritisation of parcels is a deliberate business decision, because that is where the margin is seen to be. Can the Minister explain the conversations that he has had with Royal Mail about the threshold for that contingency—Royal Mail claims that it holds it in reserve—for addressing parcels with a higher priority than letters? At what point does a temporary decision to implement that contingency become a permanent de facto policy of deprioritising letters—the very heart of our universal service obligation?

    Hansard source