Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,731 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
At what point would the Green party feel that we should step in to support those in rural communities? Green Members often say that the Government need to provide more support, but if we cannot de-escalate because this is not our war, how can we support constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and up and down the UK?
As the hon. Lady rightly points out, if someone is using alternative transport, such as buses, they are still affected by fuel duty—even more so. On top of that, the Government have already increased the cost of a bus ticket by 50%, so her argument does not hold water.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to make a point of order about the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). She labelled the Conservative Benches “the manosphere”. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that it is suitable to use sex as a pejorative just because there happen to be only male Members sitting on the Conservatives Benches at this point in the debate? I would envisage it being a problem if I used such a term the opposite way to label only females sitting on the Labour Benches.
I come here today with a mission. Unfortunately, for the past two years I have not followed closely enough the Labour party’s position on what the Government want to deliver. I have lost track of whether we are talking about pillars, aims, priorities, staging points, milestones or foundations, but at the start of the year the latest reinvention was a mission focused on the cost of living. That was a slight change from when the Government first took office, because their main aim and their No. 1 priority at that point was to go for growth. Alas, as we have seen, that is not happening—the last figures say growth is 0%. What is more, it was evident that all the Government policies that were being put in place were actually anti-growth, as we are starting to see.
To win the next election, because then we can deliver the change that we are talking about. On reducing the cost of living—the Government’s No. 1 aim for January—it seems bizarre that the measures that are being put in place have done nothing to support that. The Prime Minister went on the news on Monday with a five-point plan to deal with what is going on. He said energy bills would be capped, but we already knew that because it was announced in the Budget and the cap is in place until July. He said the fuel duty cap would be extended until September, but we knew that because it was in the Budget and then it is set to rise.
The best way to decide how someone is going to behave in the future is to look at their past habits: we froze fuel duty for 15 years, and when a crisis hit in 2022 we reduced it. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make when the hon. Lady intervened. The Government have come up with a plan that is a talking shop and not doing anything. In response to the situation in Iran, they have simply reannounced what was in the Budget and further conversations with the CMA and the heating oil firms to work out whether they should or should not do something. That is precisely the point I am making: the rhetoric from the Government was “We are going to go for growth” but they then put in place some anti-growth policies, whereas now the cost of living is the No. 1 priority, but they are simply talking about that and making things worse.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out because I was the energy PPS in the Home Office at that time, so I saw exactly how that worked, what it looked like and how difficult it is to put measures in place. Let me remind her that the Conservatives made a £200 unconditional payment to anyone who could claim that they were living off grid. That is a stark difference from this Government, who have put aside £53 million for the 1.5 million people across the entire nation who use heating oil because they live off grid—£35 per person. The Government have ringfenced that money, so it will only be available to the houses that are hardest hit, meaning that most households will not get any payment at all. That is the exactly the point I am trying to make: the Government talk a good game, but when it comes to delivery, they are not doing what they say.
Of course the war increases the risk. The Americans chose to go into that war and that is now having an impact on all of us. The question under debate is what are we doing about that and what measures are being taken. We are discussing fuel duty, which, as it stands, the hon. Gentleman’s Government will increase in September. I have asked the Government to talk about the framework and the trigger points. I was glad to hear from the Minister that that increase is under consideration, but we need to know when that consideration will be made and what the trigger points are, because, as I rightly highlighted, we have seen all this before in 2022. We know what it looks like and we know how difficult it is to get to the canal boats, the park homes and the people living off grid. The fifth point that the Prime Minister made earlier this week was about de-escalation, but he has no control over that if he says that he is not involved in the war. I am all in favour of de-escalation, but that is not a domestic policy that will bring down the cost of living—nothing tangible can come from that stance. Why does this all matter so much? I live in and represent a rural constituency that is about 85% agricultural. We sit in the very heart of England, at the centre of the logistics industry. That means that every single day men and women from across Barwell, Earl Shilton and Donisthorpe get up, drive their vans, go out and drive their lorries, and support the economy.
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Road Haulage Association has estimated that the fuel duty change will involve about an extra £2,000. On top of that, the change will hit the individual householder or car owner by about £140. The Government talk about making a difference, for example with the warm home discount or freezing energy prices, but those measures will already have evaporated given the very nature of the fuel duty escalation, on top of the prices that are rising because of Iran. People who work in the logistics industry are very susceptible to these fluctuations. It is right that we all want to move to electricity, but that is not going to happen immediately. I do not disagree with many of the arguments about the direction that we need to take, but the question is: what can we do now in the light of the reaction from Iran? My constituents do not have the choice of walking or getting a bus, because we are a rural constituency and they rely on their cars. This increase will hit their cost of living by the very nature of the way it comes in. Let us contrast that with the 14 or 15 years of Conservative Government. That is usually the stock answer we hear from Labour Members. Gosh, 14 years! Yes, for 14 years we froze fuel duty because we recognised the impact it had on our households, on the white van man who is out working, on the delivery driver and on the lady who is driving from Hinckley to take a package up to Appleby Magna. Those people really need that support, and the change that we made and delivered had an impact.
In true style, a knight of the realm recognises my very next point, because all these policies need to be set in context. Context is important, because each Government might need to raise taxes at some point, but here we have a toxic concoction of employment rights, more red tape, business rates going up and the support around business rates being taken away, fuel duty going up, national insurance contributions going up and the minimum wage going up. Any of those in isolation might be a good idea and might need to be done for support, but taken together they run against the Government’s milestones, mantras, missions—whatever they want to call them—on growth and the cost of living. The pay-per-mile proposals for electric vehicles have been touched on, but I would like to expand on the issue. The proposals have brought huge consternation to many of my constituents. When I raised this issue straight after the Budget, I was blown away by the number of people from across the country who contacted me after seeing my question about how the proposals would work. There are simple, fundamental questions that the Government have not set about addressing. For example, what happens in the second-hand market? Who is judging when the mileage is being done? Are we likely to have monitors in our cars? That is meant to be done at an MOT, so what happens if I sell my car six months into it? What happens if someone lives in Northern Ireland and commutes to the Republic of Ireland? Where does the tax go then? What happens if we drive to Europe? For example, many people from my constituency like to take their caravan down to France for a holiday. Where do they pay their tax? How does that work? The proposals are having the effect of stalling growth in the electric car market. Many people are saying, “I made the choice. I wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for my family, because that was a good decision to make”, but they are now regretting that decision, and the market is stalling as a result. I ask the Government how will that impact be felt in the context of fuel duty, and where will those measures fit into the framework of a continuing Iranian war? To close where I started, I agree that in this place we can have a difference of opinion on when it is the right time to do something. I am pleased that the Minister said that everything was under consideration. That is really important for those listening outside. After all the Punch and Judy of this place on whose policy was right, whose was wrong and what has happened before, at the end of the day it is the families in Hinckley and Bosworth who will be looking at their budgets and at the uncertainty they see on the TV, and trying to decide what they should do. I simply ask the Minister to outline what he would consider to be a trigger point for change. Would it be a certain price value for heating oil? Would it be a certain price value for petrol? Would it be a certain duration of the conflict? None of us knows when the conflict will end. All these questions could be addressed in a framework that we learned from during our time in government. In 2022, we had to come up with support schemes from scratch.
Forgive me; I would be happy to give way again if the hon. Gentleman knows what the value was at that point. I do not know what it was because at the time I was working in the Energy Department trying to help support those households who were struggling and suffering, particularly those who lived in caravan parks, static homes and canal boats, who are off-grid and suffered by the very nature of where they got their fuel. He is right to say that we have to take this in the round. I have heard the Chancellor say that multiple times. How long will this go on? The decision is under consideration. I am not asking about when the decision is made or how to make that decision. This is more about understanding at what point we make those decisions and when the Chancellor decides that it is the right time to step in. It may well be that that decision was too late and that lessons could be learned. How do we know? That is the question I am posing to civil servants and this Government, because the hon. Gentleman’s party is now in charge of setting that out and deciding when is too long and when is too late. I would argue that the current payment of £53 million is not enough for my constituents. Many of them will not benefit, because they will not be covered by the resilience fund. What the Government have done under the resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is simply delegate the decision making to councils. Under the previous Government, when we were in charge, we chose not to do that because we wanted to support everyone who was struggling. It is this Government’s job to set out why they are not going to do that. I would argue that keeping the fuel duty rise in September will create a terribly difficult time for any of us who drive cars or run a business that uses vehicles. Let us not forget that the energy price cap will change in July. The Government have rightly said that it is frozen until then, but the impact on prices will not come through the system until July, so we might well see prices and the price cap rise very quickly in July just as the fuel duty is about to come in in September. We are back to the point made by the knight of the realm, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about this toxic concoction of everything happening at once. I urge the Government to be aware of that and to set out the trigger points and the framework.
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Will my hon. Friend tell us more about the quality?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.