5,750 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
We will have our work cut out, with its 330 pages and 122,000 words—[Interruption.] Labour Members seek to hide behind measures that we support, such as enhanced maternity rights. But will the hon. Member tell me how many times the word “maternity” appears in the Bill, and how many times the word “union”—his paymasters—appears in it?
I trust that you will want all Members this afternoon to declare any relevant interests, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I have none. To answer the question that the hon. Gentleman did not manage to answer, the word “maternity” appears in this Bill three times; the word “union” appears in this Bill 478 times. Follow the money, Madam Deputy Speaker. With unemployment higher every month—[Interruption.] Listen and learn. This will be Labour’s legacy: with unemployment higher every month of this Government, it is a bleak time for those trying to find work. The independent Office for National Statistics estimates that vacancies are down by 115,000 since this Government came into office. Some 41% of those graduating in 2023 were not in full-time work 15 months later, and it is estimated that almost half the top 100 UK employers have reduced their graduate intake. In fact, graduates are competing for so few jobs that getting a job is as improbable as spotting a Labour Member who has not received a union donation. But it is not just graduates: for many, seasonal work is the first opportunity to get a foot on the career ladder yet this Bill in its current form forces hospitality businesses or anyone who relies on seasonal workers into an impossible position. That is why we are supportive of the Lords’ compromise amendment that would allow employers who need flexibility across the calendar year to continue to have it; what could be so objectionable about that?
Mental health is a huge issue; across the House we would agree on that and the Mayfield report this morning is just one of many contributions to the debate. But for so many—this goes to reform of our welfare system as well—the right answer will be to be in employment, and the Mayfield report talks about creating barriers to employers giving young people a chance. There will of course be some challenges with any form of contracted employment, including zero-hours, which many find a very flexible way of combining work with study and parental or other responsibilities. The way to try to solve that challenge across this House is not the clunking fist of regulation dictating and providing perverse incentives and maybe unintended consequences, which mean that employers do not take a chance at all on young people and they do not get that first step on the employment ladder. I understand that the hon. Lady’s concerns and contributions are well meant, but that is why it would be so much better if we approached the Bill collectively, after so many hours of debate in Committee in this place and in the other place, and if the Government showed compromise to help mitigate—not shelve the Bill, as I might prefer—some of the worst damage that will manifest itself in fewer jobs, fewer opportunities and some of the most vulnerable finding it very hard to get into work.
Well, I am glad we have found one; I have not had any representations from it.
I ask the Member strongly to withdraw that: I do not despise trade unions; not a single word I have ever said at the Dispatch Box indicates anything of the sort, and I would ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to get the Member to withdraw that comment as it is not worthy of him. I would have hoped for better form in the conduct of this debate. I support people’s rights to trade unions—well-regulated trade unions. For 30 years, the Labour party accepted a broad consensus on the balance between the rights of workers and the rights of employers. Tony Blair never sought at any point to reopen the consensus on that balance that has served this country well, and it does no one a service to render people unemployed.
I should give way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who did so much service on this Bill.
I am trying to be generous to the hon. Member, as this Bill was part of his legacy before he was so rudely fired by a bad boss without any notice. It is not unreasonable to say that a strike must be supported by a mere quarter of workers in order to be valid. I do not think the Labour party would claim the mandate that the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) was talking about on the votes of merely a quarter.
We on the Conservative Benches seek to respect the role of trade unions, but in a flexible workplace where we see growth in the economy and—unlike what we see today—more people in jobs, rather than fewer people in jobs. That does not help anybody at all, least of all a Government who claim that their No. 1 obsession is growth. That is not an unreasonable position. Not for the first time, I think Ministers have got themselves in a bind. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade is going around telling business groups that he is listening, but every one of them is against this Bill. From what the Health Secretary has been saying privately, it is clear that he is no fan of giving more power to militant unions to call low turnout strikes. The welfare Secretary has commissioned reports on getting people from welfare into work, and those reports talk about not disincentivising employers from hiring. Are Treasury Ministers really looking forward to the Office for Budget Responsibility next week scoring the impact of this Bill, given the independent estimates that it could shave up to 2.8% off GDP? The Chancellor likes to blame everyone from the dinosaurs onwards for her failure, but this one will definitely be on her. The looming disaster of this Bill is the truth that dare not speak its name. It may be a triumph for the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), but it is a disaster for Britain. It is bad for business, bad for growth, and bad for jobs. Far from furthering workers’ rights, it punishes those who want a job. We do not protect workers by bankrupting their employers. Even the Government’s allies are warning them against this Bill. Government Members have a choice. They can stand by and watch as their Government bring into law decades-worth of economic stagnation, or they can be on the side of the young, the vulnerable and the enterprising. History will remember this moment, because when unemployment skyrockets, businesses shut their doors, and young people stop believing and stop hoping, no one on the Government Benches will be able to say that they were not warned.
Mr Speaker, last night I was honoured to speak at an event you kindly hosted with the Royal National Institute for Deaf People. I met Craig, the chief executive of Action Deafness, which delivers vital services across my constituency, as well as Stuart, an academic focused on the needs of deaf young people. They told me that deaf people too often navigate support from siloed health, education and welfare systems that create barriers. What steps is the Minister taking to co-ordinate cross-departmental support for deaf people to prevent them from falling between the gaps?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for securing this timely debate. I also welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench; I think this is the first time we have met across the Dispatch Box in Westminster Hall, and I genuinely wish her well. I also thank in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), who, as ever, demonstrates a very deep understanding and knowledge of development issues and, importantly, the challenges that we face in today’s world. The UK has a proud record as a global leader in international development. I am proud that that record was shaped and delivered by successive Conservative Governments. On this side of the House, we have always believed that development is not simply about charity, but about partnership, soft power, security and the projection of our national interest. Over the past decade, Conservative Governments delivered real and lasting results that have made the world healthier and safer, and unlocked economic opportunities. Millions of people were lifted out of poverty through targeted aid programmes and economic development initiatives. We were the single largest public contributor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, which has saved over 18 million lives. Our water, sanitation and hygiene programmes reached over 120 million people worldwide. That is a record that we Conservatives can be proud of. Today, though, the world we face is very different from that of just a few years ago. We are living through an era of multiple and overlapping crises: conflict in Europe and the middle east; state fragility in the Sahel and the horn of Africa; climate and weather-driven disasters displacing millions and a growing contest of influence, where authoritarian regimes ruthlessly exploit entry points. Against that backdrop, the UK must ensure that every pound of taxpayers’ money spent abroad delivers maximum impact and advances our critical national interests. We need to focus our resources where they make the greatest difference, where they advance our economic prosperity, strengthen our national security and support global stability. Our country will always play its part internationally, but our development funding must work harder for Britain. Development assistance is a powerful tool of foreign policy: it helps us to prevent conflict before it reaches our shores, to tackle the root causes of migration, and to build the partnerships that underpin trade, investment and shared security. Our approach should therefore be guided by one simple principle: every pound we spend abroad should strengthen Britain’s influence, advance our prosperity and help to keep our people safe. That does not mean turning our back on those in need—far from it: it means ensuring that our aid budget is targeted, effective and sustainable, not fragmented across hundreds of small programmes, but concentrated in areas that serve both moral purpose and strategic value. To achieve that, we must also work differently. First, we need to harness the power of economic development. Development finance should not just be about grants; it should open markets, create opportunities and support British business too. When our aid helps to build capacity, digital connectivity and a resilient infrastructure, it lays the groundwork for trade and investment that benefit both sides. British International Investment is a vital vehicle for that. We should go further in aligning ODA with our export strategy and business partnerships. I ask the Minister what specific steps the Government are taking to ensure that private investment is being leveraged to its full potential. How is the FCDO supporting British International Investment and other financial instruments to deliver maximum value and measurable returns for both partner countries and the UK taxpayer? Secondly, we must modernise our partnerships. Development should be about partnership, not paternalism. It should empower countries to build their own institutions, tackle corruption and take ownership of their future. That is how we strengthen democracy, counter malign influence and help our partners to become resilient, prosperous nations and reliable allies of the UK. We also need to be bolder in linking aid to security outcomes. Our support has helped to build resilience in countries targeted by Russian destabilisation, such as Moldova. Those are examples of ODA directly strengthening our own national security. Will the Minister set out how the Department is embedding that security lens across its ODA portfolio, and whether new co-ordination mechanisms exist between the FCDO, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to align aid spending with defence and resilience goals, including in relation to combating disinformation from hostile actors? In doing so, we should continue to ensure that our support reaches those to whom it makes the greatest difference. Women and girls must remain at the heart of our international development approach. Targeted programmes save lives and support education, health and safety. This work is not only a moral responsibility. It is one of the most effective and value for money ways to deliver on our wider development and foreign policy goals.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention; I was just going to come on to the point that I believe answers his question. Our development partnerships must adapt to the changing geopolitical landscape that we face today. That is at the heart of this issue. The minilateral model, where like-minded countries pool resources for shared objectives can be a powerful force multiplier, nimbler and more accountable than large multilateral programmes. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government are exploring new minilateral partnerships to deliver aid more efficiently and to help to ensure that developing nations choose genuine partnerships of openness and mutual benefit with the UK over one-sided deals with authoritarian powers that can often lead to debt traps? Within that same vein, the Commonwealth is an immense asset, so what are the Government doing to use ODA to strengthen democratic resilience, improve internal trade and support the new Commonwealth secretary-general’s priorities on prosperity and governance? We owe it to the British taxpayer to ensure that every pound of ODA is well spent, fully accountable and transparently reported. That means rigorous evaluation, better oversight and a clear demonstration of value for money. It also means having the courage to stop funding programmes that are no longer effective or aligned with our priorities, and to focus on what works. I ask the Minister to set out how her Department is strengthening accountability and transparency mechanisms across its ODA portfolio. We must recognise that defence, diplomacy and development are interdependent. Strategic flexibility matters in an increasingly dangerous world, and reprioritising elements of the aid budget to strengthen our defence and security capabilities is pragmatic and responsible. We must deliver on that. Security is the foundation of development. Without stability, prosperity and progress, it cannot take root. Finally, I return to the question raised last week at the Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) regarding the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. Given the position expressed in recent days by the US Administration about its future role in Gaza, can the Minister confirm what discussions the UK has had with the US and other partners on that issue? What assessment has been made of the implications for UK aid, and what safeguards are in place to ensure that British taxpayers’ money is being used responsibly, effectively and in line with our values? As we look ahead, our approach to international development must continue to reflect who we are as a nation: outward looking, confident and compassionate. My party’s approach stands for a proud record of global leadership, a focus on results and accountability and a belief that partnership, not dependency, is the path to lasting progress and security. Britain will remain a force for good in the world, not because of the size of our aid budget, but because of the clarity of our ambition, the strength of our partnerships and the integrity of our leadership.
We are seeing more and more HMOs across Walsall borough and in my constituency, and it is leaving my local residents feeling that they have very little say on what is happening in their streets. Walsall council has worked on this. I welcome its new article 4 direction, which came into effect in October 2025 and is a much-needed step in restoring local accountability. However, the issue does concern me. The conversion of family homes into HMOs reduces the availability of affordable family homes and risks changing the nature of settled communities. There is also a growing fear and concern about the use of HMOs to accommodate illegal migrants or newly arrived asylum seekers, so once again I seek reassurance from the Government that, as those people are decanted from hotels, we will not see an automatic rise in the number of HMOs. The Government need to get a grip on this issue; a starting point would be a national assessment of the impact that HMO concentrations are having on community cohesion. Underpinning all this is the fact that our communities need to feel that they are being listened to. I urge the Government to take note and take action.
6. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the increase in employer national insurance contributions on businesses.
I am not convinced that that answer went anywhere near my question. Family businesses are the lifeblood of communities and constituencies such as mine. Last week, I met Family Business UK to discuss how the Government’s national insurance hike and restrictions to business property relief are forcing businesses to pause investment, think twice about taking on more staff and, in some cases, even to close their doors. Ahead of the Budget, will the Chancellor meet me and representatives from family businesses to seek ways in which the Government will work with, not against, these really key businesses?
Does my hon. Friend agree that we have a Government who simply do not understand business? They seem to think that they can just squeeze and squeeze small businesses because they make unlimited profits. If they do that, there will be no businesses left on our high streets.
The hon. Lady talks a lot about footfall on high streets, and I think we all agree that more footfall benefits businesses. With that in mind, what consideration has she given to regenerating our towns and city centres by building on brownfield sites and setting proper housing targets in our city centres, rather than on the peripheries of cities?
I was somewhat entertained by the lines about Labour being the new Trojans, which I suppose makes us the Greeks. It might be worth remembering that the Greeks won the war, and that the current Greek Government are generating employment while this Government are cutting it. While we are telling stories, it might also be worth remembering that there are some really rather good books out there—none of them written by the Treasury team, it is true. A rather good one came out recently on prosperity for growth, written by Dr Laffer, whose name came up earlier in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), and two Members of the other place, Lord Elliott of Mickle Fell and Lord Hintze—I declare an interest, as Lord Elliott’s daughter is my goddaughter. It is still a good book, despite the fact that there is a connection there. It sets out the principle that we all know—a principle that has been known for hundreds of years—that taxation deters investment, lack of investment deters growth, and lack of growth deters future opportunity to look after all of us, including, in particular, the poorest. What we are seeing on our high streets today is a reflection of that tax policy. We are seeing the increasing ratchet of control—control through regulation, through taxation and through any number of different tools that this Government have brought in. In wonderful towns such as Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Borough Green—I am sure you could add a few of your own, Madam Deputy Speaker; it would be worth saying that Portsmouth itself—[Interruption.] I have got that completely wrong, haven’t I?
This explains why I was never welcome in the Navy. You will know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that there are many other high streets, such as those in Romsey and Southampton, that are doing well despite this Government’s policies. However, we are seeing a series of changes that are costing us all, and I think it is worth focusing on a few of them. The first affects retail, hospitality and leisure properties, which are seeing their rate relief reduced to 40%, and only up to a cash limit of £110,000 per business. Why is that happening? Well, this is basically just another tax grab. It is just another attempt to ensure that those who are working hard to put food on their tables—and, by the way, to put food on the tables of everybody else in this country by generating that employment—
I will just finish the point, if I may. While they are working hard to do that, this Government are trying to squeeze them. I understand why they are doing that, because they have got themselves into a level of debt that is genuinely extraordinary. They are piling it on even more quickly than anybody—
If I may, I will just finish my point. They are piling on the debt even more quickly than any other Administration for a long time, with the exception of during covid, when, as Members will agree, Labour wanted to spend even more. That squeeze is hurting businesses more and more. I know of independent retailers in Tonbridge and Edenbridge that have seen 300% increases in business rates as a result. It is simply not sustainable. We are talking about taking money off businesses before they are able to pay those who are working there 24/7—those who own the business. That charge, that squeeze and that pain are being put on individuals who are getting up early and trying their damnedest to keep their business going. It is completely absurd. The £110,000 valuation is artificial, because business rates are set by the Valuation Office Agency, and local businesses have no input. There is no way for decisions to be challenged and no real accountability. We are seeing a Government agency setting a valuation that allows taxation to rise with no possibility of appeal. This is simply no way to run an economy. We are seeing ever-increasing centralisation. The correct thing to do would be to allow businesses to keep some of the money that they are making in order to reinvest in themselves and in staff, and to actually allow councils to have some say. If we believe in democracy and in individuals having the ability to shape their future, surely we must extend them the right to control how towns, villages and communities across our country tax themselves. Sadly, that is not what we are seeing. We are seeing what we used to describe as a nation of shopkeepers—that nation that defeated tyranny in Europe not once but many times—becoming a nation of bookkeepers, all taxed by the state.
I would be delighted to, because direct comparison can be drawn with other countries that have extended these same rules. They protect the workers who are in the job—that is absolutely true—but they dissuade anybody else from joining and starting as a new hire. Then those countries see exactly what we are seeing in the UK today: growing youth unemployment. When there is a burden on a business that makes it harder to change its employment structure, it simply delays employment. That is all that happens.
Forgive me, but I do not agree. I can see that transport connections and the £2 bus link—which has now gone up by 50% under this Government—was crucial to helping small businesses survive in rural areas, but businesses that were taking in younger people as new starters are not hiring them because of cost. The cost of any change that may be needed in the business, which may evolve or shape itself differently, means that effectively it is not worth the risk. We see this again and again. The tragedy is that I am not telling this House anything new. This speech could have been given anytime in the past 50 years. The reality is that we have tried all these experiments, and we know how they work: they end up with rising unemployment, rising debt burdens and fewer public services. We know where this goes.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is the reality of what this Government have done. I understand that they have decided to defend the established strength of unionised and employed workers. I get it, but they have chosen specifically to punish incoming workers, young people and those who are trying to enter the labour market. That is the choice they have made. They have also chosen to defend established businesses—those businesses that can pay a large amount for human resources functions—rather than the smaller businesses that innovate and start up. Again, that is a choice that they have made, and let us not ignore the fact that it was a choice. They have chosen the large company, the institution, the established worker, and they have decided to punish the high street.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for giving way—he is a friend, and he is a great man, but he is entirely wrong on this question. The argument he is making is a correct one, which is why I advocate for lowering taxes. However, this Government have raised taxes and rates for businesses, and if we are to believe what the Chancellor has been saying this morning, we have all been warned that she is about to raise taxes on individuals as well. That is costing us all, because people are reining in their spending in anticipation of being poorer.
The hon. Member makes a good point about bank closures. Does he agree that the innovation of banking hubs, which we have seen since 2022, is welcome? As of April this year, there were 150 around the country, and they can be a lifeline for many communities. Does he agree that the criteria applied by Cash Access UK for granting a banking hub can be quite narrow? I ask this for the Minister’s benefit. Would the hon. Member join me in urging the Government to reconsider and review some of the narrow criteria? In Portchester, we are campaigning for a banking hub—
Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that many of those sitting on the opposite Benches have clearly been dragooned into coming here to support the Government—as often happens in government, God help us. Does he think that they walk down their high streets telling the shopkeepers, “It is great to have national insurance charges so high that you cannot employ anyone, it is great to have an employment Bill that means you will not be able to employ anyone again, and with the rates that are out there, you may all be out of business—suck it up”?
The hon. Lady is making great pace through her speech, but I want to bring her back to one point. She has made the case for all the peripheral things that the Government have done to try to help high streets, and for various other things. Does she not understand—I would like her opinion on this—that raising national insurance on small businesses, and reducing the time in which they have to pay, has damaged their ability to take people on and is really costing them, to the point that many have closed? Does she not agree that that single decision has done more damage to our high streets than anything that she talks about repairing?
The real problem in all this is that the Government imposed a national insurance increase on businesses. The second problem is what they have done for businesses that might have taken on new starters by lowering that threshold. It has been an absolute killer on both counts for businesses, so there is a reason why they are not taking on new starters at the moment.
It is good that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Lloyd Hatton) finally remembered the money given to his area by the last Government, even though it has not been spent, which is a double pleasure for him; I am sure he will find another way to spend it. I speak today to support the key high street shopping areas in my constituency: the Mount, Hatch Lane, Highams Park, Station Road, Woodford Broadway and George Lane. Each one of them now suffers as a result of a whole lot of different problems, some of which have been going on for a long time and some of which are more recent issues that have erupted as a result of Government policy. There has been a slow, progressive increase in difficulties on the high street under many Governments, even though Governments have tried to do different things. What this Government have done is not helpful. The Minister spoke about the difficulties that high streets face and all the things the Government want to do for them, but they have decided to introduce higher national insurance contributions. More importantly, in a way, the Government have also lowered the starting point for paying national insurance, which has been a body blow to small shops and retailers in all our constituencies.
I instinctively agree with my hon. Friend’s constituent, even though I have never met him, but I wish him well—I was worried that I should have remembered meeting him, but I realise now that I have not, so there is no early onset. If the Government really wanted to raise national insurance, surely they should have made a major change by not imposing it on small retail outfits, and certainly not small shops and shopkeepers. It has been a disaster, frankly, and it has added massively to the bills. Another huge problem for these businesses is the rise in electricity costs, which is not necessarily to do with the strike price of gas but is massively down to the fact that we are now charged huge amounts on our bills simply to subsidise the unbelievably high-paced drive to get to net zero, which will affect many of them. I recommend that the Government look again at the hospitality sector, which has lost 100,000 jobs. As has been said, 100,000 jobs lost in any other industry would have been a major issue debated on the Floor of the House. It is a huge number. This is an industry where many people start their businesses, and these pubs, restaurants and so on are high points on our high streets. Added to all this, Labour councils seem incapable of understanding why parking charges are a real problem for these businesses. The council in my area now levies very restrictive parking charges on high streets. The trouble is that many high street businesses rely on passing trade—somebody who wants to get one thing pulls in for 15 minutes of free parking, goes over to another shop and buys something there before getting back into their car. Free parking encourages people to do that. My high streets—particularly Station Road—have seen a significant fall-off in trade simply because of those parking charges being imposed. It is not helpful.
I do not have a Conservative council to criticise, although I would criticise it if it had done that. It was a Labour council that introduced these charges, and they have had a dramatic effect on those who would have come to shops. A small bookshop that has been there for many years is now thinking about calling it a day. That is a real problem, and it is bonkers to add that to the other problems these businesses have. Something that ruins high streets and causes real problems is the inability of local authorities to control the number of adult gaming centres on the high street. I and many others are campaigning to get the Government to allow local authorities to make a decision about that, rather than being overridden. I hope the Government will look at that in due course. The big thing that is affecting our high streets above all else is the crime and shoplifting going on. We have had a huge problem in our main shopping centres. These people go into shops and are violent. They threaten the shopkeepers, who are often pressed to the wall while they take thousands of pounds—this is not £1 or £2; thousands of pounds of goods are robbed from shop shelves. Those who are shopping are also threatened, and it drives people out of the high street. We have tried hard to bring this all together, so that the shops report the crime and the police are there for it, but despite that, this crime is still rising. One of the biggest problems is that when a shoplifter is arrested, they say that they wish to be tried in the Crown court. They know full well that the backlog in the Crown court is so great that they will be out on the street again that afternoon. The Government should consider carefully whether shoplifters should be allowed to do that, and whether magistrates courts, which do not have a backlog, should be doing summary charges on shoplifters in criminal cases—with limits, obviously—which would get them off the street that day, not back on the streets committing crime again.
I cannot give way again because the hon. Gentleman does not have a minute to give me—sorry about that. Otherwise, I would have loved to give way. That kind of shoplifting is a major problem, and I want to know that the Government will do what is necessary to bring the levels down. As long as crime is at such a huge scale on our high streets, we will lose more and more people and see more shops close. I ask the Government simply to think again about the national insurance charges, the level of business rates, and the nature of crime on our high streets. Those are the three main things driving people away from the high streets, mostly into shopping centres, which are not where we want them. We want people on our high streets, which are really important and vital to our communities.
One of the biggest problems with the Employment Rights Bill is the day-one rights that it introduces, which will remove the flexibility that allows employers to decide whether someone is the right hire or not.
I am listening carefully to everything the Minister says, including about being productive. The key for him is that for the first time sickness benefit is now within universal credit, which also includes all other benefits. That gives a face-to-face opportunity with all these staff. As he gets more people back to work—particularly those who have mental health problems such as depression and anxiety, for which work is a health treatment, as the health service will say—does he anticipate calculating on the back of that whether any money will be saved as a result? If so, will he at some stage come up with a plan for saving that money?
I will call only Sir Ashley Fox and the Minister to make speeches. There will not be an opportunity for Sir Ashley to sum up after the debate.
Growth, increased turnover and increased profits for microbusinesses should be a cause for celebration, but the reality is that crossing the reduced VAT threshold can be a disaster. So many suppliers of small businesses are themselves small businesses; there is no VAT that they can reclaim, so it can be dreadful.
I beg to move, That this House has considered Royal Mail and the universal service obligation. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to move the motion and introduce this debate on Royal Mail and the universal service obligation. This issue affects every household and small business in the country. The postal service is a vital part of our communities. Its future and the changes to the universal service obligation, or USO, particularly affect my constituents. Our postmen and women are among the most remarkable workers in the country. Out on their routes, come rain or shine, they are often well loved in their communities. The pandemic showed us at first hand the impact that a good postie has—especially for elderly or vulnerable people who were shielding or who had little other human interaction in that period. People in rural areas rely on the service to stay connected.
If the hon. Gentleman stays, he will find that I answer most of those points in the remainder of my speech. Since 1840, the principle of the USO has been simple: everyone in the United Kingdom, no matter where they live, should have access to a reliable and affordable postal service. It is a promise of fairness. If I post a letter in Bridgwater, it costs the same to deliver to an address in Inverness as it does to one down the road in Taunton.
Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will find that if only 20% do not get next-day delivery, they are doing better than average; that does not speak highly of Royal Mail. Since I was elected last year, many of my constituents have told me that Royal Mail is not working as it should. After hearing those concerns first hand, I visited the sorting office in Bridgwater. In January, I ran a sample survey to ascertain the scale of the problem in my constituency. I ensured that each town and village was sampled, as I wanted to ensure that every area was covered. I had hundreds of responses. Only one in three got a delivery every day; 15% said they received post once a week or less frequently. In North Petherton, a constituent repeatedly received a bundle of letters delivered once a week, with no Royal Mail van spotted during the rest of the week. I had a report of no deliveries in Othery for more than a fortnight. My constituents had to travel to the sorting office in Bridgwater to collect post personally. In Cossington, a constituent’s weekend magazine subscription went missing for seven weeks in a row. No one area had a wholly good or wholly bad service. In Burnham-on-Sea, 48% of respondents gave Royal Mail 10 out of 10 for reliability of service, and 30% gave it zero out of 10. It seems that if a household is on a route with a good postie, it gets a great service, but if that route is not allocated, the letters sit in the rack for days on end with nothing happening. That is simply bad management.
Indeed it should. We have evidence of poor management and, dare I say, occasionally unco-operative unions.