David Reed

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Register on Parliament's site

Latest on this tracker 268

1. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer. I would like the Minister to know from the outset that His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will not oppose the Regulations. It is right that the Government should have the power to sanction individuals, groups and companies responsible for serious human rights abuses and serious violations of international humanitarian law; the regulations provide it, but asset freezes, director disqualifications and travel bans are serious measures, and the regulations considerably widen the range of conduct for which they can be imposed. Such powers must be used fairly, consistently and on the basis of sound evidence. I therefore request clarification from the Minister in four areas—I also thank him for his in-depth opening remarks. First, on the scope, the regulations add three new grounds for designation: serious violation of the right to liberty and security of person, serious violation of international humanitarian law, and obstruction of humanitarian assistance. How do the Government intend to apply those grounds, and what process will govern their use and review? In particular, how will the powers interact with the separate settlements regime that the Government announced in September? Secondly, on safeguards, in areas of humanitarian crisis, legitimate commercial and humanitarian activity can sit close to conduct that might trigger designation. Under regulation 8, anyone who provides finance or goods to a person responsible for abuses can be treated as “involved”, and that limb contains no requirement of knowledge. What protections will there be for British people and businesses acting legitimately and in good faith? Thirdly, on the impact, I understand that no specific consultation or formal impact assessment was carried out. Given that British nationals and companies are bound by the regulations wherever they operate, what assessment have the Government made of the consequences for British businesses, and what guidance will the Government provide? Fourthly, on consistency, designation requires only “reasonable grounds to suspect”. What evidence will the Government require in practice, particularly for designations “by description”, whereby a whole class of people can be designated at once? How will the Minister ensure that those standards are applied consistently across different conflicts and countries? As I stated, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition do not oppose the regulations. We ask only that Ministers put on record how the powers will be used, where their limits lie and what safeguards will protect legitimate activity and ensure consistency.

   Hansard source
2. 28 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   The Global Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law Sanctions Regulations 2026

   The regulations before us expand the scope quite significantly. Will the FCDO be using existing frameworks to ensure consistency or will those be expanded to reflect the expanded powers?

   Hansard source
3. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Defence and Security: European Partners

   In recent months, our European allies have become increasingly forthright in publicly naming hostile states responsible for attacks on their countries, yet Britain appears reluctant to do the same, even though the Foreign Secretary has spoken very clearly about hybrid war. Over the weekend, it was reported that the crippling cyber-attack on Jaguar Land Rover was state sponsored. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that failing to publicly attribute such attacks only emboldens our adversaries and, more importantly, will he now name the state believed to be responsible for this unprecedented attack on British industry?

   Hansard source
4. 27 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Strengthening Community Resilience

   The Minister will know how much I want the Government’s Be Ready campaign to succeed—I have shared my views with him at length—because the threats are real and increasing. But if the Government are going to ask people to stock up on tinned food and wind-up radios, they must be honest when we are attacked. The shadow Minister raised the case of Jaguar Land Rover, and the fact that the former Armed Forces Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), said at the weekend that the incident was state sponsored. That is incredibly serious, so can the Minister use this opportunity to tell the House which state was responsible?

   Hansard source
5. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Performance of Royal Mail

   Back in March, following a growing number of complaints from people across my constituency, I led a Westminster Hall debate on Royal Mail’s performance. It was well attended, like this evening’s debate, and it focused on the fact that while prices have continued to rise, the standard of service has declined, undermining public trust in Royal Mail, an institution that has been around for 500 years. I know this is a theme that will come up repeatedly this evening. Unfortunately, seven months later, I am still hearing the same complaints and constituents are still experiencing completely unacceptable delays. It is time for this House to act and for us to turn these debates into real action. It has been reported to me that people in Pinhoe in my constituency are receiving letters only once every two to three weeks, and I have heard similar accounts of households elsewhere in my constituency—Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Woodbury and Lympstone—going weeks without a delivery before receiving large bundles of post all at once. I know that many Members will have households in their constituencies who have had the same experiences.

   Hansard source
6. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Performance of Royal Mail

   I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and—to raise a point made by the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), who introduced the debate—this is not on the posties at all; the posties do a fantastic job. From the numbers for Royal Mail, it looks like asset stripping is going on, so we can understand why those posties are having a difficult time. There may be a perception that letters are no longer particularly important, but that is far from the case, especially in areas with elderly populations such as my constituency.

   Hansard source
7. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Performance of Royal Mail

   I completely agree, and I think we will have a lot of consensus in the debate this evening, as we did in my debate in March. Royal Mail clearly says that it is now a parcel company that still delivers letters, and that is an issue that affects countries very close to us. Denmark has PostNord, which has operated for about 400 years, and they are going through the exact same problems as us. We have the universal service obligation, and we really need to work on that to make sure it is fit for purpose and there are repercussions for not fulfilling those roles.

   Hansard source
8. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Performance of Royal Mail

   Again, we will find consensus here. I have a very mixed constituency with some really urban areas and some very rural areas, and there is a significant disparity in service delivery. When we think about the reasons why, we realise that it takes more time for posties to go out and deliver in some areas, which costs more money, and for a company that is stripping back quite significantly, we can understand why those problems arise. Going back to the point about those who have been waiting for NHS correspondence, financial documents and other time-sensitive information that they rely on, a constituent has told me that letters relating to their cancer treatment have been arriving late. For patients already facing the anxiety and uncertainty of cancer treatment, the added worry of not receiving important medical correspondence is completely unacceptable. For those people, many of whom do not use email or online services, these delays can have particularly serious consequences. I would like the Minister to address, if possible, a Royal Mail product called economy access mail. It is a non-time sensitive product, and organisations like the NHS and local councils will use it because it is the cheapest option, but they are not informing their customers that they are using it and that that is why correspondence arrives late more often than not. Particularly frustrating is the repeated cycle my office faces whenever we raise these concerns with Royal Mail, and we have heard very similar experiences tonight about poor communication. My constituents should not have <span id="92" class="column-number" data-column-number="92"></span>to be reaching out to their MP just to receive their post, nor can we keep having the same debates in this House without seeing any meaningful improvement. We have discussed some of the numbers, but according to Royal Mail’s latest quarterly performance figures, just 81.8% of first-class letters in the EX postcode of my constituency were delivered within the next working day, against a local target of 87%. Again, I could go into all the numbers, but I am sure that many other Members will be raising them. All this should be considered in the context of a first-class stamp now costing £1.80. My constituents are paying for a first-class service but too often receiving something considerably worse. I recognise that Royal Mail faces significant challenges. We are going through technological change on a level we have not seen over the last 500 years, and there are financial implications for businesses trying to operate in that environment. Letter volumes have fallen, operating costs have increased and the business model needs to be modernised. Royal Mail recently informed me that it has begun implementing a new delivery model at Exeter, which it says is going to improve output and save costs, but they are just commitments at the moment and after years of missed targets the public can be forgiven for wanting to see results rather than another improvement plan. It is important to look at the numbers to understand what is really happening. Royal Mail made a loss of £400 million three years ago and £200 million a year after and a £14 million profit last year. We have been seeing lots of fat being cut out of the business, from normal business operations that can cut away that fat, but we have cut into the muscle now, and it is starting to look a lot like asset-stripping. As I made clear in my previous debate, none of this criticism should be laid at the feet of the postmen or postwomen.

   Hansard source
9. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

   Performance of Royal Mail

   We have yet more consensus. This is where we have to really dig into the universal service obligation and make sure that there are significant penalties if Royal Mail does not do what it has signed up to do and what we have asked it to do as a company.

   Hansard source
10. 26 Oct 2026·Parliament·David Reed

    Performance of Royal Mail

    My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. If we look at those numbers again—losses of £400 million three years ago and then £200 million, followed by a <span id="93" class="column-number" data-column-number="93"></span>£14 million profit—they show that Royal Mail is baking the fines into its operating model and cutting away more and more muscle. We have to make sure that there is a cost that is unacceptable to Royal Mail and its shareholders so that we do not see these problems again. I am conscious that many Members want to speak in the debate so I will come straight to my questions for the Minister. Please will the Minister look at what the Government can do to address Royal Mail’s new delivery model? Secondly, on the imposition of significant fines, does the Minister believe that Ofcom’s current regulatory approach is effective, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?

    Hansard source