Corporate Re-domiciliation

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I am pleased to announce that the Government are today launching a public consultation on detailed design proposals of an inward UK corporate re-domiciliation regime as part of our industrial strategy commitment to modernise company law.

The UK is a great place to locate and grow a business, with companies wanting to benefit from the business-friendly environment, world-class regulatory and legal framework, competitive corporate tax regime and extensive network of trade agreements. Under current processes, moving a company’s place of incorporation to the UK involves the creation of a new legal identity. This is costly, complex and can introduce commercial risks due to the need to transfer assets and contracts. An inward re-domiciliation regime, on the other hand, would enable foreign companies to transfer their place of incorporation to the UK while maintaining their legal identity, significantly reducing the disadvantages associated with the current routes. For some companies, the introduction of a regime would provide a practical and viable route to establishing a UK presence for the first time.

Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government, and by making it easier for companies to move their place of incorporation to the UK, we will maximise opportunities for increased investment and skilled jobs. Companies moving to the UK will increase demand for professional and business services. In addition, the regime will support our plan to strengthen the UK’s position as the global location of choice for financial services firms to invest, innovate and grow. Both these sectors are among those identified as having the greatest growth potential in our modern industrial strategy.

To ensure that the regime is attractive, the regime will provide business with clarity and predictability, with proportionate and appropriate safeguards. Insolvent companies, or companies that are subject to specified sanctions—or whose directors, persons with significant control or members are subject to sanctions—would not be eligible, for example. Once a company has re-domiciled to the UK, it will be treated in the same way as a company originally incorporated in the UK, where all UK legal requirements would apply. Companies House will be responsible for operating the regime and will recover the costs associated with applications through fees.

The consultation will run for 12 weeks and may be of particular interest to multinational businesses, foreign incorporated companies, business representative groups, company law experts and professional services firms.

I will place copies of the consultation in the Libraries of both Houses, and it will be published on gov.uk.

[HCWS1447]

Corporate Civil Enforcement Regime

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

The enforcement activities of the Insolvency Service—tackling economic crime, disqualifying directors for corporate misconduct and winding up companies in the public interest—serve to protect market integrity. This, in turn, fosters economic growth by maintaining a trustworthy environment, conducive to investment and entrepreneurship.

A robust corporate enforcement regime capable of tackling all forms of corporate abuse is essential for providing a level playing field for legitimate businesses, so that they can thrive and grow. It encourages good corporate governance standards, provides the confidence to do business, and helps attract investment for companies based in the UK.

Following a comprehensive review of the corporate civil enforcement framework, I have concluded that while disqualifying directors and winding up companies remain important for addressing corporate misconduct, they do not, as they are, provide the flexibility needed to deal with today’s fast-moving and complex business landscape.

I am therefore publishing a consultation today that contains a range of options that would modernise the regime and add new flexibilities for dealing with varying degrees of misconduct. These options broadly fit into three categories:

Structural reforms

To modernise the enforcement framework, we could introduce additional tools to enhance flexibility and improve efficiency. These reforms would enable Government to address a broader range of corporate abuse, while supporting a more proportionate and targeted response to lower-level misconduct. The proposals seek to accelerate enforcement processes, speeding up the removal of individuals responsible for corporate abuse, and strengthening protections for the public and the wider marketplace.

Options include: introducing tailored restrictions for directors—as opposed to outright bans—when misconduct is due to ignorance, rather than an intent to commit wrongdoing; a faster process to ban directors from the marketplace where companies have been liquidated on public interest grounds due to causing harm; and updating and simplifying disqualification proceedings, by shifting defended cases from the courts to a tribunal model.

Information gathering powers

Strengthening the Government’s powers to seek and gather information necessary to support effective and efficient investigations into corporate abuse. This will ensure powers are fit for purpose, particularly in the light of the new powers introduced by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023.



Procedural changes

Improving and modernising the current procedure for director disqualification. Making the processes more efficient and ensuring fairness and clarity for all parties.

Consultation next steps

The consultation invites general feedback on the options for reform, which will inform further policy development and identify preferred options. The consultation will be open for 12 weeks. I encourage those interested to respond to this consultation and use this opportunity to provide their views. The full consultation is available on gov.uk.

[HCWS1448]

Late Payments Consultation: Government Response

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

This Government believe that business is the driver of growth and wealth everywhere across Britain. A thriving private sector is the single most powerful engine for improving livelihoods and places. The UK has some of the best, most innovative businesses in the world, and the most talented leaders and entrepreneurs of any nation.

In turbulent times, this Government are backing business with a deliberately more active state that is going further than previous Governments to back businesses, tackling reforms that previous Governments neglected, and prioritising the strongest reforms in decades to get more cash in the bank sooner for Britain’s small businesses.

The role of business in the Britain we are building is not just to plug gaps in the finances left by the last Government. Only with a thriving private sector can we change the country for the better. We will be more interventionist than our predecessors in backing the British business community to build and scale great companies.

In that context, today we are publishing the Government response to the late payments consultation which ran from 23 July to 31 October 2025.

In the response, we set out the measures we will take forward to tackle the scourge of late payments, forming the most ambitious reforms in over 25 years and giving the UK the strongest legislative framework on late payments in the G7. These measures will help deliver on the Government ambition to make the UK the best place in the world to start, run, and grow a business.

Late payments cost the UK economy £11 billion each year and lead to the closure of 38 UK businesses every day. On average, each business owner affected by late payments wastes 86 hours each year chasing invoices, amounting to a staggering total of 133 million hours across UK businesses. This hurts productivity, damages supply chains and erodes cash flow.

The impact of the status quo is clear: wasted time and wasted resources, and too many businesses that struggle to pay their hard-working employees on time and invest for the future. Our measures tackle this problem head-on, driving productivity and investment, and freeing up cash so that businesses can survive, thrive, and grow.

The consultation received more than 850 responses from across the UK. We are grateful for the interest, time, and expertise that stakeholders have put in to help us get this right.

The proposals within the consultation received strong support. Respondents overwhelmingly agreed with the importance of paying smaller businesses quickly and on time. We will strengthen the powers of the small business commissioner, giving them powers to investigate, fine and adjudicate. We will introduce strong maximum payment terms of 60 days, mandatory interest on late payments, a time limit for disputes and increased board level scrutiny. We also propose to prohibit the deduction of retentions in construction contracts but, given the ambition of the policy, we will consult further on the impact of this measure before taking a final decision on implementation.

This Government will continue to work with businesses and organisations across the UK economy to make these reforms a success. These changes will complement the efforts of the vast majority of UK businesses already committed to excellent payment practice, and through arming smaller businesses against the scourge of late payments, improve productivity and cash flow.

We will make sure that small businesses are paid on time, every time.

[HCWS1436]

Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

On 8 July last year, my predecessor announced the Government’s intention to launch a redress scheme for postmasters’ family members who were most severely affected by the Horizon scandal. This statement provides further information to the House about the scheme’s form, scope and eligibility criteria. While the scheme remains focused on personal injury, we have made significant changes that will make it easier for more family members to qualify for redress.

This scheme follows the Government’s acceptance of recommendation 18 in volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry report (that financial redress should be provided to close family members of those most adversely impacted by the Horizon scandal), and of similar recommendations made by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board.

Over the past months, my officials and I have been working with stakeholders, including the Lost Chances group, Horizon redress claimants lawyers and the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, to develop a fair approach to redress that recognises the difficulties that some people may find in providing evidence of the harm which they have suffered. In doing so, we have drawn on lessons from other Government schemes to ensure that this scheme delivers timely, accessible support, while minimising the potentially re-traumatising impact of a lengthy claim process.

The outline scheme announced by my predecessor focused on personal injury—which in many cases we expect to mean damage to mental health. That earlier version of the scheme would have allowed applications to be made based only on contemporaneous evidence of medical issues or a fresh assessment of an ongoing medical condition arising from Horizon.

Stakeholders have told us that very few people would be able to provide this type of evidence. In response, we have created an alternative route to redress for people whose postmaster relatives faced some of the most stressful specific consequences of the Horizon scandal (such as prosecution or bankruptcy) and were therefore more likely to have experienced significant harm. So long as we can confirm the event experienced by the claimant’s postmaster relative, we will not require them to evidence any further harm.

Because we are not asking such claimants for specific evidence of any harm for events-based claims, we cannot differentiate between claims. We will therefore offer flat-rate “recognition payments” to people who claim through this route. This simple approach may result in some individuals receiving an amount that differs from what they would have been awarded following the assessment of a personal injury claim. However, given the evidential problems, the alternative would have been to give them no compensation at all. Those who do have evidence will still be able to apply for an assessed personal injury claim and provide contemporaneous evidence of medical issues arising from Horizon, or a fresh assessment for any ongoing medical condition, as outlined by my predecessor.

I believe this enhanced scheme for family members is the best approach, striking the right balance between a low-evidence approach and an individual personal injury assessment to meet our original promise—and Sir Wyn Williams’s recommendation—to support family members of those most severely affected by the Horizon scandal.

I have today written to the Lost Chances group setting out details of our proposals. I am placing a copy of my letter in the Library of each House, and have copied it to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee. The letter is published at this link: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horizon-family-members-redress-scheme

Restorative Justice

The Department’s response to volume 1 of the report of the Post Office Horizon IT Inquiry announced that with the Post Office and Fujitsu we had jointly embarked on a restorative justice project for postmasters, facilitated by the Restorative Justice Council. On 31 October 2025 the RJC published a report on the pilot phase of that programme, which set out what postmasters wanted from a restorative justice programme. They have continued to engage with postmasters in the intervening period.

The RJC is today publishing a second report which gives a further account of many postmasters’ terrible experiences of the impacts of this scandal, considers how a restorative justice programme can help, and describes what will now be delivered. As was always our intention, the programme is very much postmaster-led.

The Department, the Post Office and Fujitsu have agreed to support the programme both financially and practically for up to five years initially. Responsibility for funding will be shared between the three organisations. Fujitsu’s financing of the programme is separate from their contribution to compensation, which will be agreed once the Williams inquiry has reported.

I am placing a copy of the Restorative Justice Council report in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS1420]

Social Enterprises and Community Ownership

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I certainly will, Sir John. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. It is also a privilege to respond to a debate with so many passionate and proud speeches on behalf of local community enterprises and charities.

I am glad to have the opportunity to congratulate Leigh Spinners on all of its success so far, to thank the Rebuild Site in Carlisle, to raise a glass to the Black Bull in Gartmore, the Fleece Inn in the Cotswolds and the Brewers Arms in Worcestershire, to tell Cosham Community Kettle to put the kettle on for me at some point when I visit, and to highlight the Low Port Centre in Linlithgow, the Oxleathers in Stafford, the Central Football Foundation in Grangemouth, and so many others that make our communities what they are. I will also abuse my position as Minister to talk about Social Blend in my constituency. It is a remarkable social enterprise that provides not just fantastic coffee and food, but employment and a sense of purpose to adults and young people with additional needs and disabilities. I recommend a visit to anyone.

What underpins this, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) intimated, is a belief that everyone has something to offer. In the words, perhaps, of Robert Owen, “There are good hearts to serve men in palaces as in cottages.” The Government are passionate about the social enterprise sector and its contribution to society.

An estimated 347,000 social enterprises are helping to meet some of the toughest challenges in our society. When Governments and markets fail, and when others walk away, social enterprises step in and fulfil the needs of our communities. To support such organisations to deliver their invaluable work, and to help them to grow and to introduce even more innovation and services, the Government have introduced several measures over the past few months.

The Prime Minister wants the Government to work differently by putting partnership with civil society at the heart of everything we do. The civil society covenant embodies the ambition to recognise the value of civil society, and for every part of Government to partner and collaborate with civil society at every level, as hon. Members have asked for. At the civil society summit in July 2025, the Prime Minister said that he would give civil society

“a home at the heart of government”

and the newly established Civil Society Council will meet quarterly in Downing Street and be supported by a dedicated team in No. 10. The purpose of the Civil Society Council is to work in partnership with Government at the highest level to drive and oversee the implementation of the covenant, helping Government and civil society, including social enterprises, to design and deliver policies and services in genuine partnership.

DCMS is taking the lead on the local implementation of the covenant through the launch of the £11.6 million local covenant partnerships fund. Hon. Members asked for more support, and the fund will support local government, public service providers and civil society organisations to work collaboratively to tackle local policy priorities and better meet the needs of communities. In recognition of the need to diversify and unlock more income for the sector, the Government are delivering several strands of work that focus on ensuring that all organisations, including some of the smallest charities, are able to continue delivering impact and, where possible, to grow their operations.

Last summer, DCMS published the Government’s first-ever dormant assets strategy, which sets out our ambition to boost the reach and impact of the scheme. The strategy sets out how we will ensure the continued good governance of the scheme and, crucially, illustrates how the next £440 million tranche of funding will be distributed. That includes £132 million to benefit young people and £87 million for social investment. Part of that money will go towards providing small, flexible and affordable loans—the access to finance that hon. Members mentioned—to grassroots organisations.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) spoke with evangelical zeal about the better futures fund, based on his deep experience in this area. We announced that £500 million fund in July 2025, and it is the world’s largest outcomes fund. It will support up to 200,000 children and their families over the next 10 years, and it will bring together Government, local communities, charities, social enterprises and philanthropists to give children a brighter future.

More broadly, I want to celebrate the remarkable growth of the impact economy, with recent reports estimating that it contributes a staggering £420 billion to the UK’s GVA, amounting to 15% of our GDP. The impact economy is a diverse system of purposeful organisations and capital, with the shared aim of delivering a strong economy in which everyone benefits. Social enterprises have a unique and powerful ability to innovate and to scale solutions to the big challenges that we face as a country, and the Office for the Impact Economy will continue to support closer collaboration between these organisations and Government.

I come to the second best thing to come out of Rochdale: the co-operative sector. [Interruption.] Someone just said “Lisa Stansfield”, which I think is unfair. We have an ambitious manifesto commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector, because we see co-operatives and mutuals as the key engines of inclusive and community-focused economic activity. Several hon. Members mentioned the need to increase the support and advice for co-operatives in order to meet that commitment. I work with members of our business hub network around the country, and they often tell me that as many as one in four people coming through their doors is looking for advice on co-operatives and community interest companies.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Minister is rightly talking about people who want to set up co-operatives. I wonder whether he might talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education about the role that co-operative education should play in the curriculum through history, business studies, and personal, social, health and economic education. Young people need to understand what co-operative, social enterprise and mutual models look like, so that they instinctively think about setting up one when they go into the world of work, rather than being talked into doing so later on.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are having a wider conversation at the moment about how enterprise education in general should go through people’s experience in school, and the co-operative and social interest models should be part of that.

The co-operative development unit in MHCLG is helping to develop guidance and partnering with local authorities to see how we can improve access and advice. On community ownership, we are committed to communities and we are going further than ever to ensure that they have powers to take advantage of the assets that they value. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) asked specifically about the community ownership of power. He will be aware that the local power plan announced by colleagues in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is designed to address the barriers to community energy ownership and is backed by £1 billion to fund those local projects.

At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) asked whether the Government are willing to back local areas in taking control of the things that they value and that are important to them. I hope some of the measures that I have set out show that the Government’s answer is a resounding yes.

Royal Mail: Performance

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing today’s important debate. He spoke about falling confidence in Royal Mail. I think the debate has shown that there is growing anger about failures of service. My hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Tom Collins), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) and others spoke about how, when raising those concerns on behalf of constituents, they heard a completely different version of events in response. That has added to the sense of the frustration, particularly when hon. Members are so connected to their local posties, who understand what is happening on the ground.

I join others in paying tribute to our hard-working posties across the country. The hon. Members for Yeovil (Adam Dance) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and others rightly said that any criticism of Royal Mail service is not a criticism of the posties themselves.

The Government remain absolutely committed to the universal postal service, which is an essential part of our economic infrastructure. It can and should be delivered. Hon. Members have raised concerns about the impact of service failures on the work of democracy. They have talked about bank cards not arriving and the isolation that causes. The hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) spoke about the human impact of missed hospital appointments, and there are also consequences for legal hearings and business deals.

I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) that I am also not getting love letters through the post—

[Peter Prinsley]

Give it time.

[Blair McDougall]

Seriously, though, it is galling that Royal Mail is increasing the price of its services but is not meeting delivery targets. Our constituents rightly expect that, if they are paying more, they should get the service and deliveries on time. It is simply not good enough.

[Jim Shannon]

The Minister is always very responsive; I appreciate his responses today and in the past. I spoke about a person who applied for PIP and found that there was a delay in the post. That young boy, a type 1 diabetic, was denied one month of his benefit as a result. Will the Minister please look at that?

[Blair McDougall]

I will happily look at that. It is another example of a service that is simply not good enough.

As was mentioned, I recently met Royal Mail’s chief executive to press these issues directly. He was left in no doubt about the level of anger and concern across the House, and he was clear that the service is not where he wants it to be. He gave me a firm commitment that he will work towards restoring confidence in the service.

Where service has fallen short locally, whether due to staffing pressures, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned, operational challenges or external disruption, customers need to see sustained and structural improvement, not just short-term fixes. I understand that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has met Royal Mail to discuss these issues. I have been advised that there are currently three vacancies in the Exmouth office, and I expect that Royal Mail will fill them to ensure there is an improvement in service locally.

Across the country, our constituents deserve visible improvements in reliability, and that expectation underpins every discussion that I and other Ministers have with Royal Mail. That is why, before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured significant commitments from the new owners of the business, including a commitment to prevent dividend payments until quality of service improves.

As many hon. Members said, service improvement is also intimately linked to workers’ terms and conditions and the reform of Royal Mail’s operation. It is critical that the Royal Mail workers are on board with the operational changes, and that their experience informs that work. The Government continue to engage with EP Group on that; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convened a joint meeting with the owners of EP Group and the CWU last month to help to unblock the outstanding issues. That engagement continues.

Hon. Members also referred to my detailed discussion with Ofcom last week about its expectations of Royal Mail and the steps it is taking to protect consumers. I highlighted hon. Members’ significant concerns about the delivery performance and the negative real-world impact that that is having on our constituents. It is fair to say that Ofcom has heard the strength of concerns, particularly those expressed in the Chamber last week. One outcome of that meeting is that Ofcom is clear, as it has been for some time, that Royal Mail is required to publish a detailed improvement plan that results in significant and continuous progress, and that it expects that one should appear within days of an agreement with the union. Where failures continue, Ofcom will not hesitate to act again, and last year’s £21 million fine was a clear signal.

We are in a context where, as has been said, the performance of many other parcel providers makes Royal Mail’s performance look positively glowing, and Ofcom is also looking at that wider context. None of us is blind to the wider context and the structural pressures. Letter volumes have halved over the past decade. As hon. Members have said, to ensure that the USO is sustainable, Ofcom has made changes to Royal Mail’s obligations.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made clear, those changes and reforms cannot be imposed from the top down. Royal Mail must work constructively with its workforce and unions to ensure that operational changes translate into better services for customers across the country—a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).

There is wisdom in every sorting office; staff there understand how the business works. We have taken a close interest in the negotiations, the new operating model and workers’ conditions. I mentioned that the Secretary of State recently met with EP Group and the CWU; a further meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. I am hopeful that Royal Mail’s owners and the union will work together in the interests of Royal Mail’s employees, its customers and the business.

Several hon. Members raised concerns about the impact on postal votes. We have sought strong reassurances from Royal Mail on that issue. There have been meetings with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission to discuss plans for the upcoming elections, and a similar meeting is taking place in Scotland with Ministers there. My hon. Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy is having a further meeting with Royal Mail to discuss postal votes, and we are leaving Royal Mail in no doubt about our expectations in that space.

[Luke Taylor]

It is encouraging to hear that the Government have sought reassurances, but nothing short of a fundamental revolution in my local delivery office will see postal votes delivered even within the weekend on which they are expected to arrive. Can the Minister detail what those reassurances involve? Do they require additional resource to be provided to the delivery offices so that they can pay for the inevitable overtime or additional staff on those dates? Similarly, when the postal votes need to get back to our town halls, what will be done to make sure that that end of the process also happens over a period of three or four weeks?

[Blair McDougall]

Obviously, part of ensuring that the obligations around postal votes are maintained is making sure that the resource is there on the ground to do that. Another part of it is also the prioritisation of postal votes within the service. There are existing structures for that, such as doing sweeps of boxes. I reiterate that the Government will continue to hold Royal Mail to account, will support strong and independent regulation by Ofcom and will press urgently for the improvements that customers rightly expect to see.

[Andy McDonald]

Just before the Minister sits down, can he help me with a couple of things? The reduction in terms and conditions for new entrants into our sorting offices is causing great problems. People are leaving within days and weeks, so there is an issue there. Similarly, in this competitive landscape, we have other providers working on the basis of bogus self-employment. Given that we approach this issue on a whole-of-Government basis, rather than just in silos, I wonder whether we are looking closely at the damage that this situation is causing. I think particularly of the £10 billion that goes uncollected through bogus self-employment, which could enhance the coffers of the Treasury, among other things, and provide people with secure and solid work. As it stands, we have insecure and fragile work, both in Royal Mail and in the private sector that competes with it. Surely this is the worst of all worlds. A thorough approach is needed. I am yet to hear the Minister tackle the key issue raised by many hon. Members from the Government Benches: that we should be looking at the option of public ownership. Will the Minister please address that?

[Blair McDougall]

Our focus at the moment is on getting the business on to a sustainable footing. That is about the negotiations on the very terms and conditions that my hon. Friend raises. As I mentioned, Ofcom has put on notice those other parcel providers. That is primarily about the poor quality of service that we see from many of them, but when we talk to Royal Mail and the union—as I am sure my hon. Friend has done—they will point out that sense of better employers being undermined by those working practices. He has been a constant campaigner in that respect.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I reassure them that the specific localised issues that they have raised will be covered in ongoing engagement with Royal Mail and Ofcom, along with the bigger structural conversation with the union and owners. I close by again paying tribute to the posties who do an extraordinary job across the country, and stress again that none of the criticisms today are laid at their door.

Oral Answers to Questions

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We’ve made it!

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

It was worth waiting for. We are clear that Royal Mail’s service performance has not been good enough. I met the sector’s independent regulator Ofcom yesterday to stress the widespread concerns among hon. Members about service standards. My hon. Friend has deep experience in this area, and I welcome his engagement with the main delivery office in Corby, where Royal Mail tells me that it is recruiting nine new postal workers to support the timeliness and quality of its postal services.

[Lee Barron]

Quality of service in the Royal Mail has been at shocking levels over recent years. Considering that Royal Mail is legally obliged to deliver a universal service and keep our communities connected, will the Minister join me in calling on Royal Mail’s owners to honour their agreement, end the two-tier workforce, and bring new entrants’ terms and conditions up to the same standard as those of substantive Royal Mail employees? Fifty per cent of new entrants are leaving the service within a year, which is leading to a decimation in the quality of service.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is correct to highlight that the service quality issues are linked directly to workers’ terms and conditions. It is precisely because we take that connection so seriously that the Secretary of State convened the meeting between the unions and the owners of Royal Mail. Ofcom made it clear in our meeting yesterday that it expects the plan for improvements in quality of service to be in place within days of an agreement being reached with the unions, and we will certainly hold Royal Mail to that.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that by being asked to focus on parcels over letters, and having overtime hours for deliveries restricted, many hard-working postal workers will feel that public trust in Royal Mail is being undermined?

[Blair McDougall]

I discussed the prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom yesterday. It had previously investigated the matter, and it is fair to say that it has heard the widespread concern around the House. If Ofcom continues to be concerned, it will not hesitate to investigate again.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

Fuel duty is currently frozen. The key thing we can do to make sure we deal with this instability in energy prices is de-escalate in the region. I remind the hon. Member that his party has been calling for us to join the war.

[Emma Foody (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T4. I am a proud Labour and Co-operative MP. Co-operatives play a really important role in our economy, building a fairer and more resilient economy that gives workers and communities a stake in the businesses they rely on. This Labour Government have a world-leading commitment to double the size of the co-operative sector. Can the Minister update me on the progress towards achieving that ambition? What further measures are being brought forward to help co-operatives grow?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Co-operatives create a really important sense of connection at a time when people feel disconnected, but co-ops and mutuals are also more resilient and more productive. That is why we have made the commitment she references. Our call for evidence has closed, and we are working on the proposals that will flow out of that. I really welcome the news this morning that the John Lewis bonus is returning and congratulate it on its results.

[Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)]

T5. Many small businesses in my constituency are gearing up for the busy tourist season that is just around the corner. What steps are the Government taking to support small businesses in the south-west, to help them make the most of their biggest window of opportunity over the summer?

[Blair McDougall]

Our small business strategy sets out the range of measures we are taking to support small businesses. That includes an increase of £4 billion in the finance available to businesses, so that they can invest to take advantage of those opportunities. We will also bring forward the strongest proposals on late payments, to improve cash flow to small businesses, as well as cutting red tape, so that they can take advantage of the opportunities the hon. Member describes.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

T6. I wish my constituents a happy Great Grimsby Day, to commemorate the signing of our charter in 1201. UK titanium dioxide production like that at Tronox is under threat from aggressive Chinese practices, funnelling cheap product through companies that they buy, run down and hollow out, circumventing protective levies. What is the Minister doing to ensure a level playing field, so that we do not see industry, skills and jobs draining out of the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)]

The Select Committee recently flagged that small businesses in our country now face pandemic-level pressures. In April, standing charges for energy are set to rise by 60%, with no price cap protection. Now, soaring oil and gas prices threaten to be the final straw for thousands of SMEs. Will the Secretary of State make an urgent assessment of the risk of soaring energy prices, and give a clear account of how we will keep the SMEs that keep this country running in business?

[Blair McDougall]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have taken action through the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which is a downpayment on exactly the sort of support he describes. We are constantly working on ways to cut costs for small businesses, and I am sure we will work with the Select Committee on that.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

Last time we were here for Business and Trade questions, I asked about exports of paraquat—the use of which is forbidden here—to other countries, and I live in hope that I will get an answer to that question. To update the ministerial team, Syngenta—the company that makes paraquat—put out a press release on 3 March to say that it would stop production this year. May I therefore expand my previous question to ensure that the response includes the export of pesticides and other products whose use is banned in the UK?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for speaking to me about the poor postal service in Dargavel Village in Bishopton. I know he is working hard to resolve matters and answer questions and had meetings yesterday, and I thank him for that. However, as he will appreciate, this matter is of particular importance in Scotland due to the elections on 7 May, because postal votes will be issued soon. In Scotland we have an NHS with significant waiting lists, and we cannot have people missing medical appointments, so on behalf of residents of Bishopton in particular, may I stress the urgency of this matter?

[Blair McDougall]

My office manager lives in Dargavel Village, so I have a person incentive to ensure that the service improves in the area my hon. Friend represents. We spoke about it yesterday; we have called in Royal Mail, we have brought together unions and management and we had a meeting yesterday with Ofcom to stress that things have to improve. Specific meetings are taking place on postal votes in Scotland, and we have sought assurances that they will not be impacted by the problems with the quality of service.

[Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)]

Yesterday I met representatives of the British Chambers of Commerce, who relayed the profound concerns of the UK automative industry that it might be excluded from the European Union’s proposed industrial accelerator Act. Nissan and Honda have already broken cover to say that their futures may be uncertain unless they are included in the “made in Europe” rules. What is the Secretary of State doing, with his Front-Bench team and across Government, to ensure that the UK automotive sector is not placed at a competitive disadvantage as a consequence of those measures?

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

High streets are a key concern for us all in this House. On the Promenade in Cheltenham we have Cavendish House, which was a cherished retail centre for 200 years. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) remembers it. Now it is empty; Mike Ashley’s Sports Direct left and now we have a big, empty building owned by Canada Life. Does the Minister agree that the big pension and investment companies need to pay more respect to our high streets and bring forward planning applications to redevelop and regenerate as soon as they possibly can? We should not be left waiting for as long as we have been.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden) mentioned a moment ago that we are working on a new high street strategy, which will seek to deal with some of the issues the hon. Member mentioned. We want investors to step up, but we also have a responsibility, through planning reform, to make it easier to regenerate the types of areas he described.

[Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)]

Given the global energy crisis, manufacturers reliant on gas will struggle with the recent spikes in energy costs. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether his Department is considering a transitional dual fuel discount, alongside the British industrial competitiveness scheme, for industries that will continue to use gas for the foreseeable future?

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask what assessment the Minister has made of the impact of Royal Mail’s failure to meet its universal service obligation on service users’ wellbeing and on the company’s recent decision making, which has contributed to this situation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising a question that I know is on the minds of hon. Members across the House. The Government have been clear that Royal Mail’s service has not been good enough, and we recognise the terrible impact that delayed time-sensitive deliveries, particularly relating to medical and financial matters, can have on the users of postal services, especially vulnerable users.

Obviously, Royal Mail is a private company and Ofcom, as the independent regulator for postal services, secures the provision of the universal postal service and sets and monitors Royal Mail’s service standards. As part of that monitoring regime, Ofcom publishes annual post-monitoring reports that consider developments in the sector and users’ experience of postal services, as well as the complaints and compensation data that Royal Mail is required to publish.

I have regular discussions with senior officials from Ofcom as the regulator, and in fact I am meeting Ofcom later this afternoon to discuss these concerns. Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million in October for failure to meet standards for 2024-25. This was double the previous year’s fine and the third consecutive annual fine for poor performance. Ofcom continues to monitor Royal Mail’s performance carefully to ensure that it is providing the service that customers expect. It has told Royal Mail that it must publish and deliver a credible plan that delivers significant and continuous improvement.

Ofcom is the regulator, but in response to concerns raised by hon. Members across this House, I met Royal Mail’s chief executive officer, Alistair Cochrane recently to set out the volume of complaints reporting service delays that I had received from colleagues.

In addition to that meeting, the Secretary of State has met Daniel Křetínský, the CEO of Royal Mail’s parent company EP Group and chair of Royal Mail’s board, to raise concerns about Royal Mail’s performance. Senior officials from Ofcom met Mr Křetínský that same day. The chief executives of Royal Mail and its parent company agree that there is more to do to meet service delivery targets and improve stability and reliability for customers. I know that hon. Members will continue to raise their concerns about the service in their areas, and for my part, I will continue to raise this matter, because the current situation is simply not good enough.

[Ian Lavery]

I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but this goes beyond the delay of a few inconsequential letters. It is not simply a case of receiving post; it is about that being timely and about sending post as well. In my constituency, these failures have led to people missing medical appointments and having financial issues, and to the hindering of democratic participation. One of my constituents missed urgent medical correspondence, turning a routine appointment into a potentially life-threatening emergency. It is not acceptable.

This is happening up and down the country in every single constituency. Allegations from within Royal Mail suggest that these failures may be intentional, designed to pressure the Government into weakening or removing the USO requirements. Royal Mail’s recent letter to the Business and Trade Committee denies operating a parcels-first policy, contradicting repeated internal testimony. It flies in the face of local evidence from the workforce. The letter also reiterates calls for USO reform, reflecting a long-running corporate direction. Over the past few years postal workers—key public servants, who were heroes during covid—have seen their terms and conditions eroded to the point that some can no longer buy additional holiday because doing so would take their pay below the minimum wage.

The Government need to take serious action against Royal Mail. Is it not an option to bring Royal Mail back under public control? This is approaching a situation where one of our constituents will lose their home, their health or their life through these persistent failures. The Government can and must take steps to maintain this critical national service.

[Blair McDougall]

I think my hon. Friend’s anger is shared by hon. Members around the Chamber when they hear the stories of people not just missing hospital appointments, but finding themselves with county court judgments and in other such situations that are entirely not their fault and due to failures of delivery. We have told Royal Mail it is not good enough, the Select Committee has told them it is not good enough, and Ofcom has told them it is not good enough. The seriousness with which we take this issue is exemplified by the fact that, as I said, the Secretary of State has convened that meeting. I have called in Royal Mail and, as I mentioned a moment ago, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise exactly the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing it. We can see from the number of Members who are interested in this topic just how serious it is across all our constituencies. I can testify to the fact that I have had an enormous amount of casework on this issue, which started just before Christmas, involving hospital appointments being missed, and children’s birthday cards, condolence cards for recently widowed individuals and postal voting forms not arriving. This is an absolutely critical issue.

I reiterate that the universal service obligation is an obligation. It is an obligation set out in statute, and it is an obligation to every household in this country. We can all testify to the fact that it has been systematically broken, and that the turning point was when the new owner bought Royal Mail, with this Government’s approval, in April 2025.

The letter from Royal Mail received by the Business and Trade Committee yesterday revealed that over 200 million letters have been delivered late this year. In addition to the meetings the Minister has listed with Ofcom, what assessments has he made of all the stress being caused to our constituents and the impact on people’s wellbeing? Has he had a critical discussion with Ofcom, because it appears that it is not really doing its job as a regulator? The public are paying more but getting less, and the fines he has listed do not reflect the deterioration we have seen recently. In my discussions with Royal Mail, it has said that parcels overwhelm the service at Christmas, but that situation is carrying on into March. Is it not the reality that parcels are much more—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have had enough—I don’t need that backchat. I call the Minister.

[Blair McDougall]

I hope that the hon. Member can tell from my body language and tone that I share the anger and frustration of Members across the House. As I mentioned, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise the very issues she mentions. I slightly take issue with the year zero approach she took. There are very long-standing issues with Royal Mail driven—in fairness—by the changes in consumer habits and the things we are sending and not sending any more. She mentions the new ownership. As part of that deed of undertaking, this Government got the assurance from the new owners that they could not take value out of the company until service improved. That shows that we take this matter seriously.

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

It is not just the customers who are rightly angry; it is postal workers as well, because they take pride in their job and the service they give. The last time I was in Corby delivery office, six deliveries never went out that day. The time before that, a postal worker volunteered to cover his own delivery on his day off. He was told that he could not, and when he went back in the day after, the work was still there; the delivery had not gone out. We now have a two-tier workforce, which is leading to a recruitment and retention crisis, and it is a standing joke in the job that the quickest way to get a letter delivered is to put it inside a parcel. Does the Minister agree that instead of Royal Mail imposing top-down changes by people who have never done the job before, it should listen to its workforce, sit down with the union and sort this mess out?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to do what I have not done so far, which is to say that whatever criticisms hon. Members across the House have, they are in no way a critique of the work of our heroic posties up and down the country. I mentioned earlier that the Secretary of State brought together management and unions; Royal Mail is a private company, and we are not seeking to insert ourselves and become mediators, but that was a signal of how seriously we take this matter and how seriously we take the need for management and the unions to come together and address, through mutual understanding, exactly the issues he raises.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

In each year since 2023, Royal Mail has been fined by Ofcom over delivery delays, amounting to nearly £40 million. Following recent announcements, it would not surprise me if it were fined again in 2026. When Royal Mail was reprimanded in 2023 and 2024, its leadership promised that reforms would be made to improve its services, but following the £21 million fine in October 2025, the company said it could not publish its improvement plan until negotiations with the Communication Workers Union concluded.

The takeover of Royal Mail, which this Government supported, seems to have done nothing to improve the service so far. Over the past several years, an average of roughly one in four first-class letters arrives late, and recent reports suggest that 219 million letters may arrive late this year. These letters are sometimes urgent and hold important information, so it is clear that Royal Mail is repeatedly failing to meet its universal service obligation. Despite that, its stamp prices have consistently risen. That includes next month’s planned rise of 10p to the cost of first-class postage, taking the cost of a stamp to £1.80. The sorry saga of Royal Mail has gone on for far too long. Does the Minister believe that the British public should be paying more for their postal service, despite Royal Mail repeatedly failing to deliver their letters on time?

[Blair McDougall]

Paying more for postage is obviously part of the journey towards financial sustainability for Royal Mail as a critical piece of national infrastructure, but I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady that if our constituents are paying more for their stamps, they expect those letters to arrive, and it is not good enough if they do not. As I said, I am meeting Ofcom later on. It has asked Royal Mail for an improvement plan, which we think is long overdue. One issue that I will raise with Ofcom is progress on that improvement plan.

[Chris Webb (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as a proud son of a local postie. We know that this is not the fault of the workers; they work day in, day out to get letters out, but are being told to prioritise parcels. Like many Members, I tried to go to my local mail centre just before Christmas—I know that you do the same, Mr Speaker—but I was denied access. An excuse was given, and the visit was never rearranged. Workers in that centre said to me, “They are trying to hide how bad the mail centre is from you, the local MP.”

Will the Minister tell the House and my constituents how we can turn this situation around? I fundamentally disagree with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), who said that this started with the new owners. It started with privatisation—end of. How can we get the service back on track? Will the Government consider nationalising it so that our residents can get the letters that they desperately need for their appointments?

[Blair McDougall]

I am troubled to hear that my hon. Friend has not been granted access to talk to his local sorting office. I think visiting the sorting office at Christmas and other times is a diary staple for all MPs—it is a really important part of the job. He refers to the anger that posties themselves feel about this. It is not just a job for them. They feel that this is a service, and they recognise as much as anyone else that this situation is simply not good enough. Ofcom examined the prioritisation of parcels a few years ago and found no evidence that it was a central policy, but I have heard stories from so many Members about the prioritisation of parcels, so I intend to raise it with Ofcom this afternoon.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I met the Minister some weeks ago and suggested that he might have to come back to the House if Royal Mail had not improved its services. May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question and the Westminster Hall debate next week, which was secured by another Member?

I raised this issue on the 13 January as a point of order, as you will know, Mr Speaker, and clearly the problem has got worse rather than better. I put on record my thanks to all posties. I think the whole House would like to thank them for all their work in our constituencies. This situation has had a huge social and economic impact on people throughout our constituencies, but what concerns me is that the Minister has referred to being unable to intervene in a private company, and the regulator is of course independent. So what can he do? If there is nothing he can do, perhaps he will come back in a few weeks’ time to repeat that there is nothing he can do, but how does that help people who are waiting for medical results and other important information?

[Blair McDougall]

That is a very fair question. As I mentioned, the Secretary of State brought together the ownership and management to stress the need to get an agreement on reforms to improve service standards. Those things are all connected. I have stressed, in no uncertain terms, my dissatisfaction with current levels of service. On NHS letters, I and Department of Health and Social Care colleagues are pressing to ensure that more NHS bodies take advantage of the barcode system, so that those letters are prioritised. Royal Mail is a private company, but we are exercising the pressure that we can in order to ensure that standards are improved.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

My understanding is that letters must not be treated less favourably than parcels, but that is happening at the moment through internal Royal Mail targets. That is the case at the Fotherby Street sorting office in Grimsby, where a tracked-first policy is in place, meaning that parcels take priority, while letters and non-tracked mail are not prioritised. First and second-class cards and letters are left sitting in frames for days and weeks. That builds up, as other Members have said.

Route revisions are also an issue for posties, some of whom regularly walk 30,000 to 40,000 steps a day. That is causing exhaustion, injury and illness. It is not acceptable in any way for the Government to say that they cannot do anything. What will they do to force Ofcom to take action that will get things moving and change a policy that leaves people’s letters sat in their frames for days?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend voices her frustration—which is shared across the House—about the disconnect between what she is hearing from local sorting offices and the stated company policy. As I say, I will raise the prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom later. On the wider issue of working conditions for posties, the Secretary of State has brought together the owners and the company to stress the importance of progressing those issues and getting to a situation in which quality of service improves and the workforce feel properly rewarded and respected.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

The postal delivery landscape is a fast-moving one, as the Minister will recognise. That is evidenced by the fact that Denmark very recently ended its postal service entirely—everybody now has to use a private courier. What weight does he put on the words of Royal Mail when it says that it recognises the problems and is working hard—does he take that in good faith? A critique from Royal Mail, which clearly recognises that there are problems, is that Ofcom’s slow responses to Royal Mail suggestions are disjointed from a fast-moving landscape in a very competitive sphere. When he meets Ofcom this afternoon, will he urge it to respond speedily and progress issues as they manifest themselves?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful and practical suggestion. I will certainly add it to the agenda for the meeting, and report back to him on the outcomes of those discussions.

[Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for asking this urgent question because, as he will know, too many constituents are suffering this situation. When this first started, I asked Royal Mail why it was happening. I got polite replies, but frankly, at this stage, fine words butter no parsnips. We really need some action. May I urge the Minister to push Ofcom to take action on this issue?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is, as ever, a doughty campaigner for everyone in the communities she represents. I will certainly be pressing Ofcom on these issues, and I will continue to press Royal Mail directly as well, stressing that we want to see an improvement in standards. The current standards of delivery are simply not good enough.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

In rural parts of the country such as North Shropshire, where broadband, mobile signal and public transport are poor, people really depend on their postal service. Constituents have contacted me to say that they have missed court documents and NHS letters—important things that they need in order to get on with their lives. I have visited the sorting office. Beyond the prioritisation of parcels, which posties have told me about, the rounds are too long and working conditions for postal workers are not good enough, so there are issues in recruitment and retention. What can Ofcom do to ensure that Royal Mail puts in place the resources to ensure that letters can be delivered on time in rural places, like North Shropshire?

[Blair McDougall]

Unfortunately, the story that the hon. Lady tells is familiar, because I have heard it from so many hon. Members around the Chamber. As I say, we have been bringing together workforce and management for talks on reforms to get the business on to a sustainable footing and improve service quality. We will bring that together. I will raise the issue of prioritisation of parcels with Ofcom this afternoon.

[Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank all postal workers in Stockport and across the UK. It is important to highlight that it was the coalition Government—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—who privatised Royal Mail. I ran an online survey about Royal Mail services in my constituency. Some 89% of respondents said that they were unhappy, angry or disappointed by the service in Stockport. There was one example of mail not being delivered for almost two weeks, until it was all delivered on the same day, meaning that important information and appointments were missed. What will the Minister to do improve services for the approximately 3 million people in Stockport and Greater Manchester?

[Blair McDougall]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to posties in Stockport and Greater Manchester. Like posties all across the country, they go the extra mile in incredibly difficult circumstances. As I mentioned, we are bringing together unions and management for talks, to make sure that we get to a resolution and progress the future of the business. We are also pressing Ofcom on the enforcement action that it can take to progress the improvement plan that Royal Mail has committed to producing.

[Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge) (Con)]

Just recently, Royal Mail in Tonbridge introduced a new working model that has been, quite frankly, an abject failure. I welcome the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) asking this urgent question, because this is quite clearly a matter for not just one constituency or community, but the whole country. I am grateful to the Minister, who is assiduous in his role, for taking it up. Will he raise with management that while we all recognise that this is about not just privatisation or ownership, but the change in the way that people use the post, and our use of emails and so on, the problems have a very real effect on people’s lives, particularly in communities like mine in Tonbridge? I am not the only one who has missed an appointment because the letter arrived weeks, or even months, after I was supposed to attend.

[Blair McDougall]

I know from my talks with officials that the right hon. Gentleman has been in discussions about the issues in Tonbridge, and that Royal Mail is seized of those. He is absolutely right. Members have mentioned hospital appointments; it is worth mentioning the important post that we hon. Members send to often very vulnerable constituents. That is a reminder that the post is a central part of our national life and economy, and we have to see it improve.

[Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this urgent question. In my constituency, we have had a massive uptick in complaints about not only letters being delivered late, but priority service not happening when people have paid for it, and constituents being advised to collect post from delivery offices without prior notification of an attempted delivery; essentially, they are asked to become their own Royal Mail. Having met local workers over Christmas, I know that they are working incredibly hard to keep on top of this, and they are just as frustrated as my residents. My biggest concern is that when Members have raised the issue with Royal Mail, its response has been, quite frankly, rude, dismissive and a bit lacklustre. Will the Minister please outline what he will do to ensure that postal services are protected in my community, and communities across the country?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the posties in Croydon for their efforts; they do an extraordinary job. My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. We sometimes might have lower standards for other delivery operators in the economy, but we expect a certain level of service from Royal Mail. When people are paying more for stamps, or are paying for special delivery, they absolutely should expect to get what they pay for. As I said, I am raising these issues directly with Royal Mail. We are bringing together the workforce and management, and I am meeting Ofcom later today.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

As has been well established today, the blame for failures does not lie with postal workers, who are doing all they can to deliver a service. It lies with a private company that is telling its staff to prioritise parcels, but then pretending that is not its policy. My Chichester constituents have received hospital appointment letters four days after their appointment was due to take place. One constituent in Selsey received their letter for a specialist appointment in London an hour before it was due to take place. What can the Minister do to put pressure on Royal Mail, so that my constituents’ health is not put at risk as a result of its failures?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Lady’s constituents in Chichester deserve better, frankly. That is why it is so important that the Government send a clear message that we expect improvement. It is why I am having conversations with Ofcom. It is also why, when the new ownership took over Royal Mail, we received an undertaking that it would not be able to take value out of the company until it improved. That was done to ensure that there is an incentive for it to do better.

[Ian Byrne (Liverpool West Derby) (Lab)]

The Communication Workers Union reported chaos and demoralisation among its members as a result of the imposition of poorer pay and conditions for posties, and the company’s decision to prioritise potential job cuts over service when it comes to USO reform. Will the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that Royal Mail customers and workers are not made to pay the price of the mismanagement of our postal services, and whether the Government will use any powers allocated to them as holders of the golden share?

[Blair McDougall]

As I said a moment ago, when the new ownership took over, part of the deed of undertaking was that we would not allow it to remove value from the company until service improved. On the impact on the workforce, obviously the negotiations are between the workforce and management, but the fact that the Secretary of State has been convening meetings between them shows that we take this issue very seriously, and it is a priority for our Department.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

Like other hon. Members, I have had many constituents get in touch about poor mail service. One constituent in Kelsall reached out to Royal Mail after experiencing deliveries once per week at best, only to receive a reply stating that service levels in our area are good. The same constituent later received a hospital appointment letter after the appointment, which is certainly not good. Does the Minister share my concern that Royal Mail appears to be dismissing legitimate complaints, while failing to meet its universal service obligation, and what more can be done to hold Royal Mail to account?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Lady has previously pressed me on another aspect of postal services—the availability of post offices in her constituency—and she continues to campaign for her constituents. I share the frustration felt whenever a Member of Parliament who raises a concern is told that everything is fine and not to worry about it. It is precisely because I share this concern that I am having the meeting with Ofcom later today.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Royal Mail excuses are wearing very thin, are they not? I have constituents who are going to the sorting office and being presented with piles—weeks’ worth—of letters, and others who are getting those same piles delivered in one go. The Minister said he is meeting Ofcom today. Does he think that the regulator needs additional powers? It is clear from his answers so far, and from the fact that we are still discussing something that has been going on for months, that something is not working. I encourage him to consider whether the regulator needs more, and what he can do.

[Blair McDougall]

I will certainly talk to the regulator later today in those terms, and will ask that question. As I say, the business is regulated through Ofcom, but where the Government have power, we are taking it; for example, there is our insistence on putting in the company’s deed of undertaking that money cannot be stripped out of the company until service improves.

[Brendan O'Hara (Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber) (SNP)]

Whether it is the failure of Royal Mail to meets its USO or the skyrocketing price of heating oil, it seems that rural communities, such as those in my constituency, are most impacted. We all agree that despite the often heroic efforts of the workforce, the service provided by Royal Mail management is totally unacceptable. The Minister knows that we are 60 days from a Scottish parliamentary election in which 1 million people will vote by post. How confident is he that Royal Mail will be able to cope, and what measures is he putting in place to ensure that it does?

[Blair McDougall]

I have relatives in the most remote parts of Scotland, so I know that while these issues might be an inconvenience for the rest of us, for rural customers, they can be the stripping away of a lifeline. We have sought reassurances from Royal Mail that the current issues with service across the country will not impact postal voting in the upcoming elections. I know that the chief executive of Royal Mail has a meeting in Scotland to discuss preparations in the days ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

That was a very late delivery. I am going to finish this urgent question at 1.30 pm, so let us help each other by being speedy. The Minister will show me how quickly he can reply.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, although I notice that everything seems to be the best in her constituency. The problem is not just missed post, but missed opportunities, like the one that she described. That is exactly why we will continue to pressurise Royal Mail, directly and through the regulator, to improve the service in areas like hers.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Posties in my constituency have reported to me that one of the most serious problems is staff absence. Staff go off sick because they have been overworked, and as a result, deliveries do not take place. The final straw for one of my constituents was when they received a Christmas card on 28 February that had been franked before Christmas. Clearly, there is a serious problem, not just in rural areas but in suburban areas. Will the Minister seek an urgent action plan from Royal Mail on getting this right? Otherwise we will be back here in a month’s time with the same problem.

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman could be mistaken for a CWU trade union official. He will be crossing the Floor. He makes an important and serious point: issues around staff conditions are directly related to the quality of service. That is exactly why the Secretary of State has been convening the meetings that I have mentioned to progress the talks.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

My constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood, particularly in the SE22 and SE24 postcodes, have been suffering the consequences of Royal Mail’s failings for years. Residents in SE24 recently had no mail for four weeks. A key problem in holding Royal Mail to account is that it is required to report performance data relating to only the first part of the postcode. That means that the failures of individual delivery offices are disguised in the sub-regional data. Will the Minister raise that issue with Ofcom, and ask it to look again at the reporting requirements on Royal Mail, so that it can be held properly to account?

[Blair McDougall]

As a former resident of SE23, I pay tribute to the posties in that part of the world. I will certainly add my hon. Friend’s suggestion to the agenda of the meeting later today.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

Does the Minister recognise that meeting the universal service obligation is a challenge because of poor recruitment and retention? That poor recruitment and retention is no surprise, given that Royal Mail offers new postmen and postwomen little more than minimum wage, and sites are really not fit for purpose.

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point that is core to the talks that are going on right now between unions and management. That is exactly why we are so keen to ensure that the talks are productive and come to a settlement that deals with the issues that he describes.

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks on Royal Mail’s poor services in my Bolton West constituency. I know that he shares my utter frustration at the current service provision. May I flag with the Minister a letter that I sent to Horwich constituents on 13 February, updating them on the progress that I had made with the Minister on this matter? A constituent got in touch to say that the letter was only received on 25 February, some 12 days later, alongside missing correspondence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, the NHS and the Department for Work and Pensions. Another constituent in Bolton received a Christmas card on 7 March that had been posted before 14 December. When will my constituents see an improvement in Royal Mail services?

[Mr Speaker]

Can we try to shorten the questions? Some people are not going to get in, and that really worries me, as this subject matters to all of us—especially me, as I have the best post offices and the best posties.

[Blair McDougall]

I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that his efforts to transmit their dissatisfaction have been heard at the highest level. If there is a prize for dark irony, I think he has probably just won it. It is because we want this situation to improve as quickly as possible that we are taking the action that I have described, and continue to put on the pressure.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

I pay tribute to the posties across Bromsgrove, but not to the management of Royal Mail. My constituents need action, not more platitudes, like Royal Mail saying to me that it is “very sorry” that letters have not been received. I implore the Minister to get together with the management of Royal Mail and Ofcom to deliver an action plan, for which Royal Mail is accountable to us, via the Minister, so that we see an improved service for all our constituents.

[Blair McDougall]

I reassure the hon. Gentleman that I have communicated exactly the frustration that he describes, which I have heard from so many hon. Members, to Royal Mail, and I will communicate it to Ofcom later as well.

[Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Having spoken with postal workers from across Alloa and Grangemouth, I know that morale is at rock-bottom because of years of savage cuts, and restructuring that has negatively impacted their ability to do their job. Does the Government accept that the erosion of the service and workforce morale is due to privatisation, and that an essential public service like Royal Mail should be under public ownership, for the public good? When will the Government effectively hold bodies like Ofcom to account, because its inaction and impotence is costing our constituents dearly?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that the situation is a result of long-standing structural issues in Royal Mail, and with postal services more generally. My focus later today with Ofcom will be to ensure that it is pressed to deal with exactly the issues that my hon. Friend describes.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I align myself with the stories that everybody has told. Constituents in Sturminster Marshall received two postal deliveries in the whole of January, and then Royal Mail tried to blame letters not being delivered on the flooding, which happened at the beginning of February, so I do not trust anything it says. I am concerned about my posties, who are literally being brought to tears on the doorstep. They are being told that they cannot have any overtime even though posts are being advertised, and they cannot complete their rounds. They have explained to me that they are being expected to manage their decline. What is the Minister doing to stand up for these frontline workers who are key to our communities?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Lady is right to pay tribute to her local posties. It is because we recognise the connection between the sustainability of the Royal Mail and the postal service and the conditions of workers and the importance of the talks that are going on, that the Secretary of State has been convening the meetings that I have mentioned, and he will continue to do so.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

This situation is completely intolerable, as everybody has described. Will the Minister confirm that if the owners continue to fail to discharge their obligations as a matter of urgency, the option of taking Royal Mail back into public ownership will be fully considered, because that is popular with the public?

[Blair McDougall]

Our focus is on ensuring that the talks that are under way are productive, and that they end with measures that will get the delivery service improved and the business on to a sustainable footing. As I have mentioned, we have an undertaking that the owners are not allowed to take value out of the company until service standards improve.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

My constituents who have lodged complaints with the local Royal Mail are receiving messages that say:

“We’re sorry to advise that deliveries in parts of the DN31-DN37 postcodes are being disrupted due to resourcing issues at the Grimsby Delivery Office.”

Will the Minister give an assurance that, if he has not already done so, he will urge Royal Mail to deal with these staffing resources? It is an acceptable reason in the short term, but not in the long term.

[Blair McDougall]

Whenever hon. Members raise local delivery issues with me, I raise them directly with Royal Mail officials. I will certainly do so for his area because his constituents deserve a better service.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

People across Morecambe and Lunesdale are suffering from late Royal Mail deliveries. In fact, one constituent was told by a frustrated, overworked postie that second class letters were being delivered once a week, at most. What steps is the Minister taking to address that problem?

[Blair McDougall]

The service that my hon. Friend’s constituents are getting clearly is not good enough. We have met Royal Mail to say that the situation is not good enough, we are bringing together workforce and management to progress the talks that will enable us to improve those standards and, as I say, I will be meeting Ofcom later today to express her concerns.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My criticism is of Royal Mail’s senior leadership; it is certainly not of our local posties. In Upper Bann, the posties are excellent and so is my liaison officer in Royal Mail, who has gone above and beyond to get information flowing. Staff are at breaking point, there are absences and gaps—we have 10 vacancies in Banbridge depot—and letters are delayed. You know the score, Mr Speaker. The big issue is with hospital letters, so will the Minister liaise with health and social care trusts in Northern Ireland?

[Blair McDougall]

I will raise the issues at Banbridge sorting office directly with Royal Mail. In addition to my work with the Department of Health, I will ensure that we are having that conversation with health bodies in Northern Ireland.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Given that the Government used the National Security and Investment Act 2021 to extract a golden share, because they considered Royal Mail to be national critical infrastructure, I find it slightly odd that, having recognised its importance, we think there is nothing that we can do. Will the Minister commit to, or at least consider, taking powers that he might need to make a direct intervention to ensure that our constituents, including mine in Stoke-on-Trent Central, get their letters when they want them: on time?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is right to speak on behalf of his constituents and demand better service. As for what we can do, as I said, we are working through the regulator to ensure that services improve, and I am meeting it later today. We are also intervening to bring together the workforce and management to ensure the talks that are crucial for making those improvements progress.

[Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)]

I concur with Members across the House that the fault does not lie with our individual posties. I pay tribute to Dean and Aaron, who have been fantastic as my posties in Brampton in my constituency. I have been written to by Royal Mail employees in my constituency about the new contract and the pressure that it puts on, with 50% of new postal workers leaving in their first year. Can the Minister guarantee that he will speak to Ofcom about equalising pay and conditions to ensure that we do not see as many staff leaving?

[Blair McDougall]

The question of equalising pay and conditions is a matter for those talks. That is why, through the Secretary of State, we are bringing together the owner and the trade unions to have those discussions. I also pay tribute to Dean and Aaron, who can now say that they have had their names mentioned at the Dispatch Box.

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I am a proud member of the CWU. Posties in my constituency are clear that the problems at Royal Mail are the previous board’s financial mismanagement, along with lower wages, longer hours and poorer conditions. The Conservatives and the Lib Dems were warned that that would happen, but they privatised Royal Mail anyway. Will the Government commit to ensuring that the new owners stick to the agreement with the CWU and the Government, meet the universal service obligation and ensure that my constituents get the service that they deserve?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is right. Her constituents absolutely deserve better, and she is right to highlight the long-standing issues that we are trying to deal with. Royal Mail should absolutely meet all the obligations that it has entered into.

[Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)]

Hundreds of my constituents have written to me about Royal Mail failures. I have raised them with Ofcom, but it tells me that it cannot investigate local complaints, and Royal Mail will not act on them. Will the Minister commit to reviewing Ofcom’s powers to hold Royal Mail to account at a local level?

[Blair McDougall]

As I said a moment ago, I will certainly ask Ofcom for its assessment of its powers in this space, and I will keep the hon. Lady updated.

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

Before I became a Member of Parliament, I worked for the CWU at the time of Royal Mail’s privatisation, and I am sad to say that much of what we feared would happen has come true. Residents in Grain in my constituency reported receiving no first-class or second-class mail for weeks, similar to the reports of other Members.

I will highlight an incident in which Network Rail had to hand-deliver letters to residents to ensure that they were aware of the impending closure of a critical rail crossing, because Royal Mail service could not be relied on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the service to my constituents is completely unacceptable? Royal Mail needs to focus on addressing its significant recruitment and retention challenges, which have been made worse by the introduction of a two-tier workforce in 2022-23.

[Blair McDougall]

The example that my hon. Friend gives about Network Rail is a reminder that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) said a second ago, this is critical national infrastructure that we rely on at moments like that. The issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Lauren Edwards) discusses in terms of the terms and conditions are exactly why we have made that a priority. The Secretary of State is bringing together the management and workforce to discuss those issues.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I had the opportunity to meet senior management at Royal Mail yesterday, after constituents in Symington and Thankerton in the Clydesdale area of my constituency received no mail at all for more than 10 days. I want to return to the issue of postal voting in the Scottish elections and other elections. I do not think that reassurances from Royal Mail are enough; the Minister and others need to see a plan so that we know postal votes will be delivered, collected and taken to the electoral authorities. Will he reassure us that he will get such a plan?

[Blair McDougall]

We continue to seek those reassurances and the plan behind them. As I mentioned, with regard to the Scottish elections, a specific meeting between the management of Royal Mail—its CEO—and the election authorities in Scotland is coming up to discuss exactly the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

[Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)]

I met a resident at my surgery at the weekend who has a long-term health condition. They have been sent testing packs by the NHS, which arrive late, and appointment letters have been delayed, which is having a huge impact on their health. When the Minister meets Ofcom later, will he raise the serious impacts of unacceptable Royal Mail delays on not just our residents, but our national health service?

[Blair McDougall]

I will certainly raise my hon. Friend’s concerns about important medical post with Ofcom. Royal Mail is part of the critical national infrastructure and can reach every part of the country, and its ability to deliver such things is a business opportunity, and it needs to get that right.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

On Monday, it was my privilege to visit the Helston sorting office, where I discovered staff burdened with remote, counterproductive micromanagement of their work and inadequate plans to deal with the inevitability of staff absences. I was distressed to hear them describe that they had been abused and threatened when undertaking their work on the frontline. Does the Minister agree that frontline workers should be praised and have management systems that empower them to resolve matters locally?

[Blair McDougall]

I think the hon. Gentleman can tell from the comments around the House how much respect and affection there is for posties around the country, and I am disturbed by what he describes. Ultimately, the only sustainable future for Royal Mail is in bringing together a workforce who are really passionate about what they do and a management who are seeking to get the company into a financially sustainable position. That is why we are prioritising the talks going on at the moment.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Gloucester residents have been let down by Royal Mail for years; it is prioritising parcels over post and profits over our posties. I have a visit to Gloucester North delivery office on Friday, and I was shocked to find out from the frontlines that it is offering overtime to clear the backlog before I get there. Ofcom has proven to be utterly toothless in this matter; it is not regulating properly, and Royal Mail is baking the fines into its business plans. What more can we do to give Ofcom the bite that it needs to improve service for Gloucester residents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend has been a constant campaigner and is constantly in my ear on these issues on behalf of his constituents. As I said, I will be talking to Ofcom later today about its role in this matter, and I will keep him updated on that.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Residents across my constituency, particularly those in the SM1, SM2 and SM3 postcodes, have been reporting issues with their deliveries for years. Local social media is full of people reporting one-day-a-week deliveries and asking which other roads that is occurring on. I have visited my delivery office for the last two Christmases, meeting hard-working posties who have been let down by the system. Let me give a particular shout-out to Timmy, who has been delivering to my road for decades and is approaching retirement—my congratulations to him. Will the Minister add Sutton to the list for his agenda this afternoon? Can he also report back next Wednesday in the Westminster Hall debate, which I imagine he will be coming to, with clear actions from his meeting this afternoon?

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to Timmy and thank him for his years of service. It is exactly because this service is full of people like him who are passionate about their jobs that we need to ensure that Royal Mail’s quality of service is reformed and improved.

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

Phil from Brereton told me that his wife’s jury service letter arrived too late for her to defer; Colin from Brereton had a hospital letter that arrived three days after the appointment; and Michael from Rugeley waited weeks for a new debit card. Those were first-class letters, so planned reforms to the universal service obligation would not have made much of a difference. Will the Minister impress upon the leadership of Royal Mail the human impact of these delays on posties and residents?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case about how delays and failings in Royal Mail standards impact on so many different aspects of his constituents’ lives. I will certainly use those examples when I next meet with Royal Mail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I want to make a quick point about hospital appointments. When someone misses their hospital appointment, they go to the back of the queue and start again, and might have to wait another two years. When the Minister has his meeting with Royal Mail today, can I ask him to convey to its representatives that they should have meetings with health trusts, patient groups and representatives of Northern Ireland to ensure that those who miss appointments due to delays in the Royal Mail will not be disadvantaged, which they clearly are at the moment?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. As I mentioned a moment ago, we are working with the Department of Health and Social Care here to ensure as many health bodies as possible take advantage of the barcode service, to make sure that their letters get through. I will certainly make sure that the issues he has highlighted are raised in Northern Ireland.

[Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)]

Lots of letters are late. One that stood out to me, which a constituent raised, was a parking fine that had almost doubled in price by the time it arrived. Locally, the Royal Mail tells me that it is recruiting 12 new postal workers, but if that does not fix the problem, what should we try next?

[Blair McDougall]

Continue to speak to me. My hon. Friend grabbed me during the votes the other night to raise local Royal Mail issues, and I know she will continue to do so.

[Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)]

Many residents and fantastic posties in Exeter have raised exactly the same concerns as other Members of the House. Can the Minister give an assessment of how he thinks Ofcom has dealt with this issue so far, and does he have confidence in Ofcom to get a grip on it?

[Blair McDougall]

We rely on Ofcom as the regulator of Royal Mail, which is exactly why we are having a meeting later today to discuss what more it can do to deal with the widespread concerns that exist across the House about the quality of service.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

It is clear that the NHS barcode prioritisation system broke down, but the problem is not limited to NHS letters. I want to highlight the Government’s Tell Us Once service following a bereavement. Many hon. Members will know the urgency and distressing nature of that correspondence, so will the Minister—who has been extremely active in dealing with constituency concerns—look at the issue of prioritisation of non-NHS letters?

[Blair McDougall]

In a previous life, I was very proud to have worked on the Tell Us Once service at its inception, and I know how important that service is to people at the worst possible time of their life. I will certainly raise the issue that my hon. Friend has highlighted.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

As the Labour Member of Parliament for Bournemouth East, I stand by my posties here in the House of Commons and thank them for their dedication and diligence, which stands in sharp contrast to the management of the Royal Mail. The trial that is under way has failed, and the new approach will spectacularly fail if it is put into effect. When the Minister meets Ofcom later, and when he meets the Royal Mail, will he say that he will not stand for the Royal Mail becoming yet another gig economy parcel courier that exploits its employees and lets down customers?

[Blair McDougall]

This is a Government who are improving the working conditions, standards and rights of workers across the economy. My hon. Friend makes the important point that there is wisdom and experience within the workforce. The talks that are going on at the moment are about bringing that together with the ambition and responsibilities of the management, which is why we are taking the actions we are.

[David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)]

Southend sorting office was part of the original pilot for these changes to the USO. It failed, and nine months later it is clear that it is still failing, so today I have summoned the management to meet me and my constituents to hear at first hand the challenges this is causing. Following that meeting, will the Minister meet me to hear that feedback and take it right up the chain?

[Blair McDougall]

I certainly will. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue, as well as all the other hon. Members who have brought to me local intelligence, which informs my own understanding of the issues across the postal service.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Residents in Ardsley, Robin Hood, Lofthouse, parts of Tingley and Morley are complaining that they have been waiting up to three weeks for their postal service. It is obviously not the posties’ fault—it is a question of leadership and management. Following the Minister’s meeting with Ofcom, will he meet me to see the evidence for himself? What can he say to reassure my constituents now?

[Blair McDougall]

I reassure my hon. Friend’s constituents that we are expressing the frustration and anger that he has expressed to me directly to Royal Mail and through Ofcom, and of course I will happily discuss developments with him.

[Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)]

I agree with residents across Wolverhampton and Willenhall that Royal Mail’s delivery service is just not good enough, but we stand with our frontline postal workers, who are working incredibly hard and bearing the brunt. I call on the Minister to challenge Royal Mail’s leadership, and to have a look at the two-tier employment model and wider issues that are affecting the recruitment and retention of our hard-working staff.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend’s constituents absolutely deserve better, and posties deserve dignity at work, given the essential job they do for our society and our economy. That is exactly why we are convening meetings between management and unions to make sure that those talks progress.

[Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)]

My speaking notes talk about excuses from Royal Mail. Now that I am in the Chamber, though, I do not think that is the language I will use, because people across Lichfield, Burntwood and the villages are sick of being lied to by Royal Mail. I met Royal Mail just before Christmas to complain to it about the total lack of a postal service in Lichfield—we were probably the worst area in the country at that point. When I had that meeting, I was told that all the first-class mail went out last week, but that was a lie—it was an absolute lie, because my constituents told me so. Royal Mail clearly does not have a handle on this issue. It is either not measuring its performance or it is covering it up, so I ask the Minister to use the golden share we have to force Royal Mail to be honest, fess up and fix it.

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend shows passion and anger, which he has also shown to me in private when raising these issues. Again, that speaks to how frustrating it is for us as Members of Parliament to raise a problem—on any issue—and then to be told that it does not exist when our constituents are telling us otherwise. Royal Mail has a responsibility to address the problem in a direct and straightforward manner, because if we are not recognising the problem, we will not deal with it.

[Mr Speaker]

This has been an excellent debate, and I thank Members for the way it has been delivered on behalf of all our constituents. Royal Mail’s management has a problem, and that has certainly been highlighted today.

Post Office Green Paper: Government Response

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

The Post Office is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic fabric, supporting communities, small businesses and local high streets. Last year, the Government published a Green Paper to open a national conversation about how to secure a modern, trusted and financially resilient Post Office for the future.

Today, we are publishing the Government’s response to that consultation. More than 2,500 people contributed their views, including postmasters, businesses, community organisations and members of the public. Their responses provided invaluable insight and have shaped the Government’s decisions.

The message from the public was clear. People want a strong and convenient network, built around permanent, full-time, full-service branches offering a wide range of postal, banking and Government services. In response, the Government will retain the minimum network size of 11,500 branches and all six geographical access criteria. We will also introduce a new requirement that at least 50% of the network must be full-time, full-service branches—the sites that deliver the highest social value and strongest service to customers. This requirement sets 50% as an absolute minimum, and we expect the Post Office to continue operating substantially above it. We are setting this requirement to ensure that full-time, full-service branches remain the backbone of the network for the foreseeable future, as these are the branches that deliver the greatest social value and the strongest customer service.

Government will continue to provide funding to the Post Office to support with the delivery of these policy requirements, via the network subsidy. Pending the completion of the subsidy referral process, Government plans to provide up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three financial years.

Long-term stability also requires keeping with the times, which is why investing to modernise the network remains a Government priority. Government intend to provide up to £483.4 million over the next two financial years to support transformation across the network, pending the completion of subsidy referral processes. This will modernise branches, fund new equipment in branches to improve the customer experience, expand parcel locker provision, and enable the technology transformation to transition operations away from Fujitsu and ultimately move away from the Horizon system.

To continue protecting the network, Government plan to support the Post Office financially on a number of issues that the Post Office is not in a position to fund on its own. This includes plans to provide the Post Office with up to £37.4 million in funding to fund its remediation unit, which is responsible for delivering redress to postmasters affected by the Horizon IT system and other operational failures, and to fund the company’s response to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry. Government also intend to provide funding of up to £104 million to the Post Office so that it can pay its IR35 tax liability and associated corporation tax to HMRC. This funding is subject to the completion of the subsidy referral process.

Consultation responses emphasised the importance of the Post Office as a parcel hub, and we welcome the Post Office’s continued innovation in this area. On banking, people were clear that the Post Office’s role in ensuring access to cash and in-person services remains essential. Banking framework 4 will increase remuneration for postmasters, and Government will continue to work with the banking sector to strengthen provision further. On 21 January, Government held joint discussions between the Post Office and the banking sector to explore where continued collaboration, on a commercial and voluntary basis, would allow all parties to better meet the needs of individuals and businesses. Attendees agreed to give an update on discussions in six months.

Consultation responses also highlighted continued reliance on face-to-face access to Government services. We see real potential in exploring how these services could be improved and a cross-government group has been established to take this forward.

Strengthening the relationship between the Post Office and postmasters remains central. While meaningful steps have already been taken, including enhanced engagement structures, the Government expect the Post Office to develop a unified culture strategy—covering employees, postmasters, strategic partners and customers—by summer 2026. An independent evaluation of recent initiatives will report later this year.

Our long-term ambition is a financially sustainable Post Office that remains a trusted presence in communities across the UK. Decisions on long-term governance models will be taken only after the conclusion of the Horizon IT inquiry. In the meantime, the Government will work with the Post Office to ensure financial discipline, progress towards positive trading profit by 2030, and protection of access for the communities that rely on it.

This response sets a clear direction: a stable, modern and resilient Post Office, fit for the future and shaped by the people it serves.

[HCWS1360]

Post Office Green Paper

Blair McDougall Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the results of the “Future of Post Office” Green Paper. We published the Green Paper in July, starting a national conversation about the future of the Post Office, an institution that has served every community in every corner of the United Kingdom for generations. More than 2,500 people took the time to respond to the consultation, including postmasters, small businesses, service providers, community groups and members of the public. We also held dedicated discussion groups with postmasters and citizens across the country. I therefore start by thanking every respondent; their views provided a wealth of insight, and have been carefully considered.

I am pleased to announce that we are publishing the Government response to the consultation today. Our response must echo the clear call we heard from respondents. They told us that they want a strong and convenient post office network, built around permanent, full-time and full-service branches that offer a wide range of essential postal, banking and Government services. They want a Post Office that is reliable, modern and transparent, and that puts postmasters at the heart of decision making. As such, I can confirm today that the Government will keep the minimum network size of 11,500 branches and will retain all six geographical access criteria, ensuring that communities across the UK continue to have local and reliable access to postal services, including rural and remote areas.

Alongside maintaining the network requirements, we are introducing a new requirement that at least 50% of the network must be full-time and full-service branches. This requirement sets 50% as an absolute minimum, and we expect the Post Office to continue to operate substantially above it. We are setting this requirement to ensure that the full-time, full-service branches remain the backbone of the network for the foreseeable future, as those are the branches that deliver the greatest social value and the strongest customer service. At the same time, we are not blind to the challenges facing the Post Office, and have built in an evidence-based process so that we know when it is the right time for Government to look at the post office network again.

However, stability requires investment. That is why over the next two years, the Government will provide up to £483 million to support the transformation of the Post Office, on top of network subsidy funding to support the costs of delivering Government policy, which will be £70 million in financial year 2026-27. This investment funding will modernise branches across the country. It will support new in-branch technology and the delivery of new products and services that will make sure the Post Office can do what its customers need it to do, while keeping its identity and its role at the centre of so many UK high streets. The funding will also enable a major technology transformation programme within the next five years that will transition operations away from Fujitsu and ultimately replace the Horizon system. Postmasters must be able to trust the technology that they use; it should make their jobs easier and help them spend their time doing what they do best, which is serving their local communities. The days of the Post Office relying on outdated systems must end, and this programme lays the ground for a modern, resilient and fit-for-purpose organisation.

The consultation reinforces the importance of the Post Office for post, of course, but also for banking and access to Government services. I would like to address some specific points about each of those areas. First, on postage, respondents told us that they value the Post Office as a multi-carrier parcel hub and want more choice and convenience in how parcels are sent and received. We will support the Post Office’s efforts to innovate in this space while ensuring that essential services remain accessible.

Secondly, on banking, the public were clear that the Post Office plays a critical role in ensuring communities have access to cash and in-person banking. Being able to access essential banking services such as cash withdrawals and deposits is valuable to many Post Office customers, in particular small businesses, and respondents expressed an appetite to increase their offer. Last month, the Government held discussions between the Post Office and the banking sector to explore where they may be able to work together on a commercial and voluntary basis to better meet the needs of individuals and businesses. Those discussions were based around areas of mutual interest such as banking services, financial inclusion, modernisation, and the importance of continuing to improve financial crime safeguards. Those conversations are ongoing.

Finally, on Government services, colleagues will know that many services have moved online. However, respondents told us strongly that vulnerable, digitally excluded and rural customers continue to rely on the Post Office for in-person services. In that spirit, we have established a cross-Government group to look at developing a common physical front door for Government services, expanded assisted digital support, and new propositions such as prescription collection and identity verification.

At the heart of the Green Paper and of today’s Government response is the need to strengthen the relationship between the Post Office and postmasters. The Horizon scandal was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in modern British history, and while the Government remain focused on delivering redress to victims as rapidly as possible, we must also ensure that the culture that enabled those wrongs can never return. The Post Office has already taken steps to rebuild trust, including the postmaster panel, a new consultative council, embedding postmasters in key teams at the Post Office’s head office, and the election of postmaster non-executive directors to the board.

However, we agree with respondents that more is needed. As such, I can confirm today that the Post Office will develop a culture strategy with measurable objectives that covers employees, postmasters, strategic partners and customers. The Government expect that plan to be in place by this summer. To ensure that these reforms genuinely meet the needs of postmasters, the Government have commissioned an independent external evaluation of the initiatives the Post Office has implemented to strengthen postmaster engagement, which will report later this year.

Our long-term goal is a Post Office that is financially sustainable, adaptable to changing markets and less reliant on Government funding, but this transition must be responsible and realistic. Respondents were clear that stability comes first, particularly while the Horizon inquiry continues. That is why the Government will provide £37 million of funding to the Post Office in the next financial year to support with the costs of administering redress and responding to the inquiry. While the Green Paper explored long-term governance ideas such as mutualisation or a charter model, the Government will not make any decisions on structural reform until after the final report of Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry. In the meantime, we will work with the Post Office to ensure that the organisation demonstrates financial discipline, generates a trading profit by 2030, and continues to reduce reliance on taxpayer subsidy while protecting access for communities that depend on it.

This Green Paper process and the thousands of responses we received show the enduring importance of the Post Office to the life of this country. The Government’s response sets a clear direction: we are maintaining a strong and accessible network, backing postmasters through major investment and cultural reform, modernising services for a digital age, and setting the Post Office on a path towards long-term financial and operational stability. The Post Office must be modern, resilient and trusted, shaped by the communities it serves and built around the people who run it. With today’s response, we take a major step towards that future.

I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and—I do not often say these words—I warmly welcome the decision that he has announced. It seems that the Government have abandoned the risk, posed by their earlier proposals, that they would shutter thousands of local post offices, especially in rural areas. It is a great relief to those in villages and high streets that the Government have listened to the people who engaged with the consultation and the 180,000 who signed our petition, and have heard the calls from the readers of The Mail on Sunday, the Express, The Daily Telegraph and other media outlets, all of whom were outraged by the possibility that the Government would close their much-valued local post offices.

By keeping the minimum network size at 11,500 branches, as it was throughout the 14 years we were in government, and by retaining all the geographical access criteria, the Minister has avoided a U-turn. In fact, I would describe what he has done as avoiding a chasm that was opening up in the road in front of him, and avoiding it niftily. The campaign that we led showed how important it is to voice the concerns of the vulnerable, those who are digitally excluded and the small businesses that rely so much on our precious post office network. May I add my thanks for the hard work of every postmaster and postmistress in Britain who keeps that network going?

However, it is not all sweetness and light for me today. The post office network, like so many retailers, faces a tax hike—in this case, a hike of £45 million—because of the national insurance increase. Many post offices are also seeing increases of more than 100% in their business rates. The chairman of Post Office Ltd, Nigel Railton, made it clear that it was precisely because of the rising costs resulting from the changes in national insurance and the national living wage that the business needed a fresh start. We cannot claim to support the backbone of the network while breaking its back with tax hikes. The Conservatives have always stood up for our nation’s high streets, and we would introduce a permanent 100% business rate relief for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses whose premises are under the rateable value threshold of £110,000.

I have a few questions for the Minister. He announced a requirement for at least 50% of the network to be full-time and full-service. I believe that the number today is 79%. Is that not a downgrade, and what does he expect from the other 29%? Will he confirm that no small rural branches will be consolidated and replaced by city-centre hubs under the guise of this new 50% full-service requirement? Will he please expand on the minimum service that he would expect those smaller branches to deliver?

The Minister committed himself to a technology transformation programme to replace the Horizon system within the next five years. I heard about the first two years of funding, but will he give us some details about how the current system will be maintained after those first two years? He mentioned the importance of the post office network, given the number of banks that are closing branches all over the country. Has a new, specific agreement been made with the banks to provide additional support for post office branches in areas where banks are closing? What update can he give the House about the discussions with Fujitsu and its financial contribution towards Post Office redress?

The Minister has clearly been forced to listen. He has been forced to do a pre-U-turn on the proposals to reduce the size of our precious post office network. He has been forced to admit that our high streets deserve better than the managed decline that was a risk under those earlier proposals, and this is a victory for all our constituents.

[Blair McDougall]

I think that if I am praised much more from the Opposition Benches, I will be drummed out of the Brownies.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s response to my statement. I believe that there is consensus across the House on the important role that post offices play in our communities, and particularly in our high streets and remote villages. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming the campaigning of Mail and Express readers, who have voiced very clearly the importance of post offices to their communities. In my capacity as both postal services Minister and small business Minister, I also echo her words about the essential function of post offices in providing a place for small businesses to drop off their takings.

The hon. Lady referred to the costs faced by the Post Office, which is a point well taken. The Government are putting £483 million into the transformation of the Post Office to ensure that it has a financially sustainable future as a business on our high streets and in our villages. She asked specifically about support for the IT transformation. Of the more than £500 million that the Government have committed to transformation, including the money already spent before the Green Paper, £136 million is committed to technology and to replacing the Horizon system, which is a major priority for us. However, that transformation investment—beyond what we are putting into IT—will also enable the Post Office to do new things. The debate about the Post Office often concentrates on the idea of its being the last place to do things, but, having talked to the management of Post Office Ltd, I am greatly encouraged by their wish for it to be the first place that people think of in connection with cash and other high street services.

The hon. Lady asked about the additional 50% trigger, and, entirely fairly, raised the question of what it would mean for rural areas. The criteria for access to the full set of services that a branch provides are being maintained, so those protections are still there. This is very much an additional protection, rather than an alternative to the protections that were already there for rural post offices. For example, “drop and collect branches” that do not offer the full service are included in the 11,500 criterion, but are not included in the access criteria. This is about protecting access to as full a range of services as possible.

Finally, let me respond to the hon. Lady’s question about Fujitsu. When I met Fujitsu representatives shortly before the end of last year, I made very clear our belief that—as they have said themselves—they have a moral responsibility to contribute substantially to the costs of redress. They have said that they wish to wait until Sir Wyn’s inquiry before making a decision on that, but we will continue to have those discussions.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Minister’s statement. May I raise two specific issues relating to post offices in my constituency?

First, Mosborough post office, a fairly small but growing business, is on the margins of viability. Will the Minister think again about how small post offices in communities that rely on them can be supported? Secondly, the Lloyds bank branch in Woodhouse—the last bank there—has closed. Woodhouse is an old mining community. We thought it was an ideal place for a banking hub, and we had someone willing to run it: Richard Trinder, the sub-postmaster at Handsworth post office. However, the plan was turned down because the banks were not prepared to fund it The Minister mentioned discussions with the banks and the Post Office about a voluntary agreement. Will he have a look at what he might do to enforce such agreements, and change the criteria for banking hubs when they could be vital to local communities?

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend has made some important points, particularly about the smaller post offices which, as he says, are often the ones that struggle and may be less able to invest directly to tackle some of their problems. The money that we are putting into network transformation is important because it can enable those that may be struggling at the moment to become viable businesses. Just before the end of last year, Treasury Ministers and I chaired a banking roundtable. As my hon. Friend says, we are talking about a voluntary relationship, but all the banks recognise the critical importance of the post offices and of access to banking services for their customers, especially in the light of recent high street bank closures. That recognition is, obviously, shared by the Government.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and I promise to set a good example for colleagues by keeping my response brief.

As the Minister has laid out, the responses to the consultation underscored the importance of post offices as community hubs that provide vital services, not least to NHS patients through the delivery of important medical correspondence. Some 99.7% of the population live within three miles of a post office, and 4,000 of these branches are open seven days a week. That is an increasingly important statistic, given the rapid closure of high street services such as banks over the past decade. The Minister has said that at least 50% of the network must be full-time and full-service branches. Many people rely on the post office to provide vital services, so can the Minister confirm that we will not see a reduction in the number of full-time branches and that he will ensure that opening hours continue to meet the needs of working people?

The Minister also referred to the important community banking service that post offices provide, but he did not provide specific assurances to the House about other services provided by the Post Office, such as Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency services and Passport Office services. He mentioned expanded digital services, but these will not help many of our constituents who live in remote areas with poor broadband access or difficult phone service access. Can he provide a commitment that the Post Office will continue to provide physical services for people who will have difficulty accessing DVLA and passport services digitally? Can he confirm that these will remain in post office branches beyond March 2026, and will he commit to multi-year contracts, in particular with the DVLA?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Lady for welcoming today’s statement. On the additional protection that we are bringing in, I reassure her that in addition to maintaining the network of 11,500 post offices, the access criteria stipulate that 99% of the UK population must be within three miles of a post office outlet, 90% must be within one mile, 99% of those living in deprived urban areas must be within one mile, 95% of the total urban population must be within one mile, and 95% of the total rural population must be within three miles. Then we have the additional protection, particularly in rural areas, that 95% of the population in every postcode district must be within six miles of a post office. They will all be maintained, which should reassure her.

The hon. Lady makes a point about ensuring that post office hours match people’s lives, which is something that postmasters are doing already. I visited a post office in Acton that stays open at weekends and till 11 pm, so that other retailers, such as grocers, can come and put in their takings.

Finally, we recognise the importance of post offices for vulnerable people and those who, for whatever reason, might struggle with the choices that many other people are making about accessing Government services online. That is one of the key reasons why we are keeping the network at the level it is at the moment. As I mentioned in my statement, we are also doing work across Government to look at the idea of a single front door for face-to-face Government services and the role that the Post Office can play in that. We are looking to enhance the role that the Post Office plays.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome the announcement of £483 million to invest in our post offices around the country, and I join the Minister in thanking our postmasters and postal staff, particularly those at the Southbourne Grove, Malmesbury Park, Hengistbury Head and Sea Road post offices in my constituency. What happens at Royal Mail affects our postal services—it is unavoidable—so I am concerned about the adoption of the optimised delivery network in Bournemouth and more broadly. The Minister and I were recently at a meeting with the Post Office in which we had a private discussion about its future. Does he agree that the work of the Government in this area is key to building pride in our communities, tackling antisocial behaviour and having a diverse mix of offer on our high streets? That is the only way in which we will truly regenerate our high streets in Bournemouth and across the country.

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for campaigning for his own high streets, and particularly for his local post office network. He is absolutely right to say that our response recognises the importance of post offices as anchors in high streets—they help drive footfall. The community hub model that the Post Office is piloting is an example of how we can build on that and expand post offices’ role as anchors in high streets, but he is right: this has to be seen across the wider effort that we are undertaking to make high streets somewhere people choose to go, to make them more attractive and to make them places where people choose to shop. High streets and high street businesses are not just part of the community; they are where our communities are made.

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Kingswinford is the largest town centre in my constituency, but it has been without a post office since the Midcounties Co-operative closed the store in which the post office was located. That loss has become even more significant since Lloyds bank announced this month that it was closing the only bank in the town centre. The Minister has spoken about retaining a minimum post office network, but what will the Government do to help re-open post offices in town centres that do not currently have a post office, such as Kingswinford?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point: it can be really devastating when a post office closes, particularly in a small community. There will always be churn within the network—there will be businesses that succeed or fail as post offices. Our job is to make sure that the overall criteria are there and that the overall level of access is there for people.

The hon. Gentleman asks what we can do to bring businesses and post offices back to areas such as Kingswinford. The transformation investment that we are putting in is so important, because that is what makes the overall business profitable, but it also enables the Post Office to give a better deal to postmasters, which makes it a more attractive business to open in communities like his.

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

High streets in towns like Long Eaton have come under growing strain in recent years, not least because of widespread bank closures, but around one in five people is still not using online banking—a group that disproportionately includes older and disabled residents. I am fighting hard for the establishment of a banking hub in Long Eaton. Given the clear need for accessible financial services, what role does the Minister envisage for post offices in supporting the regeneration of high streets in Erewash, and what support is he providing to strengthen the Post Office’s financial services?

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the campaigns that he runs in defence of his local high streets. Just before the end of the year, we brought together Post Office Ltd and the high street banks to begin a discussion about the future of banking and financial services within the Post Office and the role that it plays, not just in ensuring that people have access to banking services but in bringing footfall to local high streets. The revenue that the Post Office receives from the financial services and banking side of its business has doubled over a period in which its revenue from delivering letters has declined, so we are absolutely clear about the importance of the Post Office’s banking services to the future of local high streets.

[David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)]

I have a particular interest in this matter, because the world’s oldest post office is in Sanquhar, in my constituency, which has operated continuously since 1712, despite some scares in recent years. The Minister would be very welcome to visit it. I urge him to get some urgency into the discussion with the banks, because there is significant confusion between the banking hub legislation and rules and the role of the Post Office. For example, in Sanquhar, although the Bank of Scotland has provided a banking adviser to come to the community following the closure of its branch, it will not allow that person to meet people within the post office. Likewise, in Moffat, where we had a bank closure, the post office will not operate a vital cash machine that is required in that community. Will the Minister increase his efforts to get the banks and post offices together to get a co-ordinated approach?

[Blair McDougall]

I was going to make a cruel joke about the right hon. Member remembering the opening of that post office, but I am too fond of him to do that. He pays tribute to it, and I would gladly visit, perhaps on the way back to my constituency from Parliament one weekend. I have relatives in his part of the world, so perhaps I can double up on my reasons to visit.

As I have mentioned, we absolutely understand the centrality of banking services to the sustainability of the Post Office. We had that roundtable, and even though the banking framework has just been renewed, we have already started conversations on this. Ultimately, those will be conversations between two commercial entities, but we are facilitating them, because we recognise their importance.

[Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)]

Last year, I ran a community campaign to save Westbourne post office, which mobilised thousands, and the post office was kept open. I also put pressure on Post Office Ltd to reopen a full service post office in Bournemouth town centre after the WH Smith closed, and one is opening in May. Residents should not have to fight so hard for their post offices. They provide a vital lifeline, especially for older and more vulnerable residents, allowing them to access government services, and for our local businesses, as we have heard. How will the Minister ensure that post offices remain a fixture on our high streets, and play a crucial role in revitalising our high streets and town centres?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is a constant campaigner on behalf of local post offices, and I am not surprised that she had that victory. I look forward to visiting her constituency, and she can perhaps introduce me to the local postmasters while I am there.

I have mentioned the transformation programme that we are funding, and while there will always be churn in the network, with some businesses closing and some opening, that should be part of a natural cycle, rather than because of business distress. The transformation programme is about making sure that there is good postmaster remuneration, so that businesses succeed, and I will continue to work with my hon. Friend to make sure that the post offices in her constituency—and everywhere—thrive.

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to retaining the minimum network size of 11,500 post office branches. The Minister will know that I have campaigned extensively on this issue, not least because I do not have a single bank branch in my entire constituency. There is a particular need for post offices in rural areas where other service provision is limited. What support will be given to rural villages like Kelsall and Threapwood, where the post offices are closing? Despite every effort, there has been no possibility of reopening a branch in those villages.

[Blair McDougall]

I remember responding to a debate in which the hon. Member campaigned vociferously on behalf of post offices in her constituency, and I think today is tribute to the campaigning done by her and by other Members on these issues. I remember her telling me that her constituency not only does not have a post office, but does not have a McDonald’s, which is extraordinary. Again, we are maintaining the access criterion that means that the Post Office has to maintain accessibility for people in rural areas, but ultimately it is by making businesses profitable and making the remuneration for postmasters attractive that we will achieve what she seeks to achieve.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

In a previous statement, I learned that the directly managed post office in Wester Hailes in Edinburgh South West was to close. It was a really concerning time for the community, but Mohammed Arshad and his sons Aamir and Adam stepped up and absorbed the service into their shop, Plaza News. Residents now have longer opening hours in which to access services, and they can do their banking, pay bills and get their passport checked. It is the most British of places; people queue to send their parcel via Royal Mail, Parcelforce, DPD or, if they are feeling brave, Evri, while browsing wool, knitting needles and knitting patterns in the aisle. It is a fantastic place. While news of the transition was concerning, particularly when it first broke, I really think that the community has ended up in a better place. Can the Minister reassure Mohammed and his sons that what has been announced today will enable them to serve their community more, rather than less?

[Blair McDougall]

I am very happy to reassure Mohammed and his sons about that, and to thank them for the work that they do for the community. My hon. Friend mentions the post office staying open for longer; that is typical of postmasters, who are not just running a business, but have a really clear sense that they are serving their community. That is why getting this right, and succeeding with the vision that we have set out in this Green Paper, is so important.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I welcome the statement, and I welcomed the opportunity to meet the Minister to discuss these issues. A lot of people are talking about either reopening post offices—indeed, the Post Office want to see them reopen—or avoiding closure, and he knows that it all comes down to remuneration. As he will have heard, a post office operator needs to sell at least 450 stamps every hour just to achieve the national minimum wage level of remuneration. That clearly is the reason why in Porthleven and Newlyn, where the Post Office want to reopen post offices, no one is interested in taking on those services. What can the Government do to ensure that the remuneration is sufficient to ensure that the network targets he has outlined can be achieved?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the hon. Member for taking the time to meet me to make the case for post offices in his area, which he did with some passion. From conversations not just with him and other hon. Members, but with postmasters, I am left in no doubt about the importance of ensuring that the Post Office improves renumeration for post offices, because that is how we will ensure that the network thrives and survives. We are putting half a billion pounds into network transformation, so that all the businesses, including those in hon. Members’ constituencies, are sustainable.

[Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)]

I welcome the statement, and the Government’s response in the Green Paper, particularly the commitment to 11,500 branches—branches will be focused on high streets—and the focus on accessibility. In the light of that, does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous that the Uxbridge post office branch is set to close in May? Today, we found out that TG Jones, the current operator, has withdrawn from the contract for a future branch, and has ended its search for a replacement. Will he join me in urging Hillingdon council to pull its finger out, stop blaming others, and do all that it can to secure a new site, using its own assets if necessary, and in urging the Post Office to ensure that we maintain a post office in Uxbridge town centre?

[Blair McDougall]

I will perhaps use more parliamentary language than my hon. Friend did, but I absolutely would encourage everyone to work together to ensure that his constituents have access to postal services. I recognise that, while there is obviously good news today about maintaining the overall size of the post office network and the access criteria, that is little comfort for those in a community where there is such churn in post office services. I will very happily work with him on the issue that he raises.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

In rural areas, the loss of post offices is an issue, but it is also an issue in cities, particularly when the local transport network does not necessarily link people with the post office. My community is still reeling from Spar closing the post offices in its shops. Will the Minister give us some comfort by saying that he believes that the remuneration package being offered will not just keep postmasters in the job, but encourage new postmasters to take up the job, particularly given that, as has been stated, we face another round of Bank of Scotland closures?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Member makes a really important point about the impact of the closure of a post office on an area. As I have said, we are maintaining the overall network, but there are still areas where there are issues. The Government obviously do not directly set the remuneration, but we are supporting the Post Office in ensuring, through its transformation, that it is profitable enough to make running a post office business more attractive. Ultimately, that is the long-term answer to the issues in her constituency, and all hon. Members’ constituencies.

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, in which he referred to post offices being multi-carrier parcel hubs. One such carrier is Evri, and I visited its depot in my constituency of Hemel Hempstead last week with the GMB London region rep Danni Egan. I met dedicated couriers who were doing vital and often undervalued work. How do the Government plan to support private couriers, and companies that are willing to work alongside trade unions to ensure that these workers, too, get better pay and conditions?

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend is always a doughty fighter for the rights of working people. The employment rights Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), just disappeared from the Chamber, but was here a moment ago; she has brought through important changes to make sure that when it comes to people’s working environment, there is a floor of decency. Ofcom is looking at other private parcel couriers and the service that they provide, and I will certainly work with my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (David Taylor) on these issues.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Following an exemplary local campaign and petition, it is a relief to record that the Post Office has just reversed its decision not to reopen the post office in Lyndhurst, often referred to as the capital of the New Forest. Can the Minister explain whether there is any overall Government plan to co-ordinate the disappearance of banks with the emergence of banking hubs and the expectation that post offices will take on some banking responsibilities? Would it be a possible source of income for post offices if they could charge the banks in exchange for undertaking to take in cheques on accounts held with those banks? At the moment, I believe it is very hit and miss which banks allow people to pay their checks into a post office, and which do not.

[Blair McDougall]

Most banks do provide services, although I know there have recently been issues around Lloyds and the availability of cheque-cashing. I am really pleased to hear that the Lyndhurst branch has been saved, and I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and campaigners on that. The banking framework is an increasingly important part of post offices’ income, and at the heart of that is the relationship whereby the post office is paid for providing services that have disappeared because of a lack of high-street bank branches. That is very important to the financial stability and future of the Post Office.

[Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)]

One of the key services that the Post Office supports in North Norfolk is our bank hubs. These are crucial to our market towns, which have lost high-street banks, and to those living in nearby villages. However, I am frustrated about the number of banks that fail to provide crucial services in these hubs. I note the Minister’s comments about the voluntary and commercial basis of participation, but has he considered reviewing the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, with a view to widening the requirement to include access to banking services? That would be of huge help to my rural residents and businesses.

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. I have only been a Minister for four months, but I have already learned that it is not a great idea to trespass too far into Treasury Ministers’ territory; however, I will certainly discuss the point that he raises with colleagues there, and obviously our overall strategy is to make sure that there is access to financial services through the post office in as wide a range of communities as possible.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his statement, and welcome his commitment to maintaining a minimum network size of 11,500 branches and all six geographical access criteria. Currently, 79% of the network is a full service branch, so why have the Government set the new 50% requirement, which is so much lower than that? Is that to allow the Post Office to downsize by stealth?

[Blair McDougall]

No, it is not, because all six of the criteria remain, and they will guarantee access to the fuller range of services that the Post Office provides. I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I do not think it will have surprised any of us to hear the Minister talk about the response from our communities, who say how much they value services in a physical post office. My constituents in High Lane and around the Fiveways in Hazel Grove still mourn the loss of their post office branch, but when I talked with Post Office Ltd and local retailers after the closures, they said that it was just not viable to offer those services, as the remuneration, and the business model, just did not fit in with their needs. The Minister talked about the desire to reduce the reliance on Government funding, and about looking at additional services, like prescription collection. Will he say a little more about where he sees the business model going for the Post Office, so that we can ensure that running a post office or delivering post office services is viable, and so that my constituents get the services that they need, where they need them?

[Blair McDougall]

Obviously the business model of the Post Office is a matter for the Post Office, but it would say to me that it is about continuing that central role of banking and financial services through the Post Office, and about experimenting with new models like the hub of the high street, where post offices can partner with other organisations that perhaps do not want the full expense of their own high street presence but can use the vast network of the Post Office. Finally, it is about the technological transformation that we are funding, which will improve the customer experience and improve the renumeration for sub-postmasters.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I welcome the Government’s announcement today that they are going to maintain 11,500 branches, but in my constituency, outreach services that were only available maybe for an hour or two each week anyway in Cockshutt, Clee, Weston Rhyn, Knockin, West Felton and Ruyton XI Towns have all been lost because of the retirement of a single postmistress in Trefonen. The current criteria have not protected those services, and the distance criteria are not incredibly helpful when there is no public transport that can be relied on, and for a business it is an incredible waste of time to have to get in the car and drive three or maybe six miles to another post office to post something. What can the Minister say to my constituents who are faced with long journeys to get to post offices? What likelihood is there of a post office reopening in their area, and how will that help them deal with these access problems of public transport and efficiency when they are running their businesses?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Lady makes a really important point, and an hon. Friend asked earlier whether this is part of a wider need to regenerate high streets. It is also true that it has to be part of a wider strategy to support rural businesses like the ones the hon. Lady mentions. I have spoken many times about what we are going to do to improve postmaster remuneration through the transformation investment that we are putting in. Perhaps before I sit down and we move on to the next debate, I can also say some words of encouragement: there is a new generation of postmasters coming through, and not only is it a fantastic business opportunity for people, but it is an extraordinary opportunity to serve their community and become a key and valued figure, particularly within communities like the hon. Lady’s.