Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

Let me address that point. It is helpful for us to think about the potential options. There is agreement across the Committee that we want a successful and thriving steel industry, and the Government have made some serious financial commitments. We have committed £500 million to support the transformation of the plant in Port Talbot, which has attracted another £500 million of private sector investment. We have committed £2.5 billion through our steel strategy and an additional £400 million to support the Forgemasters operation, which is successfully under public ownership.

We have to think about the potential options. Given that the Government have put that money on the table and are seeking private sector partners to work with for all our steel plants, the alternative would be the closure and the loss of those facilities. This comes down to a judgment as to whether we think the UK is capable of having a successful, profitable and investable private sector industry.

It is the Government’s view that it is possible for the UK to have that, not least when we compare ourselves with similar advanced economies in Europe—we are not necessarily comparing ourselves with low-cost economies around the world—but it is a matter of ensuring that we have the right business environment to enable that to happen, and it is clearly incumbent on Government to arrange policy in that way. I think our steel strategy, in particular, and our trade measures provide that response, which is what gives us confidence that we have the resources to do that.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris McDonald]

If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will take the second intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, and then I will give way to him.

[Chris McDonald]

The supply chain is incredibly important. My hon. Friend is right about the jobs and the economic value in the supply chain; my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) also referenced the supply chain, and particularly how its needs relate to the measures in the Bill.

A number of the proposed amendments to the Bill would ultimately slow down the ability of the Secretary of State to make decisions—that point was also made by the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness. If the Secretary of State cannot act swiftly, there is a risk of greater uncertainty among employees and commercial partners in the supply chain, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor rightly said. That can have real-world consequences for businesses that rely on trade finance or other forms of working capital support, as a lack of confidence can rapidly turn into business closures. While some of those amendments are well-meaning—I am speaking particularly about amendments 2, 3, 18 and 19—they would fundamentally interfere with the speed and operational ability of the Secretary of State under the legislation and reduce legal certainty.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Does the Minister believe that the Government’s current energy strategy is consistent with a successful British steel industry, or does he envisage that energy strategy having to change in order to lower industrial electricity prices?

[Chris McDonald]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has raised that question, because it was mentioned by a number of Members during the debate. To go back to the point about having a business environment that creates a profitable and investable steel industry, energy is clearly part of that. Some of the changes that the Government have already made—increasing the rebate on the supercharger from 60% to 90%, or the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will support some of the downstream industry—will be particularly helpful in supporting not only the steel industry but other parts of heavy industry between now and 2030, which is when the Government’s clean power mission will come fully online. We anticipate that at that point, we will have not only clean energy, but secure and lower-cost energy.

If we consider the timescale of some of the investments in steel companies that we are talking about—not only multiple-year investments in order to commission, but multiple-decade investments beyond that—we can see that we have a pathway on energy that will enable us to get from now to 2030 and beyond. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is not currently in his place, was concerned about this issue as well. He was also concerned that the UK has the highest energy prices in Europe, but we do not currently, and it is certainly our plan to ensure that our energy prices for industry are competitive with Europe in future.

Returning to the amendments that have been tabled, there was quite a lot of discussion about the sunset clause in the Bill. There were a number of objections to it, but the case for its continuation was made extremely well by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). As it stands today, the Government have no intention of extending the sunset period, but we recognise that we are living through particularly volatile times. There is geopolitical and economic uncertainty, which is likely to have a bearing on the steel sector in ways that it is difficult for us to see at the moment. As such, our view is that it is simply pragmatic to include this level of flexibility in the Bill, and of course, regulations made under that clause would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

It is important that I address some of the concerns of the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies), who spoke with great passion and commitment about the importance of the steel industry throughout the whole of Wales. There is often considerable discussion of Port Talbot in this House, but as she rightly set out, there are also steelworks in Llanwern, Cardiff, Newport, Trostre and Shotton—I hope I have remembered all of them—that deserve recognition and investment.

I could not disagree more, however, that this Government have treated the Welsh steel industry unfairly, or not in an equitable way, compared with the steel industry elsewhere in the UK. The steel industry in Wales is the only part of the industry that has a ringfenced fund—£500 million for Port Talbot. The hon. Lady said that that has been spent with no benefit to the local community, but I frankly cannot agree with that. That £500 million has enabled Port Talbot to invest an additional £500 million in a transformation of that steelworks that will secure steel production at that site and the future of the south Wales steel industry for decades to come. It is a significant investment in the local community.

I know that the hon. Lady, like me, would have preferred for that transition in south Wales to have happened without the hard stop between the closure of the blast furnaces and the restart of the electric arc furnace, and I support Tata Steel’s view on the installation of its electric arc furnace. However, the decision to close was taken before the general election, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds)—the former Secretary of State, who is now Chief Whip—was able to intervene at that point and get a much better deal for the workers at Port Talbot and the community there than the previous Government did. I share the hon. Lady’s frustration and concern, but we need to be clear about where the indifference to the blast furnace closures in Port Talbot was. It was not with this Government; it was with the then Conservative Government.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I will be very quick, because I know that colleagues are keen to get in. I am going to speak against the amendment and in support of the Bill for the simple reason that a speech such as the one we have just heard from the shadow Minister may have just about cut the mustard five or six years ago, but it certainly does not work today in a world of weaponised interdependence. It does not work in a world where President Trump is back in the White House or where President Xi is prosecuting the sixth five-year plan, as he is. The critical point in this debate, which the Secretary of State made very well, is that we must have a sovereign capability to make steel. In today’s world, we cannot afford to have a critical steelmaker like British Steel in the hands of a Chinese firm; we cannot, as Ronald Reagan once said, be innocents abroad in a world that is frankly no longer innocent.

Regardless of those remarks, there are a couple of areas where I think the shadow Minister made some important points. I want to stress that although the Secretary of State is proposing some perhaps welcome statism, he must not forget the statecraft that is needed to make a success of this Bill. There are six areas I would like him to respond to very briefly, and I hope we will be able to strike a cross-party consensus around them.

First, it is important that the Secretary of State wills the means and not simply the ends. We have, as the shadow Minister said, already spent a lot of money on this. The transition to electric arc furnaces that the Secretary of State is proposing is not cheap—it is extremely expensive. I think we are hoping that a lot of that money will come from the National Wealth Fund, but he does not control the National Wealth Fund or the allocations that it makes. The National Wealth Fund has not said anything about guaranteeing money for the kinds of ends that the Secretary of State has in mind, and the Government have declined to explain what will happen if steel projects are not funded by the National Wealth Fund. We therefore need a bit more clarity about where the investment resources for the Secretary of State’s plans are going to come from.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that the National Wealth Fund, or indeed anyone else, would wish to invest in British steelmaking while our electricity prices are so very high? Does he agree that there is no point in this Bill until we fix the electricity market in this country?

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point that I am about to come on to. My point, I suppose, is that there is a case for this Bill. I think it is actually quite important, and the powers that it confers are also important, but if we are to get value for money from it, there have to be five other components, which I will come on to now.

The second area is lower energy costs. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is welcome, but it does not come online until 2027. Steelmakers, like much of our manufacturing industry, are saying very clearly to the Business and Trade Committee that there is a widening gap between UK wholesale electricity prices and the prices of our peers in the wake of the Iran crisis. My question to the Minister is: what further targeted support will be available to energy-intensive industries before 2027? As the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) rightly points out, that is an essential component of the package.

The third area that the shadow Minister was right to highlight is the issue of tariffs. This is now an urgent issue. The Committee heard evidence this afternoon at our own roundtable about the need to refine the tariff structures that have been put in place. The key thing is that we get a better deal with the European Union, to which we export 80% of our steel. It is about to cut tariff-free quotas by 47%, double tariffs from 25% to 50%, and impose melt and pour requirements. Unless we can get a deal in place with the European Union before the end of July, I am afraid that many of the good intentions behind this Bill will be confounded.

The fourth area is procurement. We must ensure that there is a proper demand curve from the UK state for the things that British Steel makes. In the British economy, British state procurement makes up £1 in every £6. Right now, despite the excellent changes in the Procurement Act 2023, we do not have a sufficiently clear forward pipeline. That has to change, not least because when we talk to defence companies—which are, of course, patiently awaiting the defence investment plan—and defence contractors, they still tell us that the kind of steel that they need to make the things that keep this country safe are not made in this country. Ensuring that there are advanced market commitments alongside the defence equipment plan, along with the range of other big, long-term ambitions that I know the Secretary of State has, is very important.

The penultimate area I want to touch on is scrap supply. The Secretary of State has ultimately come to the conclusion—wisely, I suspect—that we should shift to electric arc furnaces, but that kind of industry model will work only if there is a healthy supply of scrap. I think that Ministers are being just a tiny bit too complacent about whether we have the plans in place to source all that scrap. I know that there is a roundtable proposed for later this month, but as part and parcel of ensuring that the steel strategy actually works, can we have, at the very least, a read-out for Parliament about what scrap supplies will be kept in our country, rather than exported?

The final point I wanted to flag is about consolidation. One of the virtues of this Bill is that it bestows on the Secretary of State the power to ensure that there is consolidation in the UK steel industry for the future needs of the economy. In particular, it should allow us to take assets that have gone to firms that are currently out of business, and to rationalise the industry in a way that makes sense. I would like to hear more about what the Secretary of State is proposing when it comes to consolidating the industry.

Ultimately, in the world that we are in, when there are so many visible hands in the global economy interfering with the free market in steel, we will have to have a stronger visible hand. That is what the Secretary of State is proposing through this Bill. There will be a lot more work to do in the Bill’s subsequent stages to satisfy the House that he has got right the statecraft package behind this measure of statism. I look forward to hearing some reassuring noises on that point when the Minister winds up.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

As I will come on to argue, our problems actually rest a little closer to home, rather than having anything to do with our relationship with the European Union.

The Labour party promised stability. It also—Members should try not to laugh too loudly—said that it would create the most pro-business Government in the history of our country. None of that has come to pass. It is not just the Prime Minister who is the problem; if this Prime Minister is replaced, whoever goes on to lead the Labour party will not do any better, because Labour had no plan at all for improving our economy. It had a plan for winning an election—keep as low a profile as possible, hold the Ming vase and tiptoe across the shiny floor towards that loveless landslide—but no plan for the people of our country. The Labour Government are in hock to their Back Benchers. Every time they try to do something that requires some backbone, they are stopped by their Back Benchers.

The record of this Government is appalling, and not just on growth. I notice that the Secretary of State did not mention unemployment once, and he certainly did not mention youth unemployment. Under this Government, we are seeing the highest unemployment in five years, and youth unemployment is nudging up towards 20%. Under the previous Labour Government, youth unemployment increased by more than 40%; under the previous Conservative Government, it reduced by more than 40%.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Is it not shameful that the Government are having to subsidise employers who take on young people, when it is the Government’s actions—their imposing higher national insurance charges, a higher minimum wage, and a higher burden through the Employment Rights Act 2025—that caused the problem in the first place?

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is like trying to apply the accelerator while having the brake on fully. That is what this Government are doing. That is the total illogicality of their approach.

Inflation is up on where it was under the Conservatives. It is about the highest in the G7; it certainly was last year. As we lean into the challenges of oil and gas price spikes, that is a weak position to be in. Most economists will make that point. The Labour Government will have borrowed a full quarter of a trillion pounds more across this Parliament than would have been borrowed under the plans that they inherited. It is no wonder that our borrowing costs are the highest in the G7—higher than those of Greece, and higher, even, than those of Morocco. Why? We know why: it is just what socialists do. Socialists believe that you can tax your way to prosperity, but I tell the Secretary of State: you cannot.

The £25 billion of additional tax on businesses—national insurance increases—has crucified business in this country. The burden has fallen predominantly on young people, because there was not just an increase in the rate, but a reduction to the threshold at which the tax cuts in, meaning that young people have borne the brunt of that tax increase. The sectors that rely predominantly on first-time jobbers and on young, part-time and female workers have been crucified, including the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors, in which more than 100,000 jobs have been destroyed by this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Since being elected by the people of Bridgwater, I have sought to be a strong voice for local families, small businesses and community groups across my constituency. I am saddened that, during those two years, life has got more difficult for so many people. The cost of living is rising faster than two years ago, unemployment is higher and small businesses are struggling.

The reason for these problems is that this Government are making life harder for people who work hard and do the right thing, and too often they reward those who do not. Labour is taxing and spending and borrowing too much. It is taxing those who work, those who employ people, those who save, those who invest, those who create jobs, and those who build up a family farm or family business and want to pass it on to their children. It seems that the only people better off under Labour are train drivers and those on benefits.

Two years ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt) set out the borrowing plans of the last Conservative Government. We planned to borrow £323 billion in the five years from April 2024. This Labour Chancellor is planning to borrow £583 billion over the same period, which is an 80% increase—an extra £260 billion borrowed over five years. All that extra borrowing must be paid for.

Poor economic management and chaos within the Labour party mean that Britain is now paying 5.1% to borrow money for 10 years.

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

King’s Speeches are partly about what a Government do, and partly about what a Government do not do. The omission in this King’s Speech is exactly as my hon. Friend suggests: a macroeconomic approach, particularly to productivity. This is a huge drag on our economy, and one might have expected further measures to be announced dealing with that macroeconomic problem, for it relates closely to the problems that he has set out in his speech already.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.

The rate that Britain is now paying is higher than at any time over the last 20 years—in fact, it is the highest rate since the last time Labour was in office. Britain’s finances are in a precarious position precisely because Labour is doing what it always does: spending other people’s money like there is no tomorrow.

The Government announced a holiday tax in the King’s Speech. This will enable councils to tax holidays taken in this country even more than at present. Most people who take their holiday in Britain are British. They already pay VAT at 20% on their holidays, and Labour wants to tax them further. This will hit local businesses in Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean in my constituency. Many families who holiday in Somerset are not wealthy. A tax of £2.50 per person per night will take £70 a week away from a family of four. That is money taken out of their pocket that they cannot spend with local businesses.

It has been interesting to watch Liberal Democrats in Somerset squirming over their plans for a holiday tax. While their colleagues in Bristol and Bath have welcomed the tax, calling its introduction a victory for Liberal Democrats, those in Somerset do not quite know what to say. No doubt they will make their position clear before next year’s local elections.

[Helen Morgan]

I wonder whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the Liberal Democrats’ whole point is that local government should be able to decide on its own policies, because they will be appropriate in some cases and not in others.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

And I would like to know from the Liberal Democrats in Somerset whether they think it appropriate to take money from my constituents in Berrow, Brean and Burnham-on-Sea and spend it in Taunton and Yeovil. For some reason, they seem reluctant to say.

The King’s Speech confirmed the Government’s plans to curtail our constituents’ right to a jury trial. It is a tragedy that this Government are trampling on our ancient rights and liberties. They claim that it is because of the backlog of cases in the Crown courts, but that backlog was not caused by jury trials, and it will not be reduced by curtailing the right to a jury trial. Labour Ministers have failed to provide any evidence that this will increase court efficiency. It will not bring swifter justice, but it will undermine confidence in our whole justice system. It is a reform without any rational justification. I believe that the Government are wrong, and must reverse their course.

My constituents want secure borders, affordable energy, safer streets, economic growth and opportunities for their children, and that is why the Conservatives are setting out our alternative King’s Speech. At a time of international instability, the Government should be cutting welfare spending in order to spend more on defence, but instead we are stuck with a feeble Government who threaten both our economic and national security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

Growing Britain’s economy is vital if we are to raise living standards and improve our public services. However, we need to recognise that growth that fails to tackle social inequality will mean that all the economic gains remain at the top of our society. In fact, between 2010 and 2019, the UK’s GDP grew by 1.9% every year, but the wealth gap widened by nearly 50%. Very few of us felt better off during that time, despite the figures showing that the country’s wealth was growing.

Poverty is not just unfair; it is economically reckless as well. Reducing income inequality to the level of more equal OECD nations would save the UK up to £128 billion annually in reduced costs in areas such as crime and imprisonment rates, tackling poor mental health and improving healthy life expectancy. But none of that will be possible if we continue to use the same austerity-driven measures of the past. Put simply, we cannot cut our way to growth; it takes investment. In my view—I have mentioned this in the Chamber before—our pension funds offer one way to achieve that. We should remember that these funds represent the deferred wages of millions of workers. Directing pension funds toward socially beneficial projects is one way that our Labour Government can rewire our economic model so that it delivers for ordinary people.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way; he is one of my favourite socialists in the Chamber. Does he accept that were he to change the duty of trustees from getting the best return possible for their pensions, the result will be that future pensioners will enjoy a lesser income? Is that what he wants for future pensioners?

[Neil Duncan-Jordan]

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes assumes that investing in green technology and social housing will not give a decent return, but the evidence is to the contrary, so I think that he is wrong in his premise.

Workers’ money should be invested in things such as green technology and social housing because they are stable, reliable sectors that build a better future for the very people whose contributions fund them. I know that Ministers are looking to the AI revolution as another way to grow our economy. There is little doubt that AI is a transformational technology that will bring with it many benefits to our society, but in order to fully realise those benefits, it is important to put in place safeguards to ensure that the technologies are developed and deployed appropriately and in the interests of society as a whole—rather than simply being a vehicle by which large tech companies make even bigger profits. That is why we need the democratic shaping of technology. We need to work with innovators, workers and unions to steer UK research towards automation that creates or improves jobs.

Without robust regulation, we risk steering society towards an unpredictable and turbulent future that does not work for the public. I have already raised with the Government the prospect of considering some kind of employment levy on companies that replace large-scale workforces with AI, and I hope that they will give that some consideration. That links to my belief that we need to rebalance our entire taxation system. Capital gains could be taxed at the same marginal rate as wages. There are also windfall taxes that could be levied on banks, utilities and other corporations that are making excessive profits. We could also have a wealth tax on those with assets of more than £10 million.

Our economy needs to grow, because all the evidence shows that the more unequal a society is, the higher its risk of becoming dysfunctional. As income differences widen, people are less likely to trust one another, and we see a breakdown in social trust between our communities. Getting the right kind of growth in our economy is therefore essential—not just to make people better off but to create a more equal society that works in the interests of every one of us.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her work in this area. The Government believe that trade unions are absolutely essential for tackling insecurity, inequality, discrimination, enforcement and low pay. We are providing a legal framework for businesses and unions to negotiate access to the workplace. We recognise that for the framework to effectively facilitate that access, it has to be supported. That is why we are consulting on this. Officials are reviewing those responses, and we will publish a response in due course.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

T2. Small businesses in Bridgwater were hit last year with the Chancellor’s jobs tax. This year, they face the additional burdens of the Secretary of State’s unemployment Act and higher business rates. With petrol and diesel prices rising, the last thing they want is a fuel duty increase. Will he speak to the Chancellor and ask her to cancel her fuel duty rise in September?

Post Office Green Paper

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank the Minister for that intervention; I drew some comfort from it, but we will have to see the detail of the exact crustacean protections we end up with.

Finally, there is one glaring area that—even beyond the missing benefits to our important services industry—was a point of difference in the negotiations that we conducted and a reason why, when we were in government, we did not consummate that deal and why the negotiations remained outstanding. The Leader of the Opposition has been very clear about this: when she was leading the negotiations, she refused to sign this deal because of the double contributions convention. The Minister will know precisely what I mean by that.

We still have not seen the detail of that convention, and every Member of the House should be concerned. This is a very limited part of the process of scrutiny of trade deals—the rights of Parliament are perhaps not fully discharged just by the CRaG process. However, we have not even seen what the Minister referred to earlier as the HMRC agreement on this. What it means in substance—I will choose my words very precisely—is that Indian workers who come here to work will not pay a penny in British national insurance contributions, and neither will their employers.

The Government decided that they would open this deal—this two-tier tax system for India—at precisely the same time as hiking their jobs tax on every single British worker. I am happy to be rebutted or corrected, but by my calculations, under this agreement it could be up to £10,000 a year cheaper to hire a software developer on an average British salary from India than to hire someone from Britain for the same role, as employers will not be liable for those national insurance contributions. These are big numbers, and this will mean a big disadvantage to hiring an identical British worker at a time when there are 9 million people of working age not in work and when unemployment is rising—in fact, it has risen every month under this Government.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does this not suggest that when a deal was presented to the then Conservative Secretary of State for Business and Trade, she declined to sign it because she judged it not in the British interest? It does rather seem as though this Government have rolled over on this key point, which will allow Indian firms to import Indian workers in preference to British ones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding the business that I founded in 1996, BDA partners, in which I still hold a stake but have no role or responsibility.

Economically, this agreement offers some benefits. As per the Government’s impact assessment, and as the Minister stated, the UK’s gross domestic product is estimated to increase by 0.13% as a result of this FTA. That is equivalent to £4.8 billion. That is in the long run— 0.13% by 2040. Let us put that into context: the hit to our economy from Brexit is around 6% to 8% of GDP—in the region of £210 billion—so its impact is 44 times larger. That is now, compared with the 0.13% we get in 15 years’ time.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Gentleman quotes a Brexit hit of 6% to 8% of GDP. Has he just invented that figure or has he got some evidence for it?

[Charlie Maynard]

The National Bureau of Economic Research, in the United States.

Employment Rights Bill

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Griffith]

Our Government created 4 million new jobs. This Government have lost jobs every single month they have been in office.

The points that the right hon. Lady makes are not those we are debating. There is one issue in front of us, which is Labour’s desire to defend and remove a cap of £118,000. That has nothing to do with ordinary workers. What does it say about today’s modern Labour party that its focus, and the whole reason why we are back here and the compromise was not accepted, is its desire to remove a cap of £118,000, which will only ever benefit the better off?

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister recall that in 1999 when the Blair Government increased the cap, they held a consultation beforehand, and that in 2015 when the coalition Government introduced a cap, they held a consultation beforehand? Why are this Government behaving differently?

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I hope somebody on the Labour Benches will address. We have seen no analysis and we have no idea of the cost of this measure. Not a single business—not a single person who employs people—has come out and endorsed the removal of the cap. It is beyond me, I am afraid.

Yet what is happening in our employment tribunals? On Friday, as I am sure the Minister knows, it was revealed that the delay and backlogs at the employment tribunal have reached their highest ever level. At the end of the most recent quarter, there were 515,000 open claims. Before anyone intervenes, let me say that I accept that much of that was inherited—[Interruption.] But before Labour Members laugh: the Government are making it worse. Merely since the Bill was introduced to this place, the claims backlog has increased by 65,000. They are doing nothing to address the backlog, which is going up every single month—I do not think they have even discussed it with their calamity of a Justice Secretary —and we know that they have carried out no impact assessment. It is extraordinary. The scrapping of the compensation cap for the highest paid will simply stoke the fire.

I make it a rule not to learn lessons in how to run an economy from France, but even France introduced a cap on tribunal payments to tackle unemployment and encourage labour market dynamism. Perhaps we should take advice from closer to home: today the Health Secretary seems to be no fan at all of giving more powers to unaccountable unions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful to have been called to speak in this debate. I draw the House’s attention to my membership of the GMB and my chairship of its parliamentary group—an unremunerated role.

The Bill has been the subject of 14 months of debate and scrutiny, and it should have received Royal Assent months ago. Let us not beat around the bush about why we are here tonight: the Bill has been deliberately delayed by some Members of the other place who disagree with the principle of what it seeks to achieve and with the electoral mandate behind it. The amendment that came from the Lords last week represents the last gasp of that approach, testing the limits of the democratic decision-making process and the constitutional relationship that binds these two Houses. This is no longer solely about workers’ rights; it has become a challenge by unelected peers to the primacy of the Commons and the greater legitimacy that our constituents lend us temporarily.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Twelve months ago, the hon. Gentleman and I sat on the Bill Committee. This is the first time that the Commons has had the opportunity to debate this measure, courtesy of the House of Lords. The Lords have done us a favour, haven’t they?

[Laurence Turner]

I enjoyed many hours in proximity to the hon. Member. He will know that the only reason we are considering the measure in such a short time is that the Bill has been delayed, so close to the April implementation period, because of the Conservative party.

The final proof of the implications of the constitutional limits of what we are now being asked to consider can be found in the fact that the Opposition’s amendment was carried last week thanks to the votes of Conservative hereditary peers, who owe their positions to an accident of birth.

Seasonal Work

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

The right hon. Gentleman hits the nail on the head when he talks about people not spending money. That is exactly why this Labour Government are taking action to put money into people’s pockets. We must recognise that a big part of why it has been such a difficult 10 years for business were the stagnating living standards and stagnating wages under his Government. I know that hospitality, leisure and retail, which have very thin margins, have been hit especially hard by the pandemic, the cost of living crisis and changes in shopping habits, but that is why we recognised that and published, for the first time in a decade, a Government strategy for small businesses. It is why we are putting more money into people’s pockets. It is why fiscal credibility, which the Conservatives just do not seem to value at all, matters to our constituents.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The Globe Inn in North Petherton is a fantastic local pub. This financial year, its business rates bill is zero. By 2029-30, it will be £5,000, thanks to this Government. That is an extra 10,000 pints it will have to sell to meet that extra cost. How is the Government’s strategy helping?

[Blair McDougall]

The hon. Gentleman will know about the transitional relief that we are putting in—I will come on to that in a moment—but we are putting more money into people’s pockets.

I spent five days last week speaking to small businesses. I was in Staffordshire, the north-west and Scotland meeting dozens of small businesses, and all of them said the same thing to me: what they want is footfall. As the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) said, they want people to start spending money again and to get custom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Antonia Bance]

My hon. Friend reads my mind, as that is the point I was just about to make. I was so sad to see the Leader of the Opposition abandon what was one of the better policies of the last Government: that there should be a fast-rising national minimum wage at all times. I agreed with the last set of Prime Ministers before this one on very little, but one thing I did agree with them on was that it was right to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—a tripartite body where unions, businesses and academics come together with Government to look at the prevailing conditions in the country. Those at the commission get out there and visit businesses of all types in all regions, including hospitality and retail, and set the national minimum wage at a level that would work for workers and for businesses. It is an approach that this Government have continued, and I am sad to see that the Leader of the Opposition intends to abandon it and to abandon low-paid workers to frozen pay.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that under the last Conservative Administration, the minimum wage rose at the same time as we created 4 million new jobs and left unemployment at a record low? The difference now is that in only 17 months, unemployment has risen by 280,000 as a direct result of her Government’s policies. Our caution on the minimum wage is that it is now at a level, with their economic policies, that means they are pricing younger people out of work.

[Antonia Bance]

I would not wish to try the hon. Member’s generosity, but it seems to me that I have already been generous in my tribute to the work of the previous Government in continuing to maintain the machinery of the Low Pay Commission—something that this Government have continued—and in continuing to make sure that the national minimum wage rose. I will admit that many people in my position feared greatly in 2010 that the Conservatives would come into government—admittedly, in coalition—and immediately tear up the national minimum wage. The fact that they did not was a great thing. The pinning to two thirds of male median wages was a good thing, and I am so sad that the Leader of the Opposition has departed from the consensus on this point.

The national minimum wage is set by a tripartite body. It is not too high, because businesses were in the room arguing their case. The commissioners went out on visits around the country to look at the prevailing economic conditions. The wage is set by consensus using the tripartite machinery, and it is important that we all understand that that has served this country well and has made extreme low pay a thing of the past. I am sad that the Conservatives have departed from this consensus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I am fortunate to represent a beautiful part of the Somerset coast. Burnham-on-Sea, Berrow and Brean all have lovely sandy beaches and are visited by many holidaymakers every year. Seasonal tourism is not just part of the local economy; it is the bedrock of those communities. Our motion regrets the many measures introduced by this Government that hit both the economy at large and have had a particularly bad impact on those areas that are dependent on hospitality and tourism. The effects are even worse for businesses that employ seasonal workers.

I have said before that, although the Government were elected on a promise to go for growth, most of their actions over the past 17 months seem designed to achieve the opposite. Before the election, many businesses backed this new Government. They believed the Chancellor’s prawn cocktail offensive. They thought this Government would be a reincarnation of the Blair Government, who, at least in their early years, managed to control public expenditure. Instead, they seem to be the very worst of Wilson, Callaghan and Healey.

The reality is that, rather than implement the modest tax rises and spending increases contained in its manifesto, Labour increased taxes by £40 billion last year and a further £26 billion this year. That is a huge increase in taxes on businesses and hard-working families to pay for more welfare spending. All the businesses I speak to in my constituency are suffering. They have lost any faith they ever had in this Government, and who can blame them?

The Globe Inn in North Petherton is a fantastic local pub. This year, it will not pay any business rates, but it will pay £5,000 a year from 2029-30, so it will have to sell 10,000 extra pints just to pay the Government’s higher taxes. That might not sound a lot to Labour Ministers, but I can assure them that, for a small business with a tiny profit margin, any additional cost can have a hugely negative impact.

It is not just business rates that are going up.

[Jerome Mayhew]

It is easy to make the mistake of talking about SMEs as though they are corporate entities when, in many instances, they are not. They are often a husband-and-wife team working incredibly long hours and living above the shop. I was in my local pub, The Greyhound, the other day, which is run by the tenant and his wife. They told me that they were covering the shifts of the employees who they have let go because of the Government’s tax policy changes. The cost of that is not just economic; it is hugely damaging to their relationship and to their whole way of life, and it is incredibly stressful. Does my hon. Friend accept that the damage caused by these changes is not just economic but societal?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point, which I agree with. The Globe Inn is not a husband-and-wife team but a mother-and-daughter team, and those extra costs bear heavily on the business.

It is not just business rates that are going up. There is also the hated jobs tax, which we heard about earlier, and the consequences of the anti-jobs employment Bill. On paper, guaranteed hours and scheduling rules sound as though they would protect workers, but for seasonal workers whose livelihoods depend on flexibility, immediate availability and quick uptake of short-term work, the measures risk doing precisely the opposite.

Let us take some examples. Forcing employers to offer guaranteed hours after a short reference period will make businesses reluctant to take on seasonal staff at all. I know this from experience: in Burnham-on-Sea, the number of visitors who turn up very often depends on the weather. If there are two or three weeks of very good weather, businesses will need lots of seasonal workers. In this great country of ours, that could be followed by many weeks of rainy weather. What would the Minister say to employers who are contractually bound to offer work to employees who are not required because tourists are not there?

[Alison Griffiths]

Harbour Park in my constituency would be required to pay people, rain or shine, at times when it receives no income from visitors. Does my hon. Friend agree that this measure will cause many businesses acute hardship?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My hon. Friend is correct. In fact, what will probably happen is that many businesses will offer less work. That tells us that these regulations have been drawn up by people who have never run a business. When a farm, holiday park or festival operator knows that it might be legally required to provide fixed hours even when demand disappears with a change in weather or tourist numbers, the safest option will be not to hire so many people. It should not surprise the Government when that is what businesses decide to do. Seasonal workers could see fewer opportunities, shorter seasons and more competition for every shift.

Secondly, the strict advance notice rules and penalties for changing shifts might offer security for longer-term part-time workers, but seasonal work often depends on rapid, last-minute scheduling. If a grower cannot schedule pickers until they know the fruit is ready, or an events company cannot bring in extra hands until bookings spike, they may be forced to reduce the number of workers they engage at all.

The added liability on agencies will shrink the pool of temp placements, on which many seasonal workers rely. It is natural that agencies will become far more cautious about taking on temps. No doubt some will pull out of short seasonal contracts altogether. That means fewer people will be in short-term work, fewer people will be building experience in their first jobs and fewer people will have the stepping stones to full-time employment. The Bill will act as a hammer blow to seasonal work. Employers will hesitate to hire, and workers will lose the very flexibility that makes seasonal work viable.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and he is entirely right about the impact on seasonal workers, but we should always look beyond the producers to the consumers. What will the impact be at music festivals and at all sorts of events—community events—all around the country? We will see higher prices and there will be less competition and choice. It is socialism in action—everybody losing, including society as a whole.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point with which I agree.

The combination of extra costs and extra regulations means that it becomes incredibly burdensome for small businesses to afford to take on staff. The above inflation increases to the minimum wage add further pressure, and that all has a disproportionate effect on industries such as hospitality and tourism.

My constituent Kathy owns a shop in Burnham-on-Sea, which she has run for 20 years, but the recent changes imposed by the Chancellor are making it harder and harder for her to operate. Kathy currently employs three 16-year-olds. Increases in the minimum wage and future changes to employment law will force her to stop the practice of giving youngsters their first job. There are only so many tasks someone of that age can be given, but now the salary increases and other changes will be prohibitive. Two of the three will be leaving, and Kathy tells me they will not be replaced. Is it any wonder that youth unemployment is rising? Many businesses will think, “Why risk it?”

Every Labour Government leave office with unemployment higher than when they started. Last July, unemployment was 4.4%; it is now 5%. That 0.6 percentage point increase may not sound like much to Labour Members, but it is an extra 282,000 people out of work and claiming benefits. I fear we have not reached the peak because while unemployment is rising, business confidence is falling. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor cling to their jobs, telling their nervous Back Benchers that it is them—and only them—who the markets trust. I have to say that that boast is not all it might appear. What it really means is that the alternatives are so awful that they would tax, borrow and spend even more if Keir and Rachel disappear—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Member knows better than to refer to Members by name.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker.

If the current Prime Minister and the current Chancellor were to disappear, all confidence in the Government would collapse. It seems that the Prime Minister has as much faith in his Cabinet as the rest of us have in him. It is unfortunate that the Government are comprised almost entirely of people of public sector, academic or union backgrounds. Precious few have ever operated a business. They do not understand how running a business works, and it shows.

There is another path that the Government could take, and it is not too late. I call on them to withdraw their Employment Rights Bill, to get rid of their “Benefits Street” Budget, and to lower taxes for hard-working people and businesses.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and colleagues for how they have engaged so carefully on this issue for such a long period of time. I look forward to working with them in supporting the workforce. He makes an important point that alludes to the strategy of the company. The company did not present the Government with a viable investable proposition. It has also closed a chemicals plant in France and has confirmed that it is reviewing its European assets. I think we have reached a point where we have to accept that the company has made its decision. However, even though the company could not find a buyer, as I have said, I understand that some expressions of interest have been made and we would be happy to work with anyone who is interested in the plant. We have vehicles such as the British Business Bank and the National Wealth Fund that stand by to support any viable business proposition in our industrial strategy areas.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

The closure of the ExxonMobil plant is bad news for the whole of the UK economy, and it is the direct result of Labour’s economic and energy policies. Does the Minister accept that by pushing up taxes and energy prices, his Government are making the UK an uncompetitive environment for energy-intensive industries? What policy changes will he make to ensure that this is not the first of many such closures?

[Chris McDonald]

As I pointed out earlier, the business has suffered from a lack of competitiveness for the last five years, in part due to the relative lack of competitiveness of UK energy prices, and it is important to point out the things that we have done and are doing to address that. We have the energy-intensive industries support scheme and the supercharger scheme, which is providing up to 90% relief. We also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce prices for over 7,000 businesses by £40 per unit of power over a period of time. Of course, with this business, the energy input was gas. We are competitive on gas with Europe, but the issue has been the much cheaper gas prices in the US; the ethylene imports coming into Europe are primarily coming from the United States of America. On that basis, as an exporting business in the UK, the competitiveness issues are fundamentally why the business does not see a future in the plant.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Ashley Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

I will call only Sir Ashley Fox and the Minister to make speeches. There will not be an opportunity for Sir Ashley to sum up after the debate.

[Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Royal Mail and the universal service obligation.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. It is also a pleasure to move the motion and introduce this debate on Royal Mail and the universal service obligation. This issue affects every household and small business in the country. The postal service is a vital part of our communities. Its future and the changes to the universal service obligation, or USO, particularly affect my constituents.

Our postmen and women are among the most remarkable workers in the country. Out on their routes, come rain or shine, they are often well loved in their communities. The pandemic showed us at first hand the impact that a good postie has—especially for elderly or vulnerable people who were shielding or who had little other human interaction in that period. People in rural areas rely on the service to stay connected.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I also respect the men and women of Royal Mail but, in my office, one major issue has been delay. For those who are elderly, with sometimes complex and severe health problems, the mail is not arriving in time. They miss their appointments and the follow-up. The fines from Government are not working. What else does the hon. Member think the Government should do to ensure that Royal Mail is accountable to our constituents for the delivery of mail?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

If the hon. Gentleman stays, he will find that I answer most of those points in the remainder of my speech. Since 1840, the principle of the USO has been simple: everyone in the United Kingdom, no matter where they live, should have access to a reliable and affordable postal service. It is a promise of fairness. If I post a letter in Bridgwater, it costs the same to deliver to an address in Inverness as it does to one down the road in Taunton.

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

I fully agree with the USO, but in some postcodes in my constituency 20% of first-class mail is delivered late. In Buckland, there is no mail service at all when the postlady is on holiday. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government must work with Royal Mail to improve service?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Indeed. The hon. Gentleman will find that if only 20% do not get next-day delivery, they are doing better than average; that does not speak highly of Royal Mail. Since I was elected last year, many of my constituents have told me that Royal Mail is not working as it should. After hearing those concerns first hand, I visited the sorting office in Bridgwater.

In January, I ran a sample survey to ascertain the scale of the problem in my constituency. I ensured that each town and village was sampled, as I wanted to ensure that every area was covered. I had hundreds of responses. Only one in three got a delivery every day; 15% said they received post once a week or less frequently.

In North Petherton, a constituent repeatedly received a bundle of letters delivered once a week, with no Royal Mail van spotted during the rest of the week. I had a report of no deliveries in Othery for more than a fortnight. My constituents had to travel to the sorting office in Bridgwater to collect post personally. In Cossington, a constituent’s weekend magazine subscription went missing for seven weeks in a row. No one area had a wholly good or wholly bad service. In Burnham-on-Sea, 48% of respondents gave Royal Mail 10 out of 10 for reliability of service, and 30% gave it zero out of 10.

It seems that if a household is on a route with a good postie, it gets a great service, but if that route is not allocated, the letters sit in the rack for days on end with nothing happening. That is simply bad management.

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. That situation has occurred at Bexleyheath sorting office in my constituency, and Royal Mail asked whether I could help advertise its vacancies. Should Royal Mail do more to try to fill vacancies on routes that are not filled?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Indeed it should. We have evidence of poor management and, dare I say, occasionally unco-operative unions.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have found that local post workers are really keen to innovate where they can to try to deal with the issues. One thing they pioneered was putting the NHS barcode on healthcare-related letters. Does the hon. Member agree that the Minister should liaise with his colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to make sure that every NHS organisation puts that barcode on so that those letters can get to the people who need them?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Lady.

I know that there are plenty of local problems, but I also want to look at the national picture. In the first quarter of this financial year, Royal Mail’s performance under the existing USO targets fell well short of expectations. The target for first-class deliveries is 93%, meaning that 93% of first-class post should arrive the next working day. In practice, Royal Mail managed only 75.9%. For second-class deliveries, the target is 98.5% delivered within three working days, yet only 89.3% were delivered on time. That is millions of items delayed across the country. When we look at daily deliveries, the story is even more concerning.

In 2024-25, the proportion of daily routes that were delivered was 87.8%. That is against a target of 99.9%. On any given day, more than one in 10 routes were simply not delivered at all. That explains why locally, even within a small village, some people appear to get a good service while others get next to no post at all. A constituent in Spaxton wrote to me to let me know that his postie had complained of severe staffing shortages and that the new contracts being offered were making the jobs unattractive to new starters.

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

I wrote to the Post Office in July, three and a half months ago, and it emailed a response this week—I think three and a half months might be a record. The posties in the west highlands, a very rural area, get paid an amount of money that is not attractive to them. We have areas in Wester Ross and Skye that are getting no post at all and have not for some weeks. Does the hon. Member not agree that the Post Office should use the flexibility that it has to pay a reasonable sum to attract postal staff?

[Sir Ashley Fox]

Yes, I agree. We can all agree that Royal Mail faces real challenges. Many people now communicate primarily online and fewer letters are sent, which impacts revenue.

[Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the unions earlier. We could perhaps acknowledge that the Communication Workers Union has called out the clear mismanagement of the senior leadership and the need for Royal Mail to fix its recruitment retention crisis.

Does the hon. Gentleman not agree with me that the issue is much wider across the sector in that it is vastly unregulated, creating an advantageous environment for parcel couriers such as Amazon? That has an impact on Royal Mail’s ability to deliver its services when it is being fined by Ofcom. Some see that as a very punitive measure, given that Amazon and other parcel couriers carry on unregulated and make no contribution to the universal network itself. They hive off profits and pay workers a pittance.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reading out the Communication Workers Union press release. I did refer earlier to bad management and occasionally militant unions. I think good management will overcome the problems, but I do not think the solution lies in more regulation of other private operators. I want to make a little progress now.

The national figures that we see represent a consistent decline in performance over several years, despite the clear legal and moral obligations that come with being the nation’s postal service. Ofcom has noticed. In 2022-23, Royal Mail was fined £5.6 million for failing to meet its delivery targets. The following year, 2023-24, the fine almost doubled to £10.5 million. In 2024-25, it more than doubled again—a staggering £21 million penalty for failing to deliver the service that the public expects and deserves.

In the face of mounting pressures, changes to the USO have been adopted. I must admit that I am sympathetic to some of the arguments that have been made. If I asked many of my constituents whether they would rather have post delivered consistently every other day, they would gladly accept, but I worry that that will not happen.

Under the changes being discussed, the number of delivery days would be reduced, meaning fewer days on which post must actually be delivered. But that is not all. The performance targets have been watered down. On first-class mail, the target is set to drop from 93% to 90%. For second-class post, the target drops from 98.5% to 95%. The post will now come less frequently and Royal Mail expects to deliver even less of it on time.

In my local survey, residents scored reliability at an average of only five out of 10—some, of course, scored as much as 10, and others, zero. They already experience an unreliable service. These changes will not improve either the perception or the reality.

Let us be clear about what the situation means. This is not just a few percentage points on a chart; it is millions of people waiting longer for vital letters—legal documents, hospital appointments, prescriptions and personal correspondence. It is small businesses waiting an extra day or two to deliver goods. It is rural communities, already struggling with connectivity and transport, being pushed further to the margins. It also sets a dangerous precedent: instead of holding Royal Mail to the standards it has committed to, we simply move the goalposts to make failure acceptable.

A constituent in Bridgwater complained that his letters were being delivered in bundles of 16, 18 and, once, 23 at a time, and up to four weeks late. Does the Minister think these changes will reassure that constituent?

The Government and Ofcom need to remember that the universal service obligation is not just a technical regulation; it is a public promise. It is what makes Royal Mail more than just another delivery company and gives it a unique place in British life. Reducing delivery days, reducing targets and accepting lower standards risks eroding that promise. Once lost, it will be incredibly difficult to restore.

It is important to ask ourselves what message is sent when a national institution misses its targets so widely, is repeatedly fined, and instead of being required to improve, is allowed to relax the very standards it is meant to meet. If the argument is that letter volumes are falling, which they are, let us have an honest conversation about how that service can adapt. Right now, targets are being missed and the answer should not be, “Water down the targets until they are met.”

Royal Mail’s decline in performance is not inevitable. It is the result of choices about investment, priorities and accountability. The choice before us now is whether we accept decline or demand better. I urge Ofcom, the Government and Royal Mail to consider whether the changes, in the long term, will really improve services. Or do they, in fact, represent another step backwards?

The last time this matter was debated in Westminster Hall, in 2023, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), who was then the shadow Minister for business and consumers and is now a Minister in the Foreign Office, said that

“Labour is committed to the universal service obligation as the company’s central mission. The next Labour Government will want to ensure that the USO is secure for the future and continues to be provided by Royal Mail in a way that is affordable and accessible to all users…We will also strongly oppose any attempts, whether by the Conservatives in the future or by the leadership of Royal Mail Group, to weaken or abandon the USO.”—[Official Report, 12 January 2023; Vol. 725, c. 324WH.]

Does the Minister agree with his hon. Friend? What do the Government think of these changes? Has Labour forgotten the promises it made only two short years ago?

I conclude by referring once more to my local survey. Of those who did not use the postal service regularly, over a third said that was because it was too slow or too unreliable. My residents already consider the cost of posting a letter to be too expensive. The new system risks being slower, more expensive and less reliable. That is not a way to attract new custom. In April 2025, Royal Mail was acquired by the EP group, a Czech-based company owned by Daniel Křetínský. I wish the new owners well, and hope that the acquisition leads to improved levels of service and efficiency so that we have a postal service that serves everybody, everywhere. Mr Křetínský can be assured that we will watch him very carefully.