Performance of Royal Mail

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bloore]

I completely agree. Another resident of mine, whose husband has cancer, has had to wait anxiously for medical correspondence about a diagnosis.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Chris Bloore]

Could I make a little progress? I am conscious that many hon. Members wish to speak, but I need to get through some of my speech.

A council letter about a husband in a nursing home took from 14 November until 3 March to arrive. His family had six months to appeal and almost four months had already passed. A Department for Work and Pensions letter dated 5 January required a response by the 14th, but it arrived on the 20th. My constituent’s benefits were withheld. She had done nothing wrong; her letter was late. Benefits withheld, appointments missed and appeal deadlines lost—all because the post failed. If my office cannot trust Royal Mail to deliver a letter, how can I assure constituents that their hospital correspondence will arrive in time?

One more thing struck me with this casework. Almost every constituent says that their parcels arrive on time; it is the letters that do not. Is that a coincidence, or is that what happens when a company chases the parcels market and treats letters as an afterthought while holding a monopoly on them?

[Chris Bloore]

I will give way to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) as she asked first.

[Carla Lockhart]

I thank the hon. Member; he is making a powerful speech to which we can all relate. On hospital appointments, there was discussion that Royal Mail would engage with each of the different hospital trusts. Does he agree that that needs to progress and that there needs to be some screening process to ensure that hospital appointment letters are delivered on time?

[Chris Bloore]

The hon. Lady is completely correct, and I will touch on that issue.

Draft Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 General Committees

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I am deeply concerned that the regulations will further entrench Northern Ireland’s competitive disadvantage in comparison with GB. Why should machinery entering Northern Ireland from the EU be saddled with even more red tape, while GB is free of such regulations? This is about fairness. If a transaction is straightforward in Birmingham or Glasgow, it should be straightforward in Banbridge or Belfast.

Businesses in Upper Bann are constantly expected to navigate complex rules, despite having no meaningful democratic say over them. Our businesses are already weighed down by the bureaucracy of the Windsor framework, which has always been a constitutional compromise. Put simply, it is good for the EU but bad for Northern Ireland. This time last year, the Federation of Small Businesses in Northern Ireland warned that, shockingly, more than one third of businesses it surveyed had stopped trading with GB altogether. The compliance burdens had already become too great to bear. The new regulations only add insult to injury and cause further problems.

On paper, the statutory instrument is supposed to avoid

“a regulatory cliff edge where products meeting the new EU requirements will not be accepted in GB without the Government changing its machinery legislation.”

In reality, the new measures may force GB suppliers to conclude that serving Northern Ireland is just too much hassle. In truth, the paperwork is not worth the profit. Machinery dealers, manufacturers and contractors depend on GB supply chains.

Just a number of weeks ago, an article was written after the Balmoral show, the largest agricultural show in Northern Ireland, in which the company Grassmen highlighted just how disastrous the situation is, including the company’s problems bringing from GB to Northern Ireland a tractor that had been at another show. It is absolutely ludicrous and causes major problems for our businesses.

The new rules will cause more delay, more cost and more uncertainty. Competitiveness is being undermined and businesses are struggling to get the equipment they need. The issue is bigger than machinery: this is about sovereignty, democracy and economic common sense. Companies in Northern Ireland should be focused on growing their businesses, not fighting their way through an ever-expanding maze of red tape.

A few points in the explanatory memorandum are quite telling, including paragraph 5.3, which says:

“This SI applies to both workplace machinery and consumer products, including excavators, cranes, and leaf blowers.”

That lays bare the scope and extent of the SI, which will now impact not only workplace machinery but consumer products, even though we were always told that consumer products would be protected.

Paragraph 5.7 says:

“The Government has also announced that similar measures to those taking effect in Northern Ireland will be introduced in Great Britain as soon as parliamentary time allows.”

When will that be? We have absolutely no idea. Meanwhile, the GB-Northern Ireland mismatch will continue. Given that the Minister used the words “in due course”, there certainly does not seem to be any Government push to move on with the measures, which are not right in the first place. That shows the disdain for Northern Ireland and the impact of the regulations on us.

The last sentence of paragraph 5.9 of the explanatory memorandum says:

“Under the Windsor Framework, the EU Regulation will apply directly to NI”,

which again highlights that Northern Ireland is put at a disadvantage under the Windsor framework. The memorandum also talks about how the instrument will improve the “cliff edge” situation, but actually it only piles on more regulations, so it does not do what the Government claim. The SI is bad for business in Northern Ireland, so I ask the Government to engage with the businesses that are impacted by the situation, and to start to make the change that is needed by getting rid of the Windsor framework and putting Northern Ireland on a par with GB.

Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Member wants to write to me about how HMRC or the support is lacking, I would be happy to respond. Again, as I said, if he had been in the House last Thursday, he could have taken up the opportunity—[Interruption.] I made a statement in the House last Thursday on precisely all these issues, and he would have been able to take up the opportunity yesterday afternoon, as many MPs did. It is difficult to arrange precisely that same set of meetings again, but I am happy to ensure that officials speak directly to the companies he talked about so that they get the best information they need.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister talks about protecting the steel industry, and we can all agree with that, but steel users in Northern Ireland have been left with confusion, uncertainty and rising costs, and price gouging from suppliers is already happening. Whether he likes to admit it or not, Northern Ireland is collateral damage and often caught between UK trade policy and EU diktats, so we can understand the confusion.

Despite repeated requests, the Minister has not met businesses from Northern Ireland—indeed, I got a commitment in the House a couple of weeks ago and we are still waiting on that to happen. He needs to allow his officials to meet urgently with the industry and speak directly to it—not to trade bodies or even to us—because the industry and these businesses know exactly the answers they need to get from the Government. Will he organise that with immediate effect?

[Chris Bryant]

First, I note that the hon. Member’s first sentence started, “Yes, we want to protect steel production, but”—yet nobody wants us to take the measures that we believe are necessary and proportionate to do that. That is one of the problems here: of course there are trade-offs. We want to protect steel production in the UK, which we believe is essential to our national security and to having a strong defence sector into the future, and that is why we are taking these measures.

I am not sure whether I can meet every single business. We have been rigorous about pursuing every single meeting that I have committed to. If I have got this wrong, I apologise to the hon. Member, but, again, if she had been in the Chamber on Thursday, she could have come to the meeting yesterday afternoon when lots of people took up the specific issues relating to their businesses.

If it is all right, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a correction. I said earlier that 1.5 megatonnes were being allowed under the EU measure; it is 1.05 megatonnes.

Steel Tariffs

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

I thank my hon. Friend and Hanson Springs for their interaction with my officials. I know that the specific issue of 13 or 14-metre lengths of rod is a problem for him, but I can assure him that in all our negotiations, whether with the EU, India, Turkey or the United States, this Government are putting British industry first.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The Minister says that the Government are listening to the concerns of businesses. May I be so brazen as to suggest that we need action and need it urgently, given the timescale of these changes—changes that will cripple steel-using businesses across the manufacturing, construction and infrastructure sector in my constituency, which have no domestic steelmaking industry in Northern Ireland on which to rely? Will the Minister meet businesses from Northern Ireland as a matter of urgency to discuss the devastating impact that this will have?

[Chris McDonald]

I shall be happy to meet businesses in Northern Ireland, as I have met businesses throughout the United Kingdom.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I thought that the Liberal Democrats were in favour of moving towards renewables. Sorry, I may have misunderstood the question; if so, the hon. Member may wish to grab me afterwards. As I said, the problem about the headlines this morning was that some journalists saw half of the story, and not the whole story. That is entirely down to me, and is my fault.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The sanctions on Russian gas and oil were put in place for good reason, as we know, but I seriously question how environmentally friendly it is to import supplies of gas and oil, when we have one of the largest sources of natural resources just off the coast of Scotland. The Government continue to refuse to allow it to be further explored. The madness of the pursuit of net zero is exposed by the fact that there is more pollution involved in importing these products, instead of drilling for our own, which would also create jobs and revenue for the Exchequer.

[Chris Bryant]

We are putting an end to the import of these products from Russia. We want to debilitate and degrade the Russian war machine. The point I would make to the hon. Member is that even if we were to grant licences today for further exploration, that would not solve the problem that we have today, arising from the instability in the energy market because of the war in Iran.

Royal Mail: Performance

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Reed]

At no point have I laid any blame at the posties’ feet; this is a structural issue. The point that I am making—this is important, because it is affects all of us in this House—is that Royal Mail underpins a large part of our democracy. At the time of elections, we all expect election leaflets to be delivered. That is part of our democracy; it is an obligation that Royal Mail has to us, and we expect it to be upheld. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that these are structural problems. I want Royal Mail to meet the union and have those conversations. It is no fault of the posties, who work very hard—as does everyone in this House.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. We have been talking about this issue for many months, and yet there has been no improvement. There are still delays. In one office in my constituency, there is a staffing shortage of 10, so there is a fundamental problem with motivation and staff feeling valued. Does he agree that this cannot go on? People are missing hospital appointments and essential mail. The Government need to fix it sooner rather than later.

[David Reed]

The hon. Lady makes a serious point, and I hope the Minister will address it. Bear in mind that Royal Mail is a private company. Many organisations choose the deferred mail option—the economy of economies option—because it is the cheapest. Why would they not? But because they choose that option, people do not receive their post for a long time. Many of my constituents are fairly elderly and rely on letters for NHS appointments or bank statements. If they receive nothing for two weeks and then get it all at once, they find that difficult to understand. It has not been communicated meaningfully, so Royal Mail needs to do that very quickly.

I was grateful to sit down with the Royal Mail leadership last week. We broke bread and discussed the serious challenges that the organisation faces, as well as the shortcomings in the services that many of our constituents experience. From my conversations, I believe there is a genuine desire to improve and an acknowledgement of the scale of the challenge ahead. However, given the volume of correspondence that flows into Members’ offices on this issue, it is vital that we convey our constituents’ strength of feeling. The message must be heard loud and clear: people are not satisfied, and they expect the service to improve quickly.

My message to Royal Mail is this. You are not just a company; you are a British national institution. Do not wait to be criticised in the press, complained about by customers across the country or summoned before Select Committees or the Secretary of State. Be proactive. Communicate clearly what you are doing to improve the service. Most importantly, begin an honest national conversation with the British public about what they can expect. Only then can trust begin to be rebuilt.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

Indeed I will, but it was in fact during a debate on this Bill on a previous occasion that the Minister made the very point that I was seeking to answer.

It is those circumstances that caused me to move new clause 1, supported by right hon. and hon. colleagues. Going forward, it is right not just in the interests of transparency but in order to see just how level or unlevel our playing field is under this Bill for the whole United Kingdom that the Government should publish annually the levels of support given to each part. We are all here as constituency Members to jealously represent the interests of our constituents, and I want to know from this Government if my constituents and the businesses in my constituency are getting a fair crack of the whip. That is why, as set out in new clause 1, we should have a reporting mechanism to indicate that to us. I commend new clause 1 to the Committee. I also support the other amendments before the Committee.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). I stand to speak in support of new clause 1 in his name, which is supported by numerous people across the Opposition Benches.

New clause 1 is not radical or wrecking; it is actually very reasonable in what it asks, and should therefore be accepted. It seeks to ensure that when the House votes to increase financial assistance for industry and exports, the Government return within a year, and every year thereafter, and tell Parliament plainly how each part of the United Kingdom has benefited. That should not be controversial in any way, but it is sadly necessary, because Northern Ireland does not stand on equal ground.

The Bill lifts the cap on financial assistance under the Industrial Development Act 1982 and increases UK Export Finance’s statutory commitment limit. That is a good thing and it should, in theory, benefit every business across our country. However, under article 10 of the Windsor framework, EU state aid rules continue to apply in Northern Ireland, where support may affect trade in goods within the European Union. While the rest of the United Kingdom moves forward under one subsidy regime, Northern Ireland therefore operates under a different legal shadow.

The practical effect is hesitation—hesitation in Departments, hesitation in advice and hesitation in investment—because the final interpretation does not rest with the UK courts alone. That is not equality within the Union. We cannot view this in isolation from the wider damage that has already been inflicted on Northern Ireland by the protocol and the Windsor framework.

As I have said before in the House, the protocol and the Windsor framework are not a minor technical adjustment to trade, but a bureaucratic burden, a constitutional compromise and an economic noose around the businesses simply trading within our own internal market. We see that evidenced here in the Bill where it does not apply to Northern Ireland. The failure is not anecdotal; it is measurable, documented and deeply felt. The Federation of Small Businesses has reported that 58% of businesses in Northern Ireland face moderate to significant challenges because of those arrangements and that more than one third have stopped trading with Great Britain altogether to avoid the cost and complexity. Let the reality of that sink in. That is not frictionless trade or the best of both worlds; that is economic distortion inside our own country.

I have spoken about the businesses that have had essential goods delivered from Scotland, costing time and money. I have raised the case of used agricultural machinery being refused entry unless it meets EU standards, despite being road driven and clean. I have heard from retailers struggling to source ordinary goods from their main market in Great Britain because of paperwork and regulatory barriers that simply do not exist anywhere else in the United Kingdom. This is the lived reality of the Irish sea border.

We are told that all of this is necessary to protect the Belfast agreement, but it is not. The agreement is built on consent—the principle that Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom cannot change without consent of its people—yet our economic and legal position has been fundamentally altered without that consent. The agreement does not require an internal border within our sovereign state. It does not require that one part of the United Kingdom be subject to a distinct regulatory and subsidy regime, overseen in part by a foreign court, the European Court of Justice.

This Bill increases state support for British industry, but unless we confront the consequences of the Windsor framework honestly, Northern Ireland will potentially not benefit in step with England, Scotland and Wales. New clause 1 simply asks for transparency. If Northern Ireland is genuinely benefiting equally, let the Government publish the evidence annually. But if, once again, Northern Ireland is constrained while the rest of the United Kingdom moves freely, this House deserves to know just that.

Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Our businesses pay the same taxes, and they deserve the same support without qualification, hesitation or constraint. That is why I support new clause 1, along with my colleagues on these Benches, and I commend the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim for bringing it forward.

[Chris Bryant]

I note that the creative industries have now achieved 5% growth in the last year, faster than any other part of the economy—and I think we have seen quite a creative industry this evening, with Members managing to get amendments into this very tightly constricted Bill. I am happy to address some of the issues that were mentioned, but I think some of them strayed somewhat wide of the mark of the Bill itself.

Let me turn first to the amendment from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He and I have participated in many campaigns on forced labour and other issues, and I am entirely with him on the aim of preventing all modern slavery. I will just correct him on one factual mistake that he made. He said that the UK was the first country to ban slavery, but it was Haiti in 1804. It could be argued that Napoleon abolished it, but then they returned to slavery afterwards. It was Haiti that abolished it first.

The right hon. Member makes the very good point that modern slavery is an abomination. It is morally wrong. Forced labour is morally wrong. It is also a taint on any kind of international trade, and it undermines fair practice from other countries that do not engage in forced labour. I am determined to do everything I possibly can, both in this role and in the future if I am not in this role, to make sure that we tackle forced labour in every single part of the way we run our economy. As a Labour Member, it would be shocking if I were not to say precisely that.

The right hon. Member knows that I am not going to accept his amendment—

Draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd February 2026 General Committees

[Allister, Jim (North Antrim) (TUV)]

[Lockhart, Carla (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

[Wilson, Sammy (East Antrim) (DUP)]

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris McDonald]

I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that this measure will need the support of the Governments of all four parts of the United Kingdom.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland is and will be disadvantaged if we proceed down this track. What engagement has the Minister had with the individuals concerned, as the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon outlined? Will he extend the invitation he gave to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East to the Members for Northern Ireland who feel very deeply about this and are very aggrieved, to discuss the real impact—not just the impact in his brief?

[Chris McDonald]

Yes, I am very happy to extend that invitation for a further meeting with any Members of the House who wish to discuss the matter. Of course, there has been extensive consultation on this statutory instrument.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

Carla Lockhart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

Basically, every organisation in the country should be considering whether they might be the next under attack. It is possible that there might already have been an attempted attack on them. Obviously, iconic brands such as M&S and JLR are possible candidates in that sense, but I urge all organisations to take these issues seriously, because the costs are dramatic, both financially and in staff power.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Cyber-security costs are rarely taken into account by any company, but for a company such as JLR, such costs should be easily absorbed because of its profit margins. SMEs do not have that luxury. Their profit margins will not necessarily cover the costs, and often they hold just as much personal and financial data. The Government should be coming alongside those businesses and assisting them to ensure that their security is industry-standard and that they are secure. Can the Minister give me an update on that?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member is absolutely right that it is not just about big companies, listed companies or, for that matter, big organisations in the public sphere; it is also about much smaller ones, which may have all sorts of different attacks. I am not sure whether she is asking for financial support.

[Carla Lockhart]

indicated assent.